T Nation

This Doesn't Scare You?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514.html

[quote]The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week’s version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those “engaged in hostilities against the United States.”

Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

[/quote]

This won’t scare many because far too many don’t think ahead of “fear of terrorists”. They don’t consider possible actions against America’s own citizens and just how much power we are giving a government that could eventually turn against many of us.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This won’t scare many because far too many don’t think ahead of “fear of terrorists”. They don’t consider possile actions against America’s own citizens and just how much power we are giving a government that could eventually turn against many of us.[/quote]

And it won’t scare the rest of us who don’t wear foil hats because:

A) It’s proposed legislation making its way (or not) through the appropriate legal channels, as opposed to say, suing everyone in the United States associated with terror. Damn that democratic process.

B) This is the new bill drafted in response to the USSC’s previous ruling. If it passes, it can be equally overturned as unconstitutional. Damn those checks and balances.

C) It’s the Bush Administrations’ proposal, in two years lots of policies will change.

Article III Section III of your friendly Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:

This won’t scare many because far too many don’t think ahead of “fear of terrorists”. They don’t consider possile actions against America’s own citizens and just how much power we are giving a government that could eventually turn against many of us.

And it won’t scare the rest of us who don’t wear foil hats because:

A) It’s proposed legislation making its way (or not) through the appropriate legal channels, as opposed to say, suing everyone in the United States associated with terror. Damn that democratic process.

B) This is the new bill drafted in response to the USSC’s previous ruling. If it passes, it can be equally overturned as unconstitutional. Damn those checks and balances.

C) It’s the Bush Administrations’ proposal, in two years lots of policies will change.[/quote]

Because people say, oh, it’ll never make it through the house and/or senate. 6 months later and it has gone through…

…the fact that they are considering stuff like this has me worried.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Professor X wrote:

This won’t scare many because far too many don’t think ahead of “fear of terrorists”. They don’t consider possile actions against America’s own citizens and just how much power we are giving a government that could eventually turn against many of us.

And it won’t scare the rest of us who don’t wear foil hats because:

A) It’s proposed legislation making its way (or not) through the appropriate legal channels, as opposed to say, suing everyone in the United States associated with terror. Damn that democratic process.

B) This is the new bill drafted in response to the USSC’s previous ruling. If it passes, it can be equally overturned as unconstitutional. Damn those checks and balances.

C) It’s the Bush Administrations’ proposal, in two years lots of policies will change.[/quote]

I’m sorry, was this a guarantee that it will not be passed? If it is definitely not going to be passed, why are they even trying?

[quote]Ren wrote:
Because people say, oh, it’ll never make it through the house and/or senate. 6 months later and it has gone through…

…the fact that they are considering stuff like this has me worried. [/quote]

Ren,

Aren’t those the same type of comments that were voiced when the President’s warrentless wiretapping program came to light? Well, imagine my surprise (or lack, thereof) when I saw this:

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/09/29/487744.html&cvqh=itn_wiretap

[i]Wiretap Bill Sets Up Election-Year Issue
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

“The Democrats’ irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people,” Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

“To always have reasons why you just can’t vote ‘yes,’ I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them,” Boehner said.

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn’t be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

“It is ceding the president’s argument that Congress doesn’t matter in this area,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.

Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:

_ Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.

_ Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.

_ Renews his certification every 90 days.

The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn’t satisfied with it, adding that the administration “looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.”

But with Congress giving Bush the other half of his September anti-terrorism agenda _ a bill setting conditions on how terrorism suspects are to be detained, interrogated and tried _ Republicans shifted from lawmaking to campaign mode.

After the House voted 253-168 to set rules on tough interrogations and military tribunal proceedings, Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was even more critical than Boehner.

“Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists,” Hastert said in a statement. "So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan. "

Retorted Pelosi: “I think the speaker is a desperate man for him to say that. Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?”

She and other Democratic critics of the GOP’s September anti-terrorism agenda contend the Republican-written bills make Bush’s programs vulnerable to being overturned in court. More broadly, they argue the legislation reflects the White House’s willingness to fight the war on terrorism at the expense of civil and human rights.

A Democratic majority in either House would set the balance right, Democrats say. “In 40 days, we can put an end to this nonsense,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, referring to the election.

A federal judge in Detroit who struck down the warrantless surveillance program turned aside a government request for an indefinite stay Thursday. U.S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the government could have a week to appeal.


