Ok so now we can hold people just because we say they are terrorist..

[southernleftylady]

without any proof for forever if we want too...
wonder how long it will take before the holding camps start to pop up in this country...

and we are supporting torture...
what is this country turning into?
what a sad day in this country's history...
we used to be a shining light for the rest of the world to look up too... what are we turning ourselves into????
I'm just sitting here shaking my head....

[baldguy]

1. No

We can hold, torture & kill people just because Bush says he THINKS they MIGHT be even REMOTELY CONNECTED to terrorists.

The only question is, do you trust George Bush?

[PurityOfEssence]

8. Sadly, it's beyond even trust

Can one assert that this incredible bungler can even get it right? We know this guy's a weasel, it's just a question of how far he'll push it. Sadly, the competence issue makes it even worse.

Something that isn't getting raised in all of this hoopla is that these new laws can be subverted. It's like the argument for invasion of privacy: if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide. This all falls apart because it's premised on the gathered information being used for the stated purposes and not just leverage against an enemy.

Remember when Tom DeLay used a Homeland Security claim to track the fleeing Texas Representatives by radar? This was a move on their part to deny a quorum and block a vote, but Bugboy invoked Homeland Security to pursue personal, political ends.

On the face of it, the fact that this new law applies to non-citizens takes some of the sting out of it. Upon examination, aiding and abetting terrorists (or merely suspected terrorists) can extend the Night and Fog to citizens. (I think I got that right; I need to do a little reading.)

What about those obstructionists in Congress? Surely they're giving material aid...

[Demit]

2. We are not "we" any longer. By Congressional decree, we now have a king.

And HE can name anyone an "enemy combatant" if he likes. No court can object. No plaintiff has standing to bring suit in court. And those ninnies who think HE will limit this to terrorists or "foreigners" will be in for a rude shock one day.

[clmbohdem]

5. That is why this law is unconstitutional and will be overturned

Article 2, the President has the power to "make treaties" it does not say make and reinterpret past binding treaties. If Congress wants to give total treaty power to King George, then they need to change the Constitution.

[Demit]

6. Who will bring the case? Before what court?

Gone is habeas corpus. Gone is judicial review. If the king declares you an enemy combatant, you don't have the right to these any longer. How will a case get to the Supreme Court, and how can you be sure of how it will rule?

[clmbohdem]

10. A challenge will come from Guantanamo prisoners

If the Supremes do not take the case, then....?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001637.php

[ShockediSay]

3. & ship'em to Syria for tortured confessions then sentence'em to death

God bless our freedoms!

PS, if you mess with the Christian Zionist agenda, you could get reported

or, for that matter, any other politically connected agenda

[ticapnews]

4. To quote Tonto from the Bill Cosby skit

"What you mean 'we' kemosabe?"

"We" are the ones who will be held as terrorists.

[suegeo]

7. What's this "we" stuff

We won't be locking anyone up without charges, trial or access to a lawyer. The crime family will.

Hell, the crime family already has.

[leftyladyfrommo]

9. So, the adm. can say DU is a terroris site and all posters are

terrorists and we can all end up in prison with no charges and no trial.

Hey, that seems to be the New American Way.

Sucks, doesn't it.