navycpo7 wrote: I have read and reread section 1032 of the bill. I do not see it as any different than what a states national guard can do now if called into action. There really is no difference. Hurrican Katrina was a good example of this, as the military stepped in once they were called up by the Gov. They became both a police and a force to protect and assist. This states and that American Citizens are exempt as are LEGAL resident aliens. There is nothing that states the military is coming to arrest you and put you away for ever. The sky is not falling, hell is not freezing over. If the President was to call Marshall Law that is one thing, that would be worse than what this does. The way I read this it also means we are in some kind of a military action or at war. Weather that be on our own shores or overseas.
then what is the purpose of this bill and how does it compare to what is already in place with the patriot act?
this is not a bill in its own. It is part of the Defense approprations bill. (Funding for DOD for FY2012). Sec 1032 is the section concerning this issue and if you read it, look at previous post. I take it to mean if we are in hostilities/conflict/or war on our own shores. If we are not then the police deal with it on their own. Its about interpretation and I do not see it as our more of our rights being infringed upon at all. I see it as the military doing our job, if we are involved in armed conflict or war. If it is a terrorist act that was committed then I do not have a problem with the military taking custody of the individual and tried in a military court. I would strongley hope though, that it would be more of a joint effort with local police taking the lead. As I only somewhat understand the patriot act, and have not really read it, could make a reasonable guess on the difference or similiarities.
Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US
WASHINGTON (AP) — Top national security lawyers in the Obama administration say U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.
The lawyers were asked at a national security conference Thursday about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.
The government lawyers — CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson — did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.
Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.
navycpo7 wrote: I have read and reread section 1032 of the bill. I do not see it as any different than what a states national guard can do now if called into action. There really is no difference. Hurrican Katrina was a good example of this, as the military stepped in once they were called up by the Gov. They became both a police and a force to protect and assist. This states and that American Citizens are exempt as are LEGAL resident aliens. There is nothing that states the military is coming to arrest you and put you away for ever. The sky is not falling, hell is not freezing over. If the President was to call Marshall Law that is one thing, that would be worse than what this does. The way I read this it also means we are in some kind of a military action or at war. Weather that be on our own shores or overseas.
then what is the purpose of this bill and how does it compare to what is already in place with the patriot act?
this is not a bill in its own. It is part of the Defense approprations bill. (Funding for DOD for FY2012). Sec 1032 is the section concerning this issue and if you read it, look at previous post. I take it to mean if we are in hostilities/conflict/or war on our own shores. If we are not then the police deal with it on their own. Its about interpretation and I do not see it as our more of our rights being infringed upon at all. I see it as the military doing our job, if we are involved in armed conflict or war. If it is a terrorist act that was committed then I do not have a problem with the military taking custody of the individual and tried in a military court. I would strongley hope though, that it would be more of a joint effort with local police taking the lead. As I only somewhat understand the patriot act, and have not really read it, could make a reasonable guess on the difference or similiarities.
had a chance to download the PDF of the bill from the Thomas site and now i understand what you are trying to convey...thanks!