The House bill is H.R. 5825; the Senate bill is S. 3931.[/i]

Boy, Nixon must be rolling in his grave mad! He’s probably pissed that he didn’t have these people in the House when the Watergate tapes were revealed. He could have just yelled “National Security Terrorist Threat!” and gotten a free pass and accolades for being tough on terror.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Article III Section III of your friendly Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

[/quote]

I think if we have proof of someone committing treason we can deal with that, not worried there. But so far the government has held innocent people for several months. And we want them to be able to do this easier. This part of the article hits at me hard:

Maybe you have faith that the government will only arrest the bad guys, I however don’t. And as a legal immigrant I have every right to be worried. I am pretty sure if I were to conversation with someone who happened to have ties to an organization on the government’s watch list, I could get detained. That alone is worrying. Am I looking at the extreme? Yes, because people always say it will never be used for that, like they did with the Patriot Act, and look how that turned out.

I am all for keeping us safe, but some things go a bit too far, and I believe this is one of them.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Ren wrote:
Because people say, oh, it’ll never make it through the house and/or senate. 6 months later and it has gone through…

…the fact that they are considering stuff like this has me worried.

Ren,

Aren’t those the same type of comments that were voiced when the President’s warrentless wiretapping program came to light? Well, imagine my surprise (or lack, thereof) when I saw this:

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/09/29/487744.html&cvqh=itn_wiretap

[i]Wiretap Bill Sets Up Election-Year Issue
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

“The Democrats’ irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people,” Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

“To always have reasons why you just can’t vote ‘yes,’ I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them,” Boehner said.

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn’t be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

“It is ceding the president’s argument that Congress doesn’t matter in this area,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.

Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:

_ Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.

_ Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.

_ Renews his certification every 90 days.

The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn’t satisfied with it, adding that the administration “looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.”

But with Congress giving Bush the other half of his September anti-terrorism agenda _ a bill setting conditions on how terrorism suspects are to be detained, interrogated and tried _ Republicans shifted from lawmaking to campaign mode.

After the House voted 253-168 to set rules on tough interrogations and military tribunal proceedings, Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was even more critical than Boehner.

“Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists,” Hastert said in a statement. "So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan. "

Retorted Pelosi: “I think the speaker is a desperate man for him to say that. Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?”

She and other Democratic critics of the GOP’s September anti-terrorism agenda contend the Republican-written bills make Bush’s programs vulnerable to being overturned in court. More broadly, they argue the legislation reflects the White House’s willingness to fight the war on terrorism at the expense of civil and human rights.

A Democratic majority in either House would set the balance right, Democrats say. “In 40 days, we can put an end to this nonsense,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, referring to the election.

A federal judge in Detroit who struck down the warrantless surveillance program turned aside a government request for an indefinite stay Thursday. U.S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the government could have a week to appeal.


The House bill is H.R. 5825; the Senate bill is S. 3931.[/i]

Boy, Nixon must be rolling in his grave mad! He’s probably pissed that he didn’t have these people in the House when the Watergate tapes were revealed. He could have just yelled “National Security Terrorist Threat!” and gotten a free pass and accolades for being tough on terror. [/quote]

They said the Patriot Act would never be used against US citizens, how long did that last? My point is, you have the people who say that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. I prefer to say, what is the most extreme thing they can do with this legislation, and then realize at some point that will happen. The track record proves it.

[quote]Ren wrote:

They said the Patriot Act would never be used against US citizens, how long did that last? My point is, you have the people who say that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. I prefer to say, what is the most extreme thing they can do with this legislation, and then realize at some point that will happen. The track record proves it. [/quote]

Right here:

I remember people asking where any proof of our rights being taken away were. Well, if this isn’t a shining example of what can happen, I don;t know what is. Do we just wait until it is one of us and THEN try to fight it? How stupid. Yes, let’s cheer on the mad push for more power…until they use it against us.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ren wrote:

They said the Patriot Act would never be used against US citizens, how long did that last? My point is, you have the people who say that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. I prefer to say, what is the most extreme thing they can do with this legislation, and then realize at some point that will happen. The track record proves it.

Right here:
Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

I remember people asking where any proof of our rights being taken away were. Well, if this isn’t a shining example of what can happen, I don;t know what is. Do we just wait until it is one of us and THEN try to fight it? How stupid. Yes, let’s cheer on the mad push for more power…until they use it against us.
[/quote]

At that point is it not too late to fight it? Since they could simply do the same to the dissenters.

