US declared to be a battleground by the senate (ie rise of fascism in the U.S.)

[Otto]

http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1144849

what the fuck

Also:

Levin cited the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:
 

“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“
 

[Paintcheck]

Supreme Court or Obama will veto it


In theory at least. If not I'm buying a gun.

[Otto]

I'm really worried about this, if Obama or congress doesn't veto it, civil war is entirely possible.

[Paintcheck]

There won't be a civil war. The average citizen is too apathetic. If Obama or SupCourt don't stop it it will pass.

[OverPony]

Britain... yay

[Lent23]

I'm really worried about this, if Obama or congress doesn't veto it, civil war is entirely possible.

Supreme Court or Obama will veto it


In theory at least. If not I'm buying a gun.

[Paintcheck]

In regards to citing the Supreme Court case that is NOT the same as the Supreme Court not vetoing. What he is saying is the Supreme Court ruled that a US citizen could be tried for terrorism charges and is using that to support the language of the bill. That does not mean the Supreme Court supports it or agrees that their decision should be used in that way.

The Supreme Court HAS NOT MADE A RULING ON THIS BILL yet. Citing a court case is not the same as not getting Vetoed by SupCourt.

[Jake]

media over exaggerated it
scroll down in facepunch until you see the actual law.

[Corocan]

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
 
 (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
 
 (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.




(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
 
 (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
 
 (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
 
 (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

[Lent23]

They're only applying the bill to those who aided, hid, harbored, supplied, ect. those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

But they're the ones who decide who aided, hid, harbored, or supplied, etc. those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

[Corocan]

They're only applying the bill to those who aided, hid, harbored, supplied, ect. those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

But they're the ones who decide who aided, hid, harbored, or supplied, etc. those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Individual Rights are protected, therefor, if they are American Citizens, they're going to be held for fair trial unless we're in a condition that forces the automatic detainment of said offenders. The cases like a fullscale invasion by enemy forces onto US soil. If they're not Americans, tough shit, but if you wanted to jail anyone you wanted it takes an immense amount of time for these people to be tried and not to mention how fucking huge the media is going to inflate it.

[PistolKid]

I'm really worried about this, if Obama or congress doesn't veto it, civil war is entirely possible.

you're a funny guy