4 ms·

The minute I saw an Alex Jones/Prison Planet link I figured this wasn't quite legit: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c1120eg1lK:e462417 ht

The minute I saw an Alex Jones/Prison Planet link I figured this wasn't quite legit: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c1120eg1lK:e462417 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c1120eg...: "[SEC 1031] (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: 1 A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. 2 A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." So while it continues a disturbing precedent and there's plenty to be concerned about regarding US civil liberties, this one isn't nearly as broad-reaching as the article makes it sound.

Tangaroa 15y ago
It's worse than you think. If you're shooting up an Army post with an AK-47, this bill would let the Army hold you as a POW instead of requiring them to call 911 and wait for the police to come and handle it. This bill would turn the US into a battlefield because the title of the link to some guy's blog says it does. That's something that trained soldiers coming over here and shooting people and bombing stuff in the name of a foreign power could not do.
muraiki 15y ago
Thanks for posting this. I know that Alex Jones can blow things out of proportion... but still, the ACLU writeup seems to be pretty strongly worded and argues essentially the same thing as this article. Is there something we're missing?
- garethsprice 15y ago
  I don't know... I thought section 1032 might be the one with the more general provisions, but 1032.a.2 ("COVERED PERSONS") is dependent on 1031's provisions that restrict it to people involved in 9/11 or al-Qaeda. While the whole idea of indefinitely detaining people without trial is contrary to the principles of the constitution and circumventing due process opens a loophole where it's easy to accuse anyone of al-Qaeda affiliation, the press around this one seems to be disingenuously omitting that aspect of the bill. I trust the ACLU as a source though, so maybe we are missing something.

Tangaroa 15y ago

It's worse than you think. If you're shooting up an Army post with an AK-47, this bill would let the Army hold you as a POW instead of requiring them to call 911 and wait for the police to come and handle it. This bill would turn the US into a battlefield because the title of the link to some guy's blog says it does. That's something that trained soldiers coming over here and shooting people and bombing stuff in the name of a foreign power could not do.

muraiki 15y ago

Thanks for posting this. I know that Alex Jones can blow things out of proportion... but still, the ACLU writeup seems to be pretty strongly worded and argues essentially the same thing as this article. Is there something we're missing?

garethsprice 15y ago
I don't know... I thought section 1032 might be the one with the more general provisions, but 1032.a.2 ("COVERED PERSONS") is dependent on 1031's provisions that restrict it to people involved in 9/11 or al-Qaeda. While the whole idea of indefinitely detaining people without trial is contrary to the principles of the constitution and circumventing due process opens a loophole where it's easy to accuse anyone of al-Qaeda affiliation, the press around this one seems to be disingenuously omitting that aspect of the bill. I trust the ACLU as a source though, so maybe we are missing something.