I’ve read Section 1031, and it specificaly defines “covered persons” as 9/11 planners/helpers and members/supporters of Al Quaeda/Taliban “and associated entities”.
This is really overreacting. Yes, I understand the “nose under the tent” argument, but this ain’t it.
Colonel, USAFR
I don’t believe the Constitution has a “people you really really don’t like at all” exemption for the rights therein.
The wording is muddy and deliberately vague.
Though this is true, it is quite possible, considering the corruption of the court system as Western decadence has afflicted the United States, that corrupt courts will uphold this and render it de facto binding though illegal.
Exactly what threat are we facing that can’t be met by current law?
.
Now, now don’t put any factual blockades before this firestorm of indignation...
That said, I don’t see any benefit to this law.
I think they were trying to make the law clearer for the military personnel- and this doedn;t do that IMO.
They should wait until the issues have been further explored in the courts.
Can you define ‘associated entities’?
Who exactly gets to 'define' said 'covered persons'? By oath or affirmation of any Elected Official? Any LEO? Who exactly? Is that defined in section 1031?
Read this one:
The US Senate is About to Declare War on Freedom and the American People
http://lonestarwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/11/i-see-us-senate-is-about-to-declare-war.html
I agree. Seems like this law is simply affirming the law that currently exists. It also sends a message to Obama and liberal judges to not over-step their powers.
The problem is that anyone could be picked up as an “associated entity”, no questions asked. This one could be a problem.