Bill S.1867

[HeyYou]

(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.

 

And just whom defines a 'belligerent' act? Would that be something like spitting on the sidewalk? Stating you think the US government is corrupt beyond redemption? Winking slyly at a congressperson?? What?

[Marxist ßastard]

(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.

 

And just whom defines a 'belligerent' act?

You misspelled who. And to continue the grammar lesson, let's analyze that sentence, shall we?

 

A person who

• was a part of or
• substantially supported

[the organizations]

• 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.

 

It's just stating the obvious: If you aid al-Qa'ida (or other enemy forces under Public Law 107-40) in a "belligerent act" (i.e. an act of war), you have de facto "substantially supported" them.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Marxist ßastard

[lukertin]

And just whom defines a 'belligerent' act? Would that be something like spitting on the sidewalk? Stating you think the US government is corrupt beyond redemption? Winking slyly at a congressperson?? What?

Who defines 'belligerent'?

 

Try the dictionary, that's what the Federal Courts in the United States do when they have to figure something like that out.

 

Oh, Merriam-Webster defines it as "waging war". I guess that settles it, then. Case closed!

[marharth]

So lets say that the government decides I am aiding a terrorist group. The issue with this is that there is no trial. If there is no trial they will not require evidence.

 

I still fail to understand how people figure that just because a government figure says you are aiding an enemy it is fact. You need to have a trial to prove that you are aiding an enemy.

Edited December 26, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

And just whom defines a 'belligerent' act? Would that be something like spitting on the sidewalk? Stating you think the US government is corrupt beyond redemption? Winking slyly at a congressperson?? What?

Who defines 'belligerent'?

 

Try the dictionary, that's what the Federal Courts in the United States do when they have to figure something like that out.

 

Oh, Merriam-Webster defines it as "waging war". I guess that settles it, then. Case closed!

 

Yeah, right. In an ideal world. That might be the case. Our world is FAR from ideal. Consider the definition of 'unemployed', and how that has changed to suit the governments will........

[lukertin]

Yeah, right. In an ideal world. That might be the case. Our world is FAR from ideal. Consider the definition of 'unemployed', and how that has changed to suit the governments will........

It hasn't changed. Unemployed means someone who is looking for a job, and unable to find one. It has always meant that. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' reports are not subject to federal court review, whereas the actions of the Dep't of Justice are subject to immediate review. The Court system is not a part of the rest of the government, it has no partisan agenda apart from whatever bias might be part of the judge hearing the case.

 

This bill was recently passed by the House and the President signed it, as I'm sure you're all aware.

 

FYI that section has been retitled "Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists". While titles are not part of the law, they do suggest and aid interpretation. US Citizens aren't foreigners, the entire part you're worried about has an extremely low chance of affecting US citizens or legally residing aliens.

[marharth]

The bill does apply to US citizens who are suspected of helping Al Qaeda, which could be anyone.

 

As said above, US citizens should not be held under military law without trial. It is kind of hard to prove someone is helping the enemy if you don't present your evidence.

Edited January 2, 2012 by marharth

[dazzerfong]

Yeah, right. In an ideal world. That might be the case. Our world is FAR from ideal. Consider the definition of 'unemployed', and how that has changed to suit the governments will........

It hasn't changed. Unemployed means someone who is looking for a job, and unable to find one. It has always meant that. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' reports are not subject to federal court review, whereas the actions of the Dep't of Justice are subject to immediate review. The Court system is not a part of the rest of the government, it has no partisan agenda apart from whatever bias might be part of the judge hearing the case.

 

This bill was recently passed by the House and the President signed it, as I'm sure you're all aware.

 

FYI that section has been retitled "Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists". While titles are not part of the law, they do suggest and aid interpretation. US Citizens aren't foreigners, the entire part you're worried about has an extremely low chance of affecting US citizens or legally residing aliens.

...Unemployed means someone who is looking for a job, and unable to find one...

 

No, not necessarily. Some countries have social security payouts, I think you get the picture.

[Deleted1744345User]

It hasn't changed. Unemployed means someone who is looking for a job, and unable to find one.

 

Technically, to qualify as unemployed in the U.S., one must have no job, but have searched for one in the past four weeks. Our unemployment rate does not take into account discouraged workers, who just don't feel like searching anymore.

 

Source: My econ. class

[AngelOfPassion]

I don't like how they use the term 'associated forces'. Anyone could be considered associated with a terrorist if you just happen to even talk to them once. All they would need is one phone record that you had communicated and BAM, you are associated. Even if it is just a co worker or salesman. Obviously you would have to do something to piss the government off to have them go out of their way to use this against you, but I do things that could piss them off every day.

 

I believe in a different view on how digital content should be distributed and managed... Therefore I am committing theft...

I believe in fighting for my views and sharing like minded bills and videos on social networking sites... Therefore I am associating and supporting who is writing them.

I believe in getting together with my friends and coming up with ways we can get the word spread about how our rights are being taken away by lobbyists in the entertainment industry... Therefore I am conspiring to commit acts of alleged terrorism.

I will act by protesting and/or voting for the bills I believe accurately represent like views... Therefore I have acted out against our government.

 

I hope it wouldn't be taken to this extreme but don't even give them a chance to begin with... We need smaller government and we need to stick more closely to our original constitution! And maybe we will save a little money and gain some value to our currency while we are at it...

 

It is not the Federal Governments job to police us like this... that is up to the States... We should barely even realize our Federal Government exists during our daily lives if it were being run how it was intended... all these regulations and this Federal nonsense is just a waste of our money... money we obviously don't have...

 

Sorry but I am just tired of all of this... We shouldn't even be having this argument if the Feds would just stick to what we the people told them to do.