In addition to that, Mp-Ryan where is "a beligerent act" defined? That could bee for peaceful protests. For speaking out against political corruption, for voicing your opinion, or doing any of a hundred ambiguous behaviors they find undesirable.
Nope. Belligerent act will either be defined in the
definitions section of the bill (EDIT: just checked, this is a pared down definitions with only 3 entries, so there is definitely another piece of overarching legislation), or it will be derived from another piece of legislation that sets out definitions. As the NDAA is a yearly authorization bill, it is a derivative work, and will definitely rely on other pieces of legislation that remain permanently in force. Not being an American and not fully versed in the structure of US legislation, I don't know offhand what that piece would be or precisely where the definition is found, but rest assured it is defined somewhere. If that somewhere isn't a piece of federal legislation, it may be case law, or it may even rely on the common usage principle - in which case all you need is whatever reference dictionary US federal law uses (in Canada, it's the Oxford English dictionary, but I don't know about the States). Regardless - the administration doesn't get to change the definition at their whim. You should also note that the correct understanding of the bill's phrasing is "belligerent act in aid of such enemy forces," with the forces being previously defined as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. It's actually a fairly specific usage that can't be broadly applied, conspiracy-theorist nonsense notwithstanding.
I have read the bill. It's still grotesque.
Well, you haven't provided anything factual that would make anyone else arrive at that conclusion, but you are entitled to your opinion, baseless as it appears to be.
Furthermore, if it really is so benign, why was it drawn up in a secret committee behind closed doors? Why was it rushed through the deliberation phase? And why, oh why, is no mainstream news source within the U.S. talking about it, while everyone else is buzzing about it like crazy?
Because it's a routine defence spending authorization bill? I don't know the peculiarities of US spending authorizations, but they don't seem like riveting material that deserves national attention. Stuff like this brings the conspiracy nuts out of the woodwork, but the majority of the time they read a few things out of context and then proceed to flip out over nothing. Happens in Canada all the time too.
Feel free to post the sections that are "grotesque" and perhaps we can clear up the interpretation and lack of legal understanding issues that a lot of people in this thread are demonstrating.
