Does the Torture Bill Apply to US Citizens or Not ????

[Junkdrawer]

NPR just did a program that implies it only applies to aliens.

...

The Definition of 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant'

The bill expands the definition of unlawful enemy combatants to include people who have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities" and people who have been declared enemy combatants under Combat Status Review Tribunals, "or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense." Under this new language, people in the United States who are not American citizens could be declared unlawful enemy combatants and held indefinitely without trial

...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6161833

The Center for Consitutional Rights (via DemocracyNow) says that the language of the bill is purposely ambiguous on the subject:

....

Yeah. And this was something that really we have had a number of conversations about, you know, with people on the Hill, some people in the White House, about the fact that an administration bill that was leaked included the word “people” instead of the word “aliens,” because the President's November 13th military order in 2001 said “non-citizens.” Well, now, the language says an unlawful enemy combatant can be any individual. And it's very clear that that means Americans. It can mean anyone in the world. There is no exclusion, you know, for Americans. And the language of who can be an enemy combatant has been tremendously expanded. So it could be, you know, not only al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, but other associated forces and just others who are unnamed. And it's any hostile act, not necessarily a military act. Am I hostile by talking about what's wrong with this, by sitting here with you? How are we going to know that? And then I end up in Guantanamo in a military commission, where the death penalty can result? This is astounding stuff.

....

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/07/1350230

It's selfish, but that's a rather big point for me.

[n2doc]

1. yes

[LiviaOlivia]

12. Yes is right. The legislation:

(1) does not exclude American citizens from being declared enemy combatants;
(2) immunizes ALL prior acts of lawbreaking under the war crimes act;
and
(3) depends, for its (un)constitutionality, on the continuing good health of Justice Stevens.

And in the meantime, the case goes through the courts, the legislation takes effect and people disappear.



Hope you didn't write any checks to Greenpeace. Will they declare DUers as enemy combatants?

[Tellurian]

51. JD, I don't know if this has been posted...pretty comprehensive

Hidden Stinger in Bush NIE release

by Valtin
Tue Sep 26, 2006

I was reading the release of Bush's NIE, which he has redacted to make his case that we must "stay the course" in Iraq. But my eyes popped out when I got to the end of it.

Here's the link:

Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism:

Implications for the United States” dated April 2006

http://counterterrorismblog.org/



"Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint."

This sinister amalgam is to equate leftist, nationalists, anti-globalization activists, etc., with fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. It assumes such terrorism will occur, and, as such, is a set-up for a crackdown on such groups.

If the suspension of habeas corpus, the spread of state terror through the use of torture, and the labelling of U.S. citizens as "combatants" isn't enough, this quote should remind us of how the government is thinking of handling those who won't follow the Decider's dictates.


See also David Cole's article in the Harvard Law Review,

The New McCarthyism: Repeating History in the War on Terrorism

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/v.38/cole ...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/26/205814/469

I hope these links answer your question..Yes, the rules can be applied to US!

[Junkdrawer]

2. Say, you don't think NPR is lying to us again.... n/t

[Junkdrawer]

7. It's soooo NPR "It's not about YOU. It's about those evil foreigners..

who are out to get you."

[ForFuxakes]

3. I think I does...

Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) ALIEN- The term `alien' means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.

`(2) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:

`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

`(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

`(3) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means an individual who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

`(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.

[flobee1]

4. UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT

This term is so vauge it could mean me or you

[Lone_Star_Dem]

6. Not that that was an accident.

They wanted it to apply to you and me and whomever they chose to pin it on.

[madmusic]

5. They apply The Patriot Act to citizens

Artist falls afoul of Patriot Act
Artist's use of 'harmless' bacteria spurs investigation
by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

In a highly unusual use of the USA Patriot Act, which its creators say was designed to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States, The New York Times reports that three artists have been served subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury June 15. The grand jury is considering whether or not to charge Stephen Kurtz, an art professor at the University of Buffalo whose art involves the use of biology equipment, with "possession of biological agents."

Mr. Kurtz's problems with the Patriot Act began in May when he dialed 911 to report his wife of 20 years was unresponsive. When paramedics came to his house, one of them noticed that Kurtz had laboratory equipment, which he used in his art exhibits. The paramedics reported this to police and the FBI sealed off his house.

Authorities later said that Kurtz's wife had died of "heart failure," but he wasn't allowed to return to his home for two days while the FBI confiscated his equipment, and biological samples. They also carted off his books, personal papers and computer. Eventually his home was declared "not a danger to public health," but the FBI did not return his equipment.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0607/dailyUpdate.html

And part of this new bill can, and since it can, it will, apply to U.S. citizens.

[Bluerthanblