Shared publicly  - 
 
.
Infringe a Copyright Online? Be locked up indefinitely without attorneys in a Prison Camp as a Terrorist! This is REAL Folks!
.
*This is the Untold Story of the "National Defense Act".
Piracy Truth originally shared:
 
ATTENTION
.
The US Senate Passed a Bill to LOCK UP COPYRIGHT INFRINGERS!
Hey wait, this is about indefinitely locking up people that support terrorists even with small donations through PayPal.
NO: In The USA Copyright Downloaders are under Homeland Security's watch. AND they have been recognized as "Supporting Terrorism!*
Links as Proof Below!
Rand Report linking Terrorism, and Organized Crime to Copyright Infringement
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG742.sum.pdf
MPAA Study Links Piracy to Gangs and Terrorists
http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-study-links-film-piracy-to-gangs-and-terrorists-090304/
Terrorist link to copyright piracy alleged CNET
http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html
US Federal Congressional Report Linking Copyright Piracy to Terrorism

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT PIRACY:
A GROWING PROBLEM WITH LINKS TO
ORGANIZED CRIME AND TERRORISM
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju85643.000/hju85643_0f.htm*Hollywood-Funded Study Concludes Piracy Fosters Terrorism* Wired
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/hollywood-funde/
Copyright Infringers are Terrorist Sympathizers ArsTechnica
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/05/4952.ars
FBI agents to wiretap anyone suspected of illegal streaming or Copyright infringment
Piracy Just As Bad as Terrorism?
Nintendo Declares Software Pirates of its games are TERRORISTS!
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/05/26/japanese-copyright-boss-calls-ds-piracy-terrorism

http://gawker.com/5865089/20-things-you-should-know-about-americas-most-horrifying-new-law
7
3
L Musko's profile photo
L Musko
 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 includes important funding for our troops and their families and for the nation’s defense, but most Americans have heard about only a small portion of the statute, one dealing with the handling of terrorism detainees. Unfortunately, much of what has been said and written about the detainee provisions is simply wrong. If this bill did what some people claim it does, I would have opposed it.

Here is what the detainee-related provisions would do. First, it affirms the Obama administration’s military detention policy for individuals captured in our fight against al Qaeda, a position upheld by the federal courts. This provision will prevent future administrations from adopting more expansive and problematic interpretations of military detention authority. Second, it establishes a presumption of military detention in the case of one narrow category of individuals — foreign al Qaeda terrorists who are captured in the course of planning or conducting attacks against the United States. The executive branch can waive that presumption, and its ability to try detainees in civilian courts is protected. Third, it establishes new procedural rights, including access to a military judge and a military lawyer, for any individual who is to be held in long-term military detention. Here is a link to a brief summary of the detainee provisions on my website at http://go.usa.gov/ncD . It explains in a straightforward manner what each of the provisions does.

I would also like to address some common inaccuracies about the legislation.

--It does not prohibit civilian trials of terror suspects. In fact, the legislation specifically authorizes the use of civilian courts.
--It does not strip the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies of their anti-terrorism duties and hand those authorities to the military. The statute specifically preserves the role of civilian law enforcement, saying its provisions on detention of foreign al Qaeda terrorists shall not “be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to [terror suspects].” The military is not given any new authority to conduct investigations or make arrests inside the United States.
--It does not allow military troops to make arrests on U.S. soil. Posse comitatus, the Civil War-era law that bars the military from civilian law enforcement functions, remains unchanged.
--It does not give presidents new authority to indefinitely hold U.S. citizens without charge or trial. The legislation does not change current law regarding U.S. citizens. In fact, the bill specifically states that its provisions do not “affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” While one provision establishes a presumption that foreign al Qaeda detainees will be held by the military, U.S. citizens are specifically exempted from this provision.
--It does not allow indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without access to civilian courts. The law does not affect the right of habeas corpus — the right to petition a court to challenge detention before a judge.
Two respected legal experts have written extensively on the detainee provisions. While they do not always agree with the legislation, Benjamin Wittes and Robert Chesney have written a useful summary that counters what they call the “sheer, unadulterated nonsense zipping around the internet” about the detainee provisions.

You can find that summary here:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
Add a comment...