To quote Ben Franklin:

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ren wrote:

They said the Patriot Act would never be used against US citizens, how long did that last? My point is, you have the people who say that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. I prefer to say, what is the most extreme thing they can do with this legislation, and then realize at some point that will happen. The track record proves it.

Right here:
Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

I remember people asking where any proof of our rights being taken away were. Well, if this isn’t a shining example of what can happen, I don;t know what is. Do we just wait until it is one of us and THEN try to fight it? How stupid. Yes, let’s cheer on the mad push for more power…until they use it against us.
[/quote]

come on. are we serious with this stuff? here is what CAN happen, so let’s do…nothing? or…at least…do…what? less? do as LITTLE as we can in order to keep americans from dying? again.

i don’t envy this german citizen. too bad. i’m sure he’s going to be very rich for all his troubles. but lets get real. things like this are going to happen. but the consequenses of doing less are a lot more severe than the consequenses of doing as much as we can.

you’ll be the first to stand up and shout that ‘Bush knew!’ and ‘Why was nothing DONE!?!’ after a terrorist attack, forgetting all about concerns like this. Oh. Unless there’s a democrat in power when it happens. Then you’ll just…blame bush!

jesus.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Right here:
Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

I remember people asking where any proof of our rights being taken away were. Well, if this isn’t a shining example of what can happen, I don;t know what is. Do we just wait until it is one of us and THEN try to fight it? How stupid. Yes, let’s cheer on the mad push for more power…until they use it against us.
[/quote]

OUR rights are not affected by a GERMAN citizen being kidnapped. That has been explained to you over and over and over. Our rights are protected by the Constitution, which applies to born and naturalized CITIZENS.

-Winston Churchill

Excerpt from the Nuremburg trials:

We find at this period two governments in Germany – the real and the ostensible. The forms of the German Republic were maintained for a time, and it was the outward and visible government. But the real authority in the State was outside of and above the law and rested in the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.

On February 27, 1933, less than a month after Hitler became Chancellor, the Reichstag building was set on fire [9/11]. The burning of this symbol of free parliamentary government was so providential for the Nazis that it was believed they staged the fire themselves.

Certainly when we contemplate their known crimes, we cannot believe they would shrink from mere arson. It is not necessary, however, to resolve the controversy as to who set the fire. The significant point is in the use that was made of the fire and of the state of public mind it produced. The Nazis immediately accused the Communist Party of instigating and committing the crime, and turned every effort to portray this single act of arson as the beginning of a Communist revolution. Then, taking advantage of the hysteria, the Nazi met this phantom revolution with a real one. In the following December, the German Supreme Court with commendable courage and independence acquitted the accused Communists, but it was too late to influence the tragic course of events which the Nazi conspirators had set rushing forward.

Hitler, on the morning after the fire, obtained from the aged and ailing President von Hindenburg a Presidential decree suspending the extensive guarantees of individual liberty contained in the Constitution of the Weimar Republic. The decree provided that:

"Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed. (1390-PS).

But the National Socialist coup was made possible because the terms of the Hitler-Hindenburg decree departed from all previous ones in which the power of suspension had been invoked. Whenever Ebert had suspended constitutional guarantees of individual rights, his decree had expressly revived the Protective Custody Act adopted by the Reichstag in 1916 during the previous war. This Act guaranteed a judicial hearing within 24 hours of arrest, gave a right to have counsel and to inspect all relevant records, provided for appeal, and authorized compensation from Treasury funds for erroneous arrests.

The Hitler-Hindenburg decree [Patriot Act] of February 28, 1933 contained no such safeguards. The omission may not have been noted by von Hindenburg. Certainly he did not appreciate its effect. It left the Nazi police and party formations, already existing and functioning under Hitler, completely unrestrained and irresponsible. Secret arrest and indefinite detention, without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel, became the method of inflicting inhuman punishment on any whom the Nazi police suspected or disliked. court could issue an injunction, or writ of habeas corpus, or certiorar. The German people were in the hands of the police, the police were in the hands of the Nazi Party, and the Party was in the hands of a ring of evil men, of whom the defendants here before you are surviving and representative leaders…

[quote]Ren wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Ren wrote:

They said the Patriot Act would never be used against US citizens, how long did that last? My point is, you have the people who say that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. I prefer to say, what is the most extreme thing they can do with this legislation, and then realize at some point that will happen. The track record proves it.

