dijon critics: this'll teach'ya

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm

If you join Al Qaeda, that is an official renouncement of US Citizenship according to the "spirit" of the law. The only thing that stops it from being by the letter of the law is how one chooses to define "foreign state." But being a little pedantic about definitions doesn't change the fact that AQ is a foreign enemy which has taken up arms against the United States. Join it and die.

Don't want to get assassinated? Don't join Al Qaeda. Pretty simple.



And specifying Dijon Mustard ensures that they don't put that yellow mustard stuff on your burger. I don't mind it so much, but I wouldn't want that yellow stuff on a cheddar burger, so it just indicates that Obama knows how to eat.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not proposing the preference for Dijon mustard makes one an elitist. Instead I was gently, from a European perspective, making fun of some opponents of President Obama (in the Conservative/Republican camp?) who were looking for some beef to use against him, and had to settle for the toppings instead !

Good advice not to join Al Qaeda, Wilhelm, but while we're at it, from where I sit there's a type of virulent opposition by American citizens against this president, which appears not to recognize him as such, and at times degrades to flirtation with a call to overthrow the US government. Right now that's protected free speech. The evolution of anti-terrorist law may identify such speech as 'associated' with terrorism.


orangekea

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by orangekea

...from where I sit there's a type of virulent opposition by American citizens against this president, which appears not to recognize him as such, and at times degrades to flirtation with a call to overthrow the US government. Right now that's protected free speech. The evolution of anti-terrorist law may identify such speech as 'associated' with terrorism.
orangekea

There has always been a large conservative white 'redneck' bloc in America who like guns, dislike people of color, and attend the local Baptist church. Ok..I may be exaggerating but not much. This so-called Patriot movement is a newer phenom but the same mentality has always been around.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

There has always been a large conservative white 'redneck' bloc in America who like guns, dislike people of color, and attend the local Baptist church. Ok..I may be exaggerating but not much. This so-called Patriot movement is a newer phenom but the same mentality has always been around.

Mmmmm, I'm not suggesting southern mentality is something new, although the fringe minority among them clinging to racism may not have been prepared for having to deal with an African-American POTUS.

I'm saying US anti-terrorist law seems to be evolving towards inclusiveness to those extremely critical of their gov, and engaging in revolutionary flights of fancy. Isn't it an unwanted CHANGE if US citizens one day go from saying whatever the hell they want, to being potentially targeted for assassination labeled Terrorist Associated Forces?

Surely you're not advocating the death penalty for being a church going guns & America loving 'redneck', Wu?


orangekea

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by orangekea

Mmmmm, I'm not suggesting southern mentality is something new, although the fringe minority among them clinging to racism may not have been prepared for having to deal with an African-American POTUS.

I'm saying US anti-terrorist law seems to be evolving towards inclusiveness to those extremely critical of their gov, and engaging in revolutionary flights of fancy. Isn't it an unwanted CHANGE if US citizens one day go from saying whatever the hell they want, to being potentially targeted for assassination labeled Terrorist Associated Forces?

Surely you're not advocating the death penalty for being a church going guns & America loving 'redneck', Wu?


orangekea

Not sure why you are drawing such an erroneous conclusion from what I said about 'rednecks' (maybe it's a European lack of understanding Amercian culture..) , but regarding attitude it's not just a 'southern' mentality. It exists everywhere in the country though it has traditionally said to have been stronger in the south and south west.

But I have no problem with anti terrorist laws that target terrorists.
No one is going to arrest someone for having an anti govt opinion or they would have to arrest over half of the people. IMO that's paranoia ...and I am on the left myself and don't have that paranioa.
If you buy guns and start organizing groups and 'missions' then you will probably get in trouble. It's that simple.
People should not exaggerate it because of their conspiratorial poiltical mentality.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

Not sure why you are drawing such an erroneous conclusion from what I said about 'rednecks' (maybe it's a European lack of understanding Amercian culture..) , but regarding attitude it's not just a 'southern' mentality. It exists everywhere in the country though it has traditionally said to have been stronger in the south and south west.

But I have no problem with anti terrorist laws that target terrorists.
No one is going to arrest someone for having an anti govt opinion or they would have to arrest over half of the people. IMO that's paranoia ...and I am on the left myself and don't have that paranioa.
If you buy guns and start organizing groups and 'missions' then you will probably get in trouble. It's that simple.
People should not exaggerate it because of their conspiratorial poiltical mentality.

The United States has done an excellent job in exporting its culture. Here in the Netherlands I've been inundated with movies, documentaries, bestsellers by Clancy and Koontz etc. etc. and of course CNN showing the American Way of Life. Americans come here, and my extended family and aquaintances have worked and vacationed in your fine country, Wu. So I'm fairly aware of American culture. US politics is far more opaque even mystifying to me, I'm afraid.

