NationStates Jolt Archive

The US Senate recently passed a bill, S. 3930, which at face value gives the President of the United States the power to commission anyone committing an act of war against the United States into the US Military, and to trial them by US Military laws and through the US Military courts. If you read deeper into the 94-page document, however, you will notice it will:

|-> create a secret committee appointed by Bush and Rumsfeld that has the power to declare any person - even a US citizen - to be an enemy, instantly depriving them of their legal rights. There will be no appeal allowed.
|-> allow police to search through your home without a search warrant
|-> end protection of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions
|-> give George W. Bush amnesty for any war crimes he has committed
|-> allow for people to be put on trial in front of a kangaroo court military tribunal, even if they aren’t in any military, and have not engaged in military attacks against the USA
|-> allow the government to convict people of crimes on the basis of secret evidence that the accused never sees
|-> make it legal for the government to use testimony extracted through torture
|-> end the legal right to be protected from forced self-incrimination
|-> allow the government to imprison people without telling them what crimes they are being charged with
|-> remove the right to cross-examine witnesses
|-> allow for the records of trials to be kept secret from the American public
|-> enable trials to begin even before a thorough investigation of the alleged crime has taken place
|-> take away the right to a speedy trial, allowing people to fester behind bars without being charged of any crime"

It also, most shockingly, allows the US President to interpret the Geneva Convention to his liking, making it US law. Those of you familiar with President Bush will know that he would have difficulty interpreting Curious George.

At this stage, this is only toward Non-US citizens. Does this make things any less shocking? No.

So beware. Bush has taken another step towards fascism. I for one will be watching the next few months with apprehension.

I plead with you, distribute this message. Spread the word.

Something must be done.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930is.txt.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/29detaincnd.html?ex=1317096000&en=ed7fb1fce3c4e90a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/...-3930-summary/

It’s pretty fucked up, but what are you going to do? *shrugs*

|-> allow the government to imprison people without telling them what crimes they are being charged with


And they say Stalin was insane.

It’s pretty fucked up, but what are you going to do? *shrugs*

Overthrow the Government?

Overthrow the Government?

Unfortunalely people will wait until Bush actively starts grabbing American citizens and disappearing them. Hopefully this won't happen and we'll get a president in '08 who will repeal this horrific law.

:(

Poor America... What have they done to you?

Canada's looking awfully good these days.

An American friend of mine opined tonight that Arab Americans will most likely be placed in internment camps in the near future. An astute friend - usually (and sometimes unusually) right on the money.

King George at it again.

I guess I'll be seeing this in our country soon, it's another of the long list of disadvantages of having a Prime Minister who would follow Bush off a cliff.

At this stage, this is only toward Non-US citizens.
What makes this part kick in, then?

|-> create a secret committee appointed by Bush and Rumsfeld that has the power to declare any person - even a US citizen - to be an enemy, instantly depriving them of their legal rights. There will be no appeal allowed.

In any case, this kind of crap is going way too far!

I guess I'll be seeing this in our country soon, it's another of the long list of disadvantages of having a Prime Minister who would follow Bush off a cliff.

At least your Prime Minister can be thrown out anytime Parliament damn well pleases.* Presidents can't be.

*Note: I'm probably being an idiot and remembering incorrectly about the Parliamentary system again.

At least your Prime Minister can be thrown out anytime Parliament damn well pleases.* Presidents can't be.

*Note: I'm probably being an idiot and remembering incorrectly about the Parliamentary system again.

It's called impeachment, but the GOP is so far up the ass of fascism, they can't think "hey, this is a bad idea."

It's called impeachment, but the GOP is so far up the ass of fascism, they can't think "hey, this is a bad idea."

Impeachment is a time consuming and almost ridiculously difficult to impliment process in the best of situations.

At least your Prime Minister can be thrown out anytime Parliament damn well pleases.* Presidents can't be.

*Note: I'm probably being an idiot and remembering incorrectly about the Parliamentary system again.

Yes & no. He could be removed from the position of PM, at any time by his party, but to be actually removed from parliament would be require something greater (sort of along the lines of being impeached).

Of course, he could resign at any time he chooses (I wish it was ten years ago).

Yikes! Sucks to be you.

...Looks like us too in a few years.

Why do you hate Freedom™?

