You're an enemy combatant if you give to a group with ties to 'terrorists'

[bigtree]

is this correct?

here's the language in the House version: (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h6166_ih.xml)

1) Unlawful enemy combatant.—(A)

“The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means—

“a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces)


so, if you give five dollars to some splinter organization which is judged to have some tie to some group they designate as a 'terrorist organization', you could be determined by Bush to be an 'enemy combatant' and subject to indefinite detention under this legislation, even if you are an American citizen.

That's how I read it.

[Kutjara]

1. And since, in the words of GOP mouthpieces...

..."Democrats support terrorists" by not giving Shrub everything he wants, the Democratic Party could be viewed as one of those organizations. See you all in Gitmo, guys!

[Atman]

2. It is all very simple, actually...you're an "Enemy Combatant" if...

...King George says you are. There really needs to be no other wording in this "bill," because a) it has provisions which allow Bush (or any president) to completely ignore it if he feels it is necessary, and b) if it didn't, Bush would write a signing statement to that effect anyway. This is all a fucking charade by a bunch of cowards and wusses too short sighted to see the damage they're doing to our republic, just to avoid being the subject of a negative campaign ad.

A shameful day in American history.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. That is the key point.

This Abomination makes it impossible to appeal the designation of UEC.

[C_U_L8R]

3. It's already begun...

the opposition party is synonymous with terrorism

(that means we are all terrorists )

[Toots]

10. the opposition party

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

18. he meant the Loyal No Position Party.

Really, typo flames are so immature.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. How long until the ACLU and American Atheists become terrorist groups? n/t

[leftchick]

5. Environmental Groups Will be Linked to this

wait and see.... :(

[bryant69]

6. Salon's review of the law said this only applies to

Non-US citizens. Not that that excuses it of course. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/28/habeas_bill/

This is the wrong way to do it, but this does address a certain gray area in the law - but I wouldn't think United States citizens fight in that grey area yet.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bigtree]

7. here's the passage from the article. not very convincing . . .

"There also remains some question whether it might be permissible under the bill to declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant," thereby stripping him of any access to the courts. Graham and other Republican senators stoutly denied this possibility during Wednesday's debate."

[woodsprite]

8. Like these current republicans are gonna tell the truth.

I guess tho that means that contributions to the Republican party will be decreasing some.

[razors edge]

9. But doesn't the patriot act

give bush the power to strip one of their citizenship?

[truebrit71]

11. Yes.

..

[FormerDem06]

12. The word PURPOSEFULLY is your loophole here

If you gave five bucks to some organization that supports terror you're not going to be labeled. BUT, if you buy the C4, or put up a terrorist in your house, then guess what?

Goodbye USA, hello Syria.

[Jim__]

17. Oh really?

who gets to decide whether your act was done purposefully? A judge? A jury? They don't have to bring you before a judge or jury.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. For example donate to PETA

and they get linked to ELF and you are an UEC.

I'll say it right now: I am an unlawful enemy combatant. I stand with all of the people of this planet in opposition to the tyranny of the corporate elites.

[Jim__]

14. "One person has already been charged ..."

According to Molly Ivins: "One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network."

So, is selling a satellite system that include the Hezbollah network purposefully and material supporting hostilities against the United States? Only your president knows for sure.

See you in the streets October 5.

[Jcrowley]

16. That's right

“The United States could detain more foreigners as enemy combatants under legislation Congress will debate this week after a last-minute change in the bill, lawmakers said on Tuesday,” reports Reuters. “Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a key negotiator on the bill, said enemy combatants would now include those who provided money, weapons and other support for terrorist groups as well as those involved in actual operations.”

Of course, many would argue that the key word here is “foreigners” and this legislation poses no threat to Americans. However, considering previous comments of “key negotiator” Lindsey Graham, we can likely expect this legislation to be used against “fifth columnists,” as the good senator from South Carolina deems all who oppose the neocon doctrine of forever war.

As Graham told the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, “the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements…. And let me tell folks who are watching what a fifth column movement is. It is a movement known to every war where American citizens will sympathize with the enemy and collaborate with the enemy. And it’s happened in every war,” never mind that this particular war is undeclared. Naturally, for the neocons, simply opposing the “war” in Iraq and the parallel “war” against terrorism at home is an act of sympathizing with the enemy, that is to say “al-Qaeda,” the black op pseudo gang crafted by the CIA and the Pentagon.