Tarek Mehanna, a young Muslim-American who is looking at life in prison just for talking bad about America, and surfing Jihadi websites in a soul search in which he consistently rejected attacking civilians, rejected an entrapment attempt by the FBI, and was finally kicked of the Jihadi website because he was talking young men away from violence. If anyone was ever not a threat to America, it's him. The government made many allegations, but these are the only ones it can prove.
This is what "substantially supporting Al Qaeda or associated forces" can mean now that this precedent has been set. The next precedent will be sitting on the road blocking the deployment of wounded soldiers as Iraq Veterans Against the War did at Ft. Hood. And the precedent after that will require even less, a "thought crime." A boycott called for by Occupy Wall Street becomes "economic terrorism."
Most often missed in the discussion, of course, is that all accusations of who is "Al Qaeda" rest solely on the word of the government, with no witnesses, evidence, or any other form of due process available when the government is either wrong or lying.
Section 1021 also reads: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law." But "existing law," in the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham a key mover of the bill, refers to Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the government's claim of authority to hold Americans arrested on American soil indefinitely.
Finally Section 1022 "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS" states:
(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.
However, although the section says it is not "required" that US citizens be held in military detention, it is nevertheless "allowed." This is a key spin of the disinformation on NDAA. You clearly see the words "does not extend to citizens of the United States." You can see that, Buford, can't you see that? What you don't clearly see is the word "requires," which is not to say "does not allow." It's the fine print. To put it bluntly, it's a goddamned lawyer's trick.
Never think this does not apply to you. It does. If you want to do something about it go here:
or here, "Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
3