Terrorists 1
USA 0

Unfortunalely people will wait until Bush actively starts grabbing American citizens and disappearing them. Hopefully this won't happen and we'll get a president in '08 who will repeal this horrific law.

first they came for the 'terrorist', but i wasn't a terrorist so i did nothing. then they came for resident immigrants, but i wasn't a resident immigrant so i did nothing. ...

sound familiar?

=^^=
.../\...

first they came for the 'terrorist', but i wasn't a terrorist so i did nothing. then they came for resident immigrants, but i wasn't a resident immigrant so i did nothing. ...

sound familiar?

=^^=
.../\...

Don't worry, they'll try to come for the Irish and then I'll have to go and start the worlds biggest barfight.

I have a bad feeling about this.

first they came for the 'terrorist', but i wasn't a terrorist so i did nothing. then they came for resident immigrants, but i wasn't a resident immigrant so i did nothing. ...




I thought exactly the same thing. But you said it better.

I like the way that anyone who voted against the bill, or spoke against it was branded un-American or voting for Terrorism.

The debate generated to one of those pub conversations with the bigot saying: "All right-minded people agree with..." or "Only an idiot would disagree..."

Yikes! Sucks to be you.

...Looks like us too in a few years.
UK?

Hand me those molotovs, anyway.

i don't worry so much about bush as i do hildabeast as president - the democrats under klintoon got rid of a lot of people - does v foster come to mind????

:(

Poor America... What have they done to you?

Canada's looking awfully good these days.

I'd go to Europe myself...

Canada is in the range of lebensraum...

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but isn't Bush already doing all this? Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary renditions? I guess this is just to legalize what he's doing, then.

By the way, does Japanese American internment camps in WWII ring a bell? There are a couple of court cases out there that let Bush intern (a.k.a. "exclude") whoever he wants, I believe.

The US voted for this government, so what's the issue? You should be happy with the consequences, no?

Welcome to America. Here's your Benedict Arnold mask, your cape, your hat, your body armor, your gloves, and your throwing knives.

Terrorists 1
USA 0

It feels more like the USA just decided to forfeit.

At this stage, this is only toward Non-US citizens. Does this make things any less shocking? No.

So beware. Bush has taken another step towards fascism. I for one will be watching the next few months with apprehension.

I plead with you, distribute this message. Spread the word.

Something must be done.

Uh ... that's why we have the Supreme Court. And, as far as I'm concerned, non-US citizens are not covered by the Constitution.

Uh ... that's why we have the Supreme Court. And, as far as I'm concerned, non-US citizens are not covered by the Constitution.

Oh yes, a Supreme Court sympathetic to GWB will surely call a bill which gives GWB power unconstiutional. :rolleyes:

And the bill applies to everyone, including US citizens.

Uh ... that's why we have the Supreme Court. And, as far as I'm concerned, non-US citizens are not covered by the Constitution.

Terrorists 2
USA -1

Uh ... that's why we have the Supreme Court. And, as far as I'm concerned, non-US citizens are not covered by the Constitution.

Yeah! We should just do whatever we want to people from other nations, I mean, that won't have any negative consiquences or make our 'ideals' a total sham or anything...

Uh ... that's why we have the Supreme Court. And, as far as I'm concerned, non-US citizens are not covered by the Constitution.

Actually, they are. :)

Uh ... that's why we have the Supreme Court. And, as far as I'm concerned, non-US citizens are not covered by the Constitution.

Which just shows that you are not concerned about people (and that you are factually wrong, but when has that ever been a problem).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eutrusca
Uh ... that's why we have the Supreme Court. And, as far as I'm concerned, non-US citizens are not covered by the Constitution.

Actually, they are.

How are non-citizens "covered" by the constitution?

Just curious, as it would seem that having "laws" (constitutional) that attempt to "regulate" the behavior or treatment of the citizens of other countries would rather violate the sovereignty of that non-US citizen.

Then again, there probably SHOULD be some convention of some sort that lends generous treatment to "good" non-citizens while they're on US territory.

..but, not "good" non-US citizens? Wouldn't this be better handled by some set of statutes other than the constitution?

Anyway,.. just curious about how it is that non-US citizens are covered, specifically, by the constitution?