Right here:
Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

I remember people asking where any proof of our rights being taken away were. Well, if this isn’t a shining example of what can happen, I don;t know what is. Do we just wait until it is one of us and THEN try to fight it? How stupid. Yes, let’s cheer on the mad push for more power…until they use it against us.

At that point is it not too late to fight it? Since they could simply do the same to the dissenters.

To quote Ben Franklin:

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

[/quote]

First, you’ve made the mistake in assuming that I am either Democrat or Republican. If there is a Republican candidate who will take this country away from the extreme and back to the middle, I WILL vote for them.

I haven’t written anywhere that I am a Democrat. Along with that, I don’t want to give up every freedom I have because of fear of getting hit by a terrorist attack. Apparently, you are ok with this. That quote from ben Franklin makes a hell of a lot of sense. At least to those of us not making every political decision out of fear and football stadium fanaticism.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Right here:
Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

I remember people asking where any proof of our rights being taken away were. Well, if this isn’t a shining example of what can happen, I don;t know what is. Do we just wait until it is one of us and THEN try to fight it? How stupid. Yes, let’s cheer on the mad push for more power…until they use it against us.

OUR rights are not affected by a GERMAN citizen being kidnapped. That has been explained to you over and over and over. Our rights are protected by the Constitution, which applies to born and naturalized CITIZENS.

[/quote]

Until a bill gets signed into law that allows US citizens to be held if they are believed to be “threats”.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:

Right here:
Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

I remember people asking where any proof of our rights being taken away were. Well, if this isn’t a shining example of what can happen, I don;t know what is. Do we just wait until it is one of us and THEN try to fight it? How stupid. Yes, let’s cheer on the mad push for more power…until they use it against us.

OUR rights are not affected by a GERMAN citizen being kidnapped. That has been explained to you over and over and over. Our rights are protected by the Constitution, which applies to born and naturalized CITIZENS.

[/quote]

You so sure about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRkja88zWRo&mode=related&search=

that is just one example.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week’s version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those “engaged in hostilities against the United States.”

Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

This won’t scare many because far too many don’t think ahead of “fear of terrorists”. They don’t consider possible actions against America’s own citizens and just how much power we are giving a government that could eventually turn against many of us.[/quote]

And yet if they didn’t go to these more extreme measures to stop terrorism or protect US citizens and someone from your family died as result, you would probably be the first to say that they should have done more.

It is any easy thing to cry about freedoms being lost due to increased security measures when you have not lost any family members as a result of a lack of security.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ren wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Ren wrote:

They said the Patriot Act would never be used against US citizens, how long did that last? My point is, you have the people who say that if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. I prefer to say, what is the most extreme thing they can do with this legislation, and then realize at some point that will happen. The track record proves it.

Right here:
Martin noted that “the administration kidnapped an innocent German citizen” and “held him incommunicado for months . . . because the CIA or Pentagon wrongly suspected him of terrorist ties.” She was referring to Khalid al-Masri, who the Bush administration eventually acknowledged was detained on insufficient grounds.

I remember people asking where any proof of our rights being taken away were. Well, if this isn’t a shining example of what can happen, I don;t know what is. Do we just wait until it is one of us and THEN try to fight it? How stupid. Yes, let’s cheer on the mad push for more power…until they use it against us.

At that point is it not too late to fight it? Since they could simply do the same to the dissenters.

To quote Ben Franklin:

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

First, you’ve made the mistake in assuming that I am either Democrat or Republican. If there is a Republican candidate who will take this country away from the extreme and back to the middle, I WILL vote for them.

I haven’t written anywhere that I am a Democrat. Along with that, I don’t want to give up every freedom I have because of fear of getting hit by a terrorist attack. Apparently, you are ok with this. That quote from ben Franklin makes a hell of a lot of sense. At least to those of us not making every political decisions out of fear and football stadium fanaticism.[/quote]

Hey Prof, I didn’t assume anything mate. Disagreeing with the government is your right, and shouldn’t be cause for anyone to tie you to the opposition party. This issue goes way beyond Democrat or Republican. I really don’t care what party people do or don’t belong to, and if I could vote and there were someone, anyone that actually made sense, I’d vote for them too.

I just have this grand idea of what America stands for, and stuff like this makes it look less like the champion of freedom we believe it to be.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Until a bill gets signed into law that allows US citizens to be held if they are believed to be “threats”.[/quote]

Good editorial in the NY Times.

Rushing Off a Cliff
The New York Times
September 28, 2006
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.