Allen West finally sets record straight about National Defense Authorization Act.wmv
Top Comments
All Comments (227)
-
I can think of a few of his colleagues that would strongly disagree with him, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Dennis Kucinich to name a few, who is this Alan West guy working for?
-
"..the REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this SECTION.."
watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ
-
@TOUGHCHOICE At least your really read it unlike the healthcare thing that some said they didn't read but passed and then it was approved by one person who had not paid his taxes. We are suppose to believe this. The government always tries to put in a loop hole so that they can use it if ever they felt they really needed to. So why is the law to complicated and hard to read and understand? They will find a way to try to defend their position and do what ever they want anyway.
-
west is a friggin puppet , ive read other provisions of this bill and it overrides what he says
-
This is how brainwashed people are. He reads the summary and they clap. Don't actually read the sections in question. Plus, he doesnt tell people that the next bill H. R. 3166 takes away your citizenship. So, even if he is right, which dozens of lawyers say otherwise, they're just going to take away your citizenship and throw you in jail indefinitely. Wake up!
-
WRONG. google salon dot com three myths about the detention bill. you will find the highlighted provisions in picture form. And explained.
-
What he leaves out is the section before, section 1021, which is the DISCRETIONARY detention provision. That section does NOT exclude US Citizens. So, the military MAY detain US Citizens indefinitely and without a lawyer, charge or court hearing, but they aren't REQUIRED to.
-
@thomascapitalmgt complete idiot? gfnore
PAGE 653..SEC 1021... OPEN TO INTERPRETATION OF THE PRESIDENT TO DEFINE WHO CAN BE DETAINED AND IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE US CITIZENS...
TOUGHCHOICE 1 month ago 4
@EagleTalonZ I quoted the exact text of the act as signed. Now, I expect you to do the same. If the section I quoted disagrees with YOU, which do you think I am going to believe. Go get the text and quote the part which refutes the part I quoted. If the "nothing in this section... arrested in the United States." section is revoked in another section... simply prove me wrong by quoting it. It's not a hard concept.
wvgoldenwolf 1 month ago 2