Thanks. :)

I guess I'll be seeing this in our country soon, it's another of the long list of disadvantages of having a Prime Minister who would follow Bush off a cliff.
Like the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, you mean? See:

http://www.saveparliament.org.uk/

How are non-citizens "covered" by the constitution?

Just curious, as it would seem that having "laws" (constitutional) that attempt to "regulate" the behavior or treatment of the citizens of other countries would rather violate the sovereignty of that non-US citizen.

Then again, there probably SHOULD be some convention of some sort that lends generous treatment to "good" non-citizens while they're on US territory.

..but, not "good" non-US citizens? Wouldn't this be better handled by some set of statutes other than the constitution?

Anyway,.. just curious about how it is that non-US citizens are covered, specifically, by the constitution?

Thanks. :)

It's pretty simple really.

Here's an excerpt from the US COnstitution: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Constitution specifically and deliberately grants the Judicial Branch of government the power to hear all cases against certain people including foregn citizens.

This is specific. On the other hand, rights such as in the Bill of Rights...

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

...do not specify which 'people'. It can and has been interpreted by the Judicial branch, therefore, to include all people within the United States and it's territories and not just US Citizens. *nod*

S'cuse me, I'll need a second.
*turns head*




... FUCK! FUCK FUCK FUCK. FUCK. FUCK FUCK. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. FUCK! FUCK FUCK! FUCK. FUCK! FUCK FUCK FUCK! FUCK!


...


Alright, I'm okay now.

How are non-citizens "covered" by the constitution?

Just curious, as it would seem that having "laws" (constitutional) that attempt to "regulate" the behavior or treatment of the citizens of other countries would rather violate the sovereignty of that non-US citizen.

Then again, there probably SHOULD be some convention of some sort that lends generous treatment to "good" non-citizens while they're on US territory.

..but, not "good" non-US citizens? Wouldn't this be better handled by some set of statutes other than the constitution?

Anyway,.. just curious about how it is that non-US citizens are covered, specifically, by the constitution?

Thanks. :)

Well, it depends upon the theory of law you believe is more consistent.

You could take Eutrusca's view that the Constitution was written to guarantee the rights and laws for U.S. citizens. After all, there is no provision extending all rights to foreign citizens on U.S. soil or requiring that laws created to deal with foreign citizens must be based in the legal principles outlined in the Constitution. In this case, two bodies of law have to be created, one based in the Constitution to encompass the citizens of the U.S., the other to deal with foreign citizens that is based in international agreements and arbitrary legislative decisions.

There is another, less prevalent theory, that as the Constitution is the basis of law for the United States, all laws must follow Constitutional principles. Even laws dealing with foreign citizens would be based upon principles such as habeus corpus and due process in addition to legal principles given in international agreements. This is a much more idealistic position that would lead to a unified body of law based in the Constitution, rather than a separate body for foreign citizens.

It's really a matter of interpretation more than anything else. You could take either position, as the Constitution doesn't prohibit extending the legal principles and rights within it to foreign citizens, but it doesn't order that extension either.

Uh ... that's why we have the Supreme Court. And, as far as I'm concerned, non-US citizens are not covered by the Constitution.

Actually no can do.

Sec. 950j. Finality or proceedings, findings, and sentences

`(a) Finality- The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, and the proceedings, findings, and sentences of military commissions as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military commissions under this chapter are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the President.

`(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

It appears they decided to strip the supreme court of it's power. Wait, they can't do that, right? Seems to me they just did.

It’s pretty fucked up, but what are you going to do? *shrugs*

Heheh kill the Bushmonkey kill it now!

Overthrow the Government?

Via la Revolution!!

I love the smell of lib paranoia and hysteria in the morning. Smells like . . . victory :D

Fried Tuna;11771733']Actually no can do.



It appears they decided to strip the supreme court of it's power. Wait, they can't do that, right? Seems to me they just did.

Not necessarily. The Supreme court has struck down challenges to it's power before.

Uh ... that's why we have the Supreme Court. And, as far as I'm concerned, non-US citizens are not covered by the Constitution.
Well, you would be in disagreement with US Supreme Court precedent. Not that that's ever really mattered to you...

I love the smell of lib paranoia and hysteria in the morning. Smells like . . . victory :D

You realize that you're what the government considers a useful idiot, right?

