Although I understand your frustrations and stance against government imposed laws and concepts that infringe against our civil liberties/rights as American citizens, and I appreciate the time you take to inform your userbase about SOPA and ways to combat it, I would like to address the point you made in your post regarding the NDAA (H.R. 1540) and clear up the recent misconceptions that have been plaguing many sources of media sites. Your statement,
At 12/20/11 11:54 AM, TomFulp wrote:
Of course I better not criticize the US government now that NDAA has passed, or I might get indefinitely detained without trial. THANKS, FUCKERS!
may pertain to the confusion and vague representation of "Action against Counter-Terrorism" acts concerning the active procedures and protocol therein reported before the numerous and final revisions that the NDAA was subject to, the current procedures and protocols that are soon to take effect, and lack of current information and spread of misinformation throughout web based media including but not limited to internet headlines and publications of how a certain "amendment to exclude American citizens from being distinguished as terrorists to be held indefinitely without cause or right to trial in court" failed to receive enough votes in order for it to be induced into the bill and the implications that may have on the American People.
While your statement was of good nature and I understand that availability of personal time to read into such matters must be limited in part with your to responsibilities and busy schedule at hand,
upon actual inspection of H.R. 1540 of which these media publications haven't yet provided sourced material of the current and final revision of the bill, there is no fear or cause of concern to be had amongst the American People over potential infringement of American rights or civil liberties, as stated in the H.R. 1540 Subtitle-D, section 1021(d), 1021(e), and 1022(b)(1) respectively, in which no acts in those sections regarding "Counter-Terrorism" shall be "construed to affect the existing law" nor does it "extend or include citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States", as well as a brief mention in regards to "not limiting or expanding the authority of the president". Excerpts from each section and subsection are as follows:
"(d) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
"(e) AUTHORITIES.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS-
(1)UNITED STATES CITIZENS.-The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
After consideration of the provided documentation of official source material addressing the complications, one can clear up any previous discrepancies or contradictions precedent in the majority of current media representation thereof.
: I'm a friggin prick and going to tell all of you that your fucking wrong because the actual bill itself that none of you lazy fucks bothered to read says twice that it doesn't apply to legal US Citizens SO YEAH IN YOUR FACE, YOU DOUCHES UNGHHHHHH!!! t(-_-t)
A Redundant But Well-informed Prick