next piece

>>916305
You realize that the highlighted text is referring to a different section than what you highlighted in the OP, right?

Here's an interesting piece of legislation that's in the house of representatives that ties into this:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166

Interestingly, in the bill that this is amending, it already says that they can revoke your citizenship if you engage in hostilities against the US.

The big difference is that this bill removes the requirement of a trial.

EG in the current law, if you get convicted of engaging in hostilities against the US, they can revoke your citizenship.

If this law passes through (and before you say it won't, don't forgot that that was the knee jerk reaction to SOPA and the NDAA as well) it means that even if the NDAA DOESN'T apply to US citizens, this law will let the President

> SUMMARILY REVOKE your citizenship without a trial.

Once you're not a US citizen anymore the NDAA applies to you again, this legislation lets him bring to you to that definition without a trial.

I'm sure Obama will tell us how he's "not comfortable" but still going to sign this one too.

>>916352
yes, but this is the exact part that everyone is freaking out about but it does NOT apply to US citizens

uuuuduh buut it's not for US americans and uuuh if it is that's ok because i'm not a terrorist anyhow and uuuum uuuuguh obama said he won't use it bucuz he's a good dude and uuuuuhuh ron paul is um racist and crazy and also iran has nukes uuuuuuuh yuh

>>916364
According to the president it does. According to the congress it does. According to wikipedia it does. According to the bill it does (existing precedent is that he can do it, and then this codifies the precedent into law, so that it's no longer just a court ruling, that's very significant).

According to you it doesn't.

Guess who enforces the law? Obama specifically requested to have the NDAA apply to US citizens.

>>916364
>Meanwhile media around the world says it does, senators say it does, ACLU say it does.

"Her der I don't understand it so it doesn't apply to me because I say so!"

>not leaving a gay furry porn tab open

cmon, i was hoping for a laugh OP

>>916352
>>916352
>>916352
THIS. Learn to read already. Section 1021 mentions nowhere that it doesn't apply to citizens. Section 1022 specifically says "this section" which means it doesn't apply to the previous section. I love how people are trying to rationalize this bill.

>>916364
I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't just extend the right of due process to citizens, but all people. It's illegal to punish anyone for a crime without conviction. Just another example of congress shitting on our rights.

Can you look at section 1034 please?

>>916415
>>916436
holy shit you people are fucking dense
it says here plain as day, does not apply to us citizens

>>916436
"our rights"

you mean the ones that have been taken from you

i bet you will not say you hate the fed online or go into the white house and say you hate them

1st amendment nadda

i bet you won't brandish a firearm in public without fearing something

2nd amendment nadda

i bet you cant go to the airport without being molested

4th amendment nadda

>>916468
The reason I asked is there was a video of ron paul talking about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgp-kOquQAc#t=1h7m11s

>>916473

So will illegal immigrants get detained if they're caught? What if a terrorist is a citizen?

>>916473

That's not what that section means.

So basically this law is the US saying that they can arrest anyone, anywhere on the planet and get them back to the US.

>>916960
Or just call in a drone strike. With no consequences or recourse for anyone.

>>916921
cool denial bro

>>916473
OHWOW.JPEG
FULLRETARD.JPEG

That is NOT AN EXEMPTION. That says that it doesn't affect the president's existing authority to detain you, which the 4th circuit of appeals grants him the power to do.

The original bill EXEMPTED US citizens, this is different than "doesn't change the president's authority to detain US citizens", so PRESIDENT OBAMA THREATENED A VETO.

You don't even know how to read. You have such poor reading comprehension that you don't even know what the phrase "this section" means. You don't know the difference between an EXEMPTION and a "DOESN'T CHANGE THE AUTHORITY".

Wow is all I can say to you, but even despite that, LOL:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166

>This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.


There's more to come after the NDAA, this one's going to let the president revoke your citizenship without a trial.

>>916989

read this

>>916993

If the bill was meant not to apply to American citizens, it would have a specific clause exempting American citizens or limiting the bill's power to non-americans.

It would literally say "American citizens are not to be detained unders the powers granted by this bill."

Without an explicit, clear clause in the bill exempting American citizens, your rights are left up to the President's interpretation.

>>916289

So this only affect Muslims. Then who the fuck cares.

>>916989

I'll explain it to you.

Section 1031 says that "existing authority is unchanged" and ONLY refers to section 1031.

So we CAN establish that the president isn't deriving his authority to detain US citizens from the NDAA.

THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Section 1029, section 1034, and etc ALL APPLY TO US CITIZENS by virtue of the fact that they 1: do NOT state that they do not change the president's authority and 2: they deal with what he can do with you once you are detained.

Extraordinary rendition, interrogation rules, everything you're protected from in the bill of rights.

The declaration of emergency powers, the Authorization of Use of Military Force, the Homeland Security act, all give Obama the ability to indefinitely detain you.