It feels more like the USA just decided to forfeit.

Well, you know, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I hear they're going to put that on the new quarters, in place of "e pluribus unum."

You realize that you're what the government considers a useful idiot, right?

The joke's on the government, 'cause he ain't useful. :D

An American friend of mine opined tonight that Arab Americans will most likely be placed in internment camps in the near future. An astute friend - usually (and sometimes unusually) right on the money.

I wouldn't be shocked. We've done it once, we can do it again.


If that happened though, I'm gone. I'm leaving to Australia and never coming back.

first they came for the 'terrorist', but i wasn't a terrorist so i did nothing. then they came for resident immigrants, but i wasn't a resident immigrant so i did nothing. ...

sound familiar?

=^^=
.../\...



Very. Frighteningly so.

If this actually started happening, I would move to Israel ASAP. I would renounce my American citizenship. I would join the IDF.

And I would hope that the Marines do not forget their oaths.

Unfortunalely people will wait until Bush actively starts grabbing American citizens and disappearing them. Hopefully this won't happen and we'll get a president in '08 who will repeal this horrific law.

It takes Congress to repeal a law.

If the news will actually do their jobs and explain this law then we can have it repealled in January when the new Congress takes over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
How are non-citizens "covered" by the constitution?

Just curious, as it would seem that having "laws" (constitutional) that attempt to "regulate" the behavior or treatment of the citizens of other countries would rather violate the sovereignty of that non-US citizen.

Then again, there probably SHOULD be some convention of some sort that lends generous treatment to "good" non-citizens while they're on US territory.

..but, not "good" non-US citizens? Wouldn't this be better handled by some set of statutes other than the constitution?

Anyway,.. just curious about how it is that non-US citizens are covered, specifically, by the constitution?

Thanks.


It's pretty simple really.

Here's an excerpt from the US COnstitution: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1



The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The Constitution specifically and deliberately grants the Judicial Branch of government the power to hear all cases against certain people including foregn citizens.


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..

between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States,

and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

That is rather simple. :)

Ta-da..!

So "the judicial power", in this case that judicial power instituted to hear cases non-constitutional (meaning the appropriate judicial power that ISN'T the Supreme Court because the Supe's only rule on constitutionality and not on instances of wrong-ness as to law) are permitted to hear cases arising from conflict between US States/citizens (by extention the Fed's?), and the citizens of other countries.

So,... what were we talking about again?

(I just lost my place in this discussion...)

Fried Tuna;11771733']Quote:
Originally Posted by H.R.6166 Military Commissions Act of 2006
Sec. 950j. Finality or proceedings, findings, and sentences

`(a) Finality- The appellate review of records of trial provided by this chapter, and the proceedings, findings, and sentences of military commissions as approved, reviewed, or affirmed as required by this chapter, are final and conclusive. Orders publishing the proceedings of military commissions under this chapter are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the President.

`(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.


It appears they decided to strip the supreme court of it's power. Wait, they can't do that, right? Seems to me they just did.

...are binding upon all departments, courts, agencies, and officers of the United States, except as otherwise provided by the President.

And can a succeeding President "make an exception as otherwise provided by him" regarding any particular case?

There has to be some "final" decision point for any adjudicatory process, and since the matter is "military" in nature (the subject has "wronged" in the course of military hostilities against the US), the natural "final decision maker" is the commander-in-chief,.. eg the Prez.

This formulation (mine) is based on the idea that the subject of military justice remains related to their "captor" (the US) ONLY in the military context.

The "judiciary power" of the US has no standing to "try" the subject because the subject has no relationship with any non-military component of US society.

The "except as otherwise provided by the President" clause solves the "what if we find out later that he's not a bad-guy and want to pardon him" scenario, as the "prosecuting" president or a later one may pardon the subject.



The reason this scenario is abhorent to many is that it "seems" to allow for an authority "higher" than the Supreme Court, when in fact it simply establishes the Executive as an equal authority with it's own realm of authority.

Executive authority in executive authority "space" is only checked by another executive (later in future, or more informed in the present).

Just as nothing can "overrule" the judiciary but the judiciary (finally) within judicial "space", nothing should be able to overrule the executive but the executive in executive "space".

