Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: reefdiver

“How did you find that so fast? Or did you help draft it?”

There are maybe three or four threads today on this. I did the research this AM. I already had the bill up because I was interested in the appropriations bill.


28 posted on 11/28/2011 2:36:15 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: DBrow; reefdiver

I read Section 1031 and 1032 to be two separate powers. 1031 can hold ANYONE associated with 9/11, Taliban, Al-Queda or associated forces. Section 1032 covers “captured in the course of hostilities “ persons. I am not sure why there is a distinction between the two, but they should add the exclusion clause in 1032(b)(1) for US Citizens to Section 1031 as well.
In general I am completely opposed to this entire approach, especially the vague language (i.e. ‘associated forces’). Depending on the administration, that could be anyone from OWS to tea party to militia to Catholics etc...just twist the facts to show they are subversive and said or did anything that might show an association to 9/11. This expansive power is too much and can be abused way too easily.


33 posted on 11/28/2011 2:42:52 PM PST by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson