T Nation

This Doesn't Scare You?

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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]

I have lost family in Iraq. How do I get my cousin back?

[quote]Ren wrote:
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.

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]

I quoted you my mistake. That was meant for HACK wilson.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
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.

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]

You know what, you are right. We should ban all foreigners. Toss everyone of middle eastern descent into detainment camps until they can be deported. Ban Islamic organizations. Want me to go on?

I’ll take freedom any day. People come to this country to remove the shackles of persecution, not get locked up in new ones.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I quoted you my mistake. That was meant for HACK wilson.[/quote]

no worries mate. Was just really confused for a second!!

[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]

A) This is nothing new! The identification and treatment of ‘unlawful combatants’ according to the current administration’s policy (with Congressional approval) was already deemed unconstitutional by the USSC. This proposed bill is a reformation to that policy.

B) I’ve already voted for my representatives in the matter and I’m pretty sure I know which way they’ll vote.

C) Which worries you most, the proposition to redefine unlawful combatants, the proposition to reinstate the draft or the Kelo v. New London decision?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I’m sorry, was this a guarantee that it will not be passed?[/quote]

No, it’s just not working under the foregone conclusion that it has passed. I’d be willing to bet that it doesn’t pass or gets heavily watered down before it does.

Are you asking me to explain why politicians waste time and money? Or are you asking me why they want constitutionally-friendly set of guidelines as to the capture and confinement of ‘unlawful combatants’?

I don’t think this bill applies to U.S. citizens - my understanding is that only aliens can be found to be “unlawful combatants.”

[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]

This is the House version of the Specter bill I posted about before.

It’s essentially designed to resolve the problem of the FISA statute being interpreted to restrict the President’s constitutional authority on surveillance regarding foreign agents. Rather than risk having FISA declared unconstitutional on judicial review, they’re proposing changes to FISA.

There’s never been a Fourth Amendment issue with the wiretapping program – the problem, to the extent it existed, was a tension between the President claiming Constitutional authority and Congress attempting to exert statutory control over that area.

Thus the two branches are working together to effect a Constitutional program.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t think this bill applies to U.S. citizens - my understanding is that only aliens can be found to be “unlawful combatants.”[/quote]

I am trying to find a copy of the bill to see how true this is. I know US citizens have been held as enemy combatants in the past.

This is what everyone has been saying was necessary in the cases of detained enemy combatants – Congress is stepping in, at the request of the President after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, to set up a judicial review system to process detainees.

My best understanding of the law is that the idea of any habeas rights for non-U.S. citizens held outside the U.S. was mostly unheard of throughout our history. See Eisentrager. The Supreme Court changed course in Rasul in 2004, but what to make of that – was that a radical expansion of habeas protection that the current bill tempers, or is the current bill a radical retreat from the rights recignized in Rasul?

Also, the distinction between alien and citizen is a correct one to make when writing the statute, since a law suspending habeaus corpus to full citizens would be inconsistent with article 1, sec 9 clause 2 of the Constitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

[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]

Exactly. If any immigrants are worried about it I suggest you keep your nose clean, don’t hang out with terrorists and take the oath as soon as you are able.

[quote]Ren wrote:

You know what, you are right. We should ban all foreigners. Toss everyone of middle eastern descent into detainment camps until they can be deported. Ban Islamic organizations. Want me to go on?

I’ll take freedom any day. People come to this country to remove the shackles of persecution, not get locked up in new ones.[/quote]

Exactly what FDR did. What Bush is doing is far milder.

Here’s the text of the bill:

This is the language that makes me believe the habeus-stripping provisions apply only to non-citizens (note this is found in section 6 of the bill, entitled “Habeus Corpus Matters”:
[i]
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who–

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who–

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.[/i]

Note further that the language defining the jurisdiction of the commissions, one of the key limits of their power as they cannot hear cases over which they do not have jurisdiction, particularly limits them to aliens:

[i] `Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

                    `Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter 

              `Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

                    `(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.[/i] 

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Exactly. If any immigrants are worried about it I suggest you keep your nose clean, don’t hang out with terrorists and take the oath as soon as you are able.[/quote]

But what happens if I didn’t know they had any ties to terrorists?? Oh yeah, 3 and a half years till I can take the oath!! Can’t wait.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t think this bill applies to U.S. citizens - my understanding is that only aliens can be found to be “unlawful combatants.”

Ren wrote:
I am trying to find a copy of the bill to see how true this is. I know US citizens have been held as enemy combatants in the past.

Here’s the text of the bill:

This is the language that makes me believe the habeus-stripping provisions apply only to non-citizens (note this is found in section 6 of the bill, entitled “Habeus Corpus Matters”:
[i]
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who–

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who–

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.’.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.[/i]

Note further that the language defining the jurisdiction of the commissions, one of the key limits of their power as they cannot hear cases over which they do not have jurisdiction, particularly limits them to aliens:

[i] `Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

                    `Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter 

              `Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

                    `(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.[/i] 

[/quote]

cool, thanks a lot. Quick Question though. In this part: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c1099rPe6Q:e97461:

When they talk about wrongfully aiding the enemy. Does this mean a US citizen gets tried by a military court? And would they be tried for treason? Or would they be made an enemy combatant but given the right to a lawyer?

[quote]Ren wrote:

I am trying to find a copy of the bill to see how true this is. I know US citizens have been held as enemy combatants in the past.
[/quote]

Jose Padilla, former gang member and ex-convict, was “known” to have trained in an Al Qaida camp. He was involved in a plot to detonate several apartment buildings with natural gas and radiological material to make a ‘dirty bomb’. His detainment as an enemy combatant was appealed and held. He’s being tried for conspiracy to commit murder, etc. in Miami.

Yaser Hamdi, was a U.S. Citizen fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan captured on the battlefield by the Northern Alliance. After being held, he was released to Saudia Arabia and gave up his citizenship.

John Walker Lindh, also a U.S. Citizen fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan captured by the NA on the battlefield.

This was all done without the current bill in question, but after they pass it, you could be next!

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Ren wrote:

I am trying to find a copy of the bill to see how true this is. I know US citizens have been held as enemy combatants in the past.

Jose Padilla, former gang member and ex-convict, was “known” to have trained in an Al Qaida camp. He was involved in a plot to detonate several apartment buildings with natural gas and radiological material to make a ‘dirty bomb’. His detainment as an enemy combatant was appealed and held. He’s being tried for conspiracy to commit murder, etc. in Miami.

Yaser Hamdi, was a U.S. Citizen fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan captured on the battlefield by the Northern Alliance. After being held, he was released to Saudia Arabia and gave up his citizenship.

John Walker Lindh, also a U.S. Citizen fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan captured by the NA on the battlefield.

This was all done without the current bill in question, but after they pass it, you could be next![/quote]

I am giddy with excitement. But shouldn’t those guys be charged with treason? Especially the last 2 captured on the battlefield.

[quote]Ren wrote:

cool, thanks a lot. Quick Question though. In this part: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c1099rPe6Q:e97461:

When they talk about wrongfully aiding the enemy. Does this mean a US citizen gets tried by a military court? And would they be tried for treason? Or would they be made an enemy combatant but given the right to a lawyer?[/quote]

No, not if my understanding of the jurisdiction provision is correct – the military courts can only try alien unlawful combatants, which by definition can’t be citizens.

[quote]Ren wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Exactly. If any immigrants are worried about it I suggest you keep your nose clean, don’t hang out with terrorists and take the oath as soon as you are able.

But what happens if I didn’t know they had any ties to terrorists?? Oh yeah, 3 and a half years till I can take the oath!! Can’t wait.

[/quote]

America citizens get screwed for hanging out with the wrong people and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is just another risk in a risk filled life.

In 3.5 years you will have one less worry in your life!

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Ren wrote:

cool, thanks a lot. Quick Question though. In this part: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c1099rPe6Q:e97461:

When they talk about wrongfully aiding the enemy. Does this mean a US citizen gets tried by a military court? And would they be tried for treason? Or would they be made an enemy combatant but given the right to a lawyer?

No, not if my understanding of the jurisdiction provision is correct – the military courts can only try alien unlawful combatants, which by definition can’t be citizens.[/quote]

Ok, thanks for the clarification BB.