Yes, I am sick of this.
The US Senate recently passed a bill, S. 3930, which at face value gives the President of the United States the power to commission anyone committing an act of war against the United States into the US Military, and to trial them by US Military laws and through the US Military courts. If you read deeper into the 94-page document, however, you will notice it will:

|-> create a secret committee appointed by Bush and Rumsfeld that has the power to declare any person - even a US citizen - to be an enemy, instantly depriving them of their legal rights. There will be no appeal allowed. Please Quote from bill where it says this.

|-> allow police to search through your home without a search warrant you mean this?
‘‘(3) In making exceptions in the applicability in trials by military commission under this chapter from the procedures and rules otherwise applicable in general courts-martial, the Secretary of Defense may provide the following:
‘‘(A) Evidence seized outside the United States shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or authorization.
that's only evidence Seized OUTSIDE the USA. can you quote where they can enter your home in the US?

Alien - ‘‘(1) ALIEN.—The term ‘alien’ means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.
so, if you are a citizen of the US... guess what... you're safe.
UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT - ‘‘(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.

and the paragraph above it does define what is a Lawful Enemy combatant.

|-> end protection of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions Read It again, It states that ALIEN ENEMY UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS cannot find protection under the Geneva convention.‘‘(f) GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF RIGHTS.—No alien enemy unlawful combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at his trial by military commission.

|-> give George W. Bush amnesty for any war crimes he has committed Please Quote from bill where it's said this.

|-> allow for people to be put on trial in front of a kangaroo court military tribunal, even if they aren’t in any military, and have not engaged in military attacks against the USA please quote where it's said this.

|-> allow the government to convict people of crimes on the basis of secret evidence that the accused never sees funny, I find the rules of evidence stated in the bill to be opposite of what you said with the only exception being that the evidence is labeled and proven to be secret.

|-> make it legal for the government to use testimony extracted through torture
come again?
‘‘(b) STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence the statement was made.

|-> end the legal right to be protected from forced self-incrimination
‘‘(B) A statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination so long as the evidence complies with the provisions of section 948r of this title.

and section 948r also puts your point to a lie.

|-> allow the government to imprison people without telling them what crimes they are being charged with :rolleyes:
NOTICE TO ACCUSED.—Upon the swearing of the charges and specifications in accordance with subsection (a), the accused shall be informed of the charges and specifications against him as soon as practicable.

so where did you see about this imprisonment.

|-> remove the right to cross-examine witnesses Please Quote from bill where it says this.


|-> allow for the records of trials to be kept secret from the American public only if it was deemed that the information is to be kept secret... and the President does not make that call.


|-> enable trials to begin even before a thorough investigation of the alleged crime has taken place Please quote the bill where it states this.

|-> take away the right to a speedy trial, allowing people to fester behind bars without being charged of any crime"... but you just said that they are put on trial before the investigation can take place... this is a contradiction of points.

now if you are talking about the ruling that references Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), well, if they are Alien Enemy Unlawful Combatants, then they won't have signed our Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It also, most shockingly, allows the US President to interpret the Geneva Convention to his liking, making it US law. Those of you familiar with President Bush will know that he would have difficulty interpreting Curious George. err... you did read it... right...
(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT.—(A)
As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

so... you also rallying against the Constitution as well?

and if you note, it also does not absove the President from any crime. just places all responsibility on HIM.

At this stage, this is only toward Non-US citizens. Does this make things any less shocking? No. :rolleyes: this officially defines Alien Enemy Unlawful Combatant and their posistion in the law.

I plead with you, distribute this message. Spread the word.yep... spread the word, just make sure you are spreading the Correct word and not just rumors or what others want you to spread.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930is.txt.pdf The Actual Bill... BTW...

Unfortunalely people will wait until Bush actively starts grabbing American citizens and disappearing them. Hopefully this won't happen and we'll get a president in '08 who will repeal this horrific law.

look its not like this law allows the executive branch to go on a rampage an arrest everybody and his brother that they dont like. What the law is saying is that anybody actively in combat against the united states government is gonna be tried in a military court.

People this is america we're talking about. There checks and balances, layers of government and miles and miles of red tape which need to be worked out before any person can be tried like this. so unless your actually shooting at US military personel...you'll be fine. I dont even know why this is an issue. America isnt a police state and you all know it.