So I'm not one to stock up on tin foil hats but at the same time, I like to know details before making or dismissing judgement. I'm currently looking at the bill and I'm trying to determine what the facts are but let's face it...its so freaggin long. Does anyone have any additional facts on this bill and if it does in fact give the POTUS discretion to determine who falls under "enemy combatant"?

 

In addition, in the worst case scenario (hypothetical) if it did apply to citizens, is there anything the SCOTUS would be able to do about it?

 

In the event that this is a blatant violation of the constitution, I don't understand how it can be legal and hwo those who voted for it aren't held or put in prison for violation of constitution.

 

Again I do not know all the facts yet and I don't want to depend on opinion sites who likely never even read the bill and are operating on hysteria so if anyone has the concrete facts on this bill I'd appreciate some insight.

 

One thing that disturbs me is the bideo where Rand Paul asks John McCain if under this bill it would be possible for an american citizen to be detained indefinitely and McCain couldn't give a simple clear answer and in fact his answer did leave open the possibility of a US citizen being detained.

 

here is the text:

http://www.gpo.gov/f...-112s1867es.htm

 

So far I have found in section 1032:

 

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident

Aliens.--

(1) United states citizens.--The requirement to detain a

person in military custody under this section does not extend

to citizens of the United States.

(2) Lawful resident aliens.--The requirement to detain a

person in military custody under this section does not extend

to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of

conduct taking place within the United States, except to the

extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

 

Now if anyone else finds a "gotcha..." section that nullifies or circumvents the above, please share

my understanding and this stems from my skeptical side is this.

 

The governments popularity is slim, the government like all before us have done what ever it takes to stay in power.

 

Therefore, using the Patriot Act, combined this bill, and the new technology they have (about having the ability to read your text messages, emails, and conversations, now they can even turn on your phone and its speaker so they can hear convo's), they are trying to weed out anyone of opposition to the governments power.

 

I have heard from people that they government have arrested the top 100 or 200 people in the Occupy movement and are holding them on charges of "anarchy, and terrorist threats, because after all they are a threat and could be considered a "fringe element", therefore can be arrested.

 

 

My tinfoil hat goes on when i say, that this is how the government is preparing for the revolution, i would think that if you buy x amount of guns or munitions per year, you fall onto the "watch" list, and then they will now use the technology to the track you, and then find out what kind of threat you are to our government. And in the future the ability of the government to do this and weed out anyone who opposes them will in the end be everyone.

 

Thus Ben Franklin said: Those who give up liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on the TruNews radio program and talked about it. If you are interested you can hear it for free, the interview starts about 20 minutes into the program.

 

http://www.trunews.com/Audio/12_16_11_friday_trunews2.mp3

 

"Guest: Judge Andrew Napolitano and Stewart Rhodes

Topic: Judge Andrew Napolitano and Oathkeepers founder Stewart Rhodes discuss the new law that empowers the US military to arrest and detain indefinitely American citizens accused of terrorism"

This is scary scary stuff. It should not be taken lightly however I don't know what we can do about it. We can't even get our local PD's to follow the rules for permits and FID cards, how the hell can we stop this machine?

I really do have to wonder who thought it was a good idea to push things so far that the governments disapproval equals being disappeared down the hider hole for good. If speaking your mind can cause that, you might as well just shoot them if you don't like them.

 

If it passes unamended, I wouldn't be suprized to see a bill to strike it with very little fat attached. Nothing makes for good campaign fodder like saying my opponent supports imprisoning us citizens without due process.