Ok world, who wants to live in the land of the "free"?

Considering a long term move to New Hampshire, not long from where the op took place actually. I had a long post about how this is absolutely abhorrent to everything your country stands for, but my computer crashed, so I'll take a different note.

As much as your government are jerks most of the time, they're less jerky than most. You are the most safeguarded from state interference in the world. Over here we're regularly pulled over by police and tested for our Blood Alcohol Content. Your legal restrictions prevent searches being done without a sufficient reason + usually a warrant. In decent states you can walk into a gun store off the street, never having handled a gun before, and display it openly. Most other government s don't trust their population that much.

You have one of the most comprehensively beautiful countries in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you have all the ecosystems covered. New England is one of the most astoundingly beautiful places on Earth in the fall, on the level of rural Japan in spring. You have amazing walking trails all over the country, many of which pass through multiple different climates.



You have a fantastic sense of self-reliance and gallantry. Your Scouts are fantastic (even if they probably wouldn't let my kid in). NFL and MLB are great American sports that reflect a lot of the values of your people. Nowhere on Earth is there a stronger tradition of liberty. States have a level of sovereignty unseen elsewhere.You dominate the culture and science of the Western world.

[HR][/HR]

So when you see stuff like this try to remember that you're still in one of the best places on Earth to live your life. And isn't that what matters?

 

And if you actually read the NDAA subtitle D section 1021 subsection (e) it specifically mentions them

" Nothing in this section shall be construed to 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."

That's why I've asked for a provision specifically yet still no one gave me one but since most people say section 1021 I'll assume that for now. The NDAA does not grant new powers it reaffirms already existing powers so it's annoying when people point to it especially the supposed indefinite detention of US citizens when just a little down the page of section 1022 it mentions guantanamo bay something that could have been brought up as an issue.

 

The word originally was used to bring slaves into the economy of the kingdom.

They would after a certain time give certain slaves 2 choices.

Either stay in chains or pledge everything yourself included to the king, the fealty ceremony, [pledge of Al Liege], we know it as the pledge of allegiance in the US, theirs to the sovereign, ours to the sovereigns flag. [laws, same difference]

the ability to be unchained and granted FREEDOM from chains was only if they agreed to the franchise with the king, hence the evolution of citizen, natives were already subject vassals of the king.

Freedom is the allegiance oath + fealty contract in so far as political is concerned.

 

If those terrorists were in your house and the police came, you'd likely be happy.

 

I am not sure how your post is connected with the commingling of terrorism as noting more than redefining pre-existing torts long on the books?

How can united states law be applied to anyone not franchised under the united states? Such as an illegal alien?