In other words, that thing you are quoting is irrelevant, because it DOESN'T exempt you from ANYTHING EXCEPT section 1021, since he already has the authority to detain you, so it doesn't matter if 1021 doesn't apply to you.

1021 is a red herring, you see that and think "I'm safe" not realizing that it is just saying "everything in this bill applies to you except 1021, because the president already has the powers granted in 1021 anyway."

All the other provisions DO NOT have similar language saying that they don't change the president's authority.

So you were saying full retard?

>>917028
It doesn't only effect muslims, Obama threatened a VETO to make sure it applied to you.

>>917062
ugh, i said i place my 3s with 2s, i fucked up because they conveniently changed the numbering like faggots.

It is aggravating they're enshrining the executive's declared powers in law, but they already claimed virtually identical criteria to detain under other legislation (they cite mostly AUMF here, but also a couple other things).

See here as of March 2009: http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/memo-re-det-auth.pdf

"persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces 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 hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces."

The text is virtually identical to 1021. Anything that they can take you indefinitely to Gitmo for now they claimed they could take to Gitmo for in 2009.

>>917183
Exactly. And this bill makes sure not to change that power while expanding others.

>>917183
see:
>>916993

Yes, the indefinite detention comes from:

AUMF (what you cited)
It ALSO comes from the declaration of emergency powers Obama declared four months ago (wasn't on the news)
It ALSO comes from the Homeland Security act.

1021 is a red herring, it says that the existing authority stays the same FOR THAT SECTION ONLY.

So you qualify to be detained indefinitely already, and now you ALSO qualify for extraordinary rendition and more. Read 1024, read 1029. These DO apply to US citizens by virtue of (e) in section 1021, which says that the president goes off existing interpretation (existing interpretation is, as you've pointed out, that he can already detain you).

So essentially you can read the NDAA as though everything DOES apply to you.

It doesn't matter if the indefinite detention/enemy combatant status without trial comes from the NDAA itself, what matters is that once you are that DESIGNATION, EVERYTHING ELSE in the NDAA applies to you.

Feinstein tried to create an explicit amendment FOR THIS REASON. The armed services committee drafted the bill with explicit exemptions FOR THIS REASON.

Obama threatened to veto.

Okay, so American citizens are entitled to liberty but anyone not from America deserves enslavement?

I don't get what you're defending.

>>917287
No, US citizens are not exempt from anything in the NDAA.

The section 1021(e) ONLY applies to section 1021, and the president already has all the authorities in section 1021 ANYWAY.

The OTHER SECTIONS say that once you are designated the enemy combatant, they apply to you. They do NOT have that little (e) disclaimer either.

That thing is only there because section 1021 would have limited the president's power, not the opposite.

>>917287
I don't see anyone defending this. (well, one guy)

This is disgusting and obama lost my vote with it (the straw that broke etc.)

>>917287
That said though I agree with your point and undesrstand your concern. but we're all in this together

>>916993

Enemy expatriation act hasn't even been announced by the committee after two months, it's languishing in committee. Heck, there's a Due Process Guarantee Act at the exact same point in legislation, that's far more important to talk about in my opinion because it's positive.

>>917242
The point I want to make is that Obama has claimed the ability to detain US citizens for over two years and never used it. That aspect of the bill is what most object to and what most describe as "the death of liberty." It shows how pathetic people are when they don't even understand what's been going on, as you pointed out.

You have to realize the vast majority are thinking of this as "NDAA allows US citizen detention for the first time ever in the history of the United States!!1!" I just want to correct people on this.

>>917413
How the fuck do you know he's never used it? The whole fucking point is that they don't have to tell anyone they have you imprisoned.

>>917413
Fine, obama is perfect. I've posted this before and will continue to do so.

What about the next administration?

>>916473
Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham and John McCain and Barack Obama have stated that the government has always had the ability to hold US citizens without trial indefinitely. They have referenced as far back as WW2, but the Supreme Court case against Jose Padilla established solid precedent, and this bill formalizes it in law. Your interpretation is wrong.

>>917023
This is what the Udall Amendment tried to add, and it's the reason that Levin and Graham went apeshit to prevent it from getting added: because the explicit intent of this bill is to formalize the power to detain citizens indefinitely.

>>917413
You went full retard. He's claimed the authority to assassinate US citizens without trial (and done it).
You're probably a paid obama shill to say that shit when he's actively ordered the assassination of US citizens.

Saying "Obama seems like a nice guy!" isn't an argument about what the bill does.

Saying that the Expatriation act won't pass because it languished in committee is exactly what everyone said about the NDAA when it was first introduced on pol.

The first reaction to the NDAA was that it had zero chance of passing. It was also in committee for multiple months, going through secret deliberations and the Obama administration forcing changes to remove exemptions for US citizens.

In fact I believe it was in committee longer than this bill has been.

>Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any foreign entity.

FINALLY WE CAN DEPORT THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA

They are purposly sowing confusion about this