But with my hyperbole I'm trying to draw your attention to the National Defense Authorization Act [For Fiscal Year 2012] potentially targeting critical segments of your people, like 'rednecks' fantasizing about revolution, sympathizers with Islamic extremism, and anyone acting out belligerently against the government. To show exactly what I mean, here's the relevant wording from NDAA(H1540.654.6-18):









It goes without saying any active home-grown terrorist would fall within these terms, but what Professor Turley's and other expert legal commentary is about concerns the new inclusion into Covered Persons of "associated forces", subject to indefinite detention, and once authorized assassination too. AF's are according to Turley defined vaguely enough to include sympathizers with terrorism, folks extremely critical of the US, and being a anti-war activist Ron Paul style.


orangekea

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by orangekea

The United States has done an excellent job in exporting its culture. Here in the Netherlands I've been inundated with movies, documentaries, bestsellers by Clancy and Koontz etc. etc. and of course CNN showing the American Way of Life. Americans come here, and my extended family and aquaintances have worked and vacationed in your fine country, Wu. So I'm fairly aware of American culture. US politics is far more opaque even mystifying to me, I'm afraid.

But with my hyperbole I'm trying to draw your attention to the National Defense Authorization Act [For Fiscal Year 2012] potentially targeting critical segments of your people, like 'rednecks' fantasizing about revolution, sympathizers with Islamic extremism, and anyone acting out belligerently against the government. To show exactly what I mean, here's the relevant wording from NDAA(H1540.654.6-18):









It goes without saying any active home-grown terrorist would fall within these terms, but what Professor Turley's and other expert legal commentary is about concerns the new inclusion into Covered Persons of "associated forces", subject to indefinite detention, and once authorized assassination too. AF's are according to Turley defined vaguely enough to include sympathizers with terrorism, folks extremely critical of the US, and being a anti-war activist Ron Paul style.


orangekea

And again it doesn't really matter. If you commit a terrorist act or plan to commit one then you should be arrested.... it's that simple. Any other interpretation borders on paranoia....imo. No one is going to be arrested for harboring 'anti govt sentiments' if they don't act on them.

[Wilhelm]

I don't see why anyone is paranoid. "Associated forces" quite clearly means associated with the Taliban and AQ. That's how legal definitions work. if AQ changed their name tomorrow, then that sentence wouldn't apply to them unless the law was changed to include that new name. Since doing so would be tedious and quite frankly, insane, they include the term, "associated forces."

This does not apply to anyone who isn't involved in some way with the Taliban, AQ, or forces associated with the Taliban and AQ.

Meaning that if your anti-American redneck group, or neo-black-panther group, coordinates with people involved in Al Qaeda, it applies to you, and it should.

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm

I don't see why anyone is paranoid. "Associated forces" quite clearly means associated with the Taliban and AQ. That's how legal definitions work. if AQ changed their name tomorrow, then that sentence wouldn't apply to them unless the law was changed to include that new name. Since doing so would be tedious and quite frankly, insane, they include the term, "associated forces."

This does not apply to anyone who isn't involved in some way with the Taliban, AQ, or forces associated with the Taliban and AQ.

Meaning that if your anti-American redneck group, or neo-black-panther group, coordinates with people involved in Al Qaeda, it applies to you, and it should.

You make my case that you are not going to be bothered if you are not part of a terrorist group, associate with one, and/or planning something.
Any other concerns beyond that to some idea they can arrest anyone imo borders on paranoia.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

And again it doesn't really matter. If you commit a terrorist act or plan to commit one then you should be arrested.... it's that simple. Any other interpretation borders on paranoia....imo. No one is going to be arrested for harboring 'anti govt sentiments' if they don't act on them.

The right and need to arrest terrorists is not at issue here, dr wu. But to reject any wider interpretation of NDAA as bordering on paranoia seems unsupportable. Nor me reporting on legal commentary, nor the Law Professor quoted in Opening Post routinely called as consultant/witness for Homeland Security/House/Senate on constitutional issues, nor his collegue Kenneth Anderson and others, nor The Washington Post (its article remarks on killings as "discretionary" and lacking clear standards and legal specifics) are considered for the psychotic disorder Paranoia. My topic contains no excessive distrust, on the contrary, to read and investigate governments' decisions and actions is every Democratic Citizen's duty. We must guard our freedoms with vigilance, or wake up one morning in a world without them.

Legal experts can't pin down what 'associated forces' means here, unless whatever a sitting presidents DECIDES it means.


orangekea

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Wilhelm

I don't see why anyone is paranoid. "Associated forces" quite clearly means associated with the Taliban and AQ. That's how legal definitions work. if AQ changed their name tomorrow, then that sentence wouldn't apply to them unless the law was changed to include that new name. Since doing so would be tedious and quite frankly, insane, they include the term, "associated forces."

This does not apply to anyone who isn't involved in some way with the Taliban, AQ, or forces associated with the Taliban and AQ.

Meaning that if your anti-American redneck group, or neo-black-panther group, coordinates with people involved in Al Qaeda, it applies to you, and it should.

For some reason it is not so clear to Law Profs and legal commentators, Wilhelm.