A Detention Bill You Ought to Read More Carefully (permits indefinite detention of U.S. citizens)

The Atlantic ^ | 2010-03-05 | Marc Ambinder

[Balding_Eagle]

Perhaps. Let me know how much success you have here.

I’ve watched this one, I think, at her pay grade, nothing you can say will be more persuasive than the bonus she would forfeit if she conceded your point.

[SuperLuminal]

"(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate."

Yep! This is the kernel thought in the whole thing.

Interrogator: "Are you a member of SEIU, ACORN, KOS, or the DNC?"

Answer: "No"

El Presidente: "Make this terrorist scum disappear!"

[Pining_4_TX]

Which is why conservatives and libertarians should have been in the streets protesting then. Once the government has the power, anyone in charge can use it.

We now have the situation where the government can call you a terrorist and deny you your rights.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” ~ George Washington

[runninglips]

American citizens to be “protected” under the laws of the Geneva convention, foreign combatants out of uniform given full Constitutional protections now.......something JUST doesn’t seem kosher to me. col

[TigersEye]

Now we have detainment for citizens and we have cell phone tracking, web page logging and email reading.... where are the marches and the big protests??

That's why I post exactly what I think right on Free Republic. They won't find anything half as interesting by reading my e-mail or listening in on my telephone. They can't waterboard me, they can't put a caterpillar on me and if they don't give me the kind of donuts and coffee I like I will file complaints of mistreatment with every human rights org on the planet.

This whole thing is a pretense, a false face of strength put on our intelligence community. The fact is our national security infra-structure has been emasculated by Progressive Dems and Progressive RINOs.

[GeronL]

Do you think their hit squads will have to follow the same overstrict RoE’s our soldiers have to follow?

[GeronL]

Do you think their hit squads will have to follow the same overstrict RoE’s our soldiers have to follow?

[TigersEye]

Have they before?

[GeronL]

I guess not.

[giotto]

Palin truly needs to reconsider supporting flaming socialist McAmnesty.

Sarah lost my support when she announced that she would be helping this POS get reelected. This bill is even worse than that other abomination, McCain-Feingold. I have no respect for Palin as long as she puts her loyalty to McCain ahead of her loyalty to the people of the United States.

[TigersEye]

I’m not worried about that. If they injure me I will get excellent medical care, as a “belligerent,” without paying a dime out of my pocket. If they kill me I won’t be concerned with unlawful incarceration or their “no-stress” interrogation techniques. ;-)

[Czar]

My first reaction is the same as yours. I do not believe Inhofe would support loose language which could be easily [mis]construed to allow the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on mere "suspicion". Having said that, I am completely opposed to anything which would expand the power, size or cost of the federal government--I simply no longer trust them.

[Cboldt]

-- First reading looks fine to me. --

All we have are introductory remarks, not the text of the legislation. But, assuming the introductory remarks are a fair presentation, the proposal has the constitutional infirmity of legislating executive discretion.