[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Holy hair splitting batman, they used the word AURTHORIZATION instead of OPTION. Clearly, you’ve disproven my point.
Let me ask again, in a way that shitheads cant split hairs about:
“SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
…
(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.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”
…so the REQUIREMENT does not extend.
Thats a bit different than “the AUTHORITY does not extend”, isn’t it? \
Oh, right, but its so clearly defined: “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.”
Clearly define “substantially supported” in a way that precludes an innocent person from being detained.
Clearly define “belligerent act” in a way that precludes an innocent person from being detained.
Clearly define “associated forces”…
Clearly defined my ass.[/quote]
I would not know how clearly defined your ass may be; that sorry task I leave to others.
But “shitheads?” Oh, come now. I have been called worse, and by better arguers, too.
The word “authority” here sanctions, by Congress, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Hamdi, following ex parte Quirin. The military can detain belligerents, taken abroad, without mandatory recourse to civilian courts. You will notice, however, that it is stipulated that the military may release the subject to a civilian court. (And therefore, attorney and civilian courts will be able to force the transfer of suspects as well.)
There is no suspension of habeas corpus in this bill.
IF you ask my opinion, yes, the bill is simply stupid. If the Supreme Court has ruled, why does the “authority” need to be reiterated in a funding bill for the Defense Department. Oh, yes, to further justify military actions against spies and saboteurs? These are matters best left for civilian authorities and courts. I do not want the military–which is untrained in police matters generally–to serve as policeman and judges within the US.
So I think it is a stupid part of the bill, but not, as hysterics would have it, some violation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. This hysteria is being used for political purposes, and not as a reasoned attack on stupidity. (Shame on you, Carl Levin, liberal D-MI.)
You may choose to disagree, of course, but I would not call you a “shithead,” even if you cannot find your argument in the text of the matter at hand.