Replies

For Frak’s sake everyone: READ the bill. Even if you don’t have time for that, at least READ the highlighted section:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

I’m not sure how much clearer that needs to be.

The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Aye, and there's the rub.

The bill does not REQUIRE the detention and the removal of all Constitutional Rights of American Citizens. It should say PERMIT.

As written, it permits but does not require.

Not cool.

i>I’m not sure how much clearer that needs to be.

Nice exception in the next paragraph which will infiltrate every reassurance, …except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

And then Senator Levin happily quotes the Supreme court -- "There is no bar to this nation holding one of it citizen as an enemy combatant"

What Constitution, you could drive an 18 wheeler though that gobbledygook.

Have faith believe the government.

In the bill, here's who the detention by the Military and signed off by the executive branch appiles to:

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

...and they then follow that up with this:

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

So, help me out if I am wrong here, but it sounds like the bill is for people who attacked or helped attack us on 911...or harbored those who did, or people affiliated with Al Quida or the Taliban who have supported them and carried out or planned attacks against the US.

And then the requirement for detention do not extend to US citizens. Now, that l;ast could read that they don't have to detain US citizens who fit the above criteria...but they would be permitted to.

If indeed a person is affiliated with Al Quida and /or the Taliban andm is in the middle of planning or actually attacking us...we would certainly know they were traitors and deserving of the death penalty. But proving it would normally be required. TYhere was no doubt about that guy. But trusting someone like Obama or Clinton or anyone else to always make the obvious call...is not something to triffle with. That's why habeus corpus, facing accusers, grand juries, warrants, etc. are important, to ensure it.

On the other hand, in a war and when a person has joined the other side...the rules of war allow that to be suspended for combatants...martial law type thing.

But that's not what they are calling this. it's like they are deciding martial law for people suspected of being affiliated with the enemy on an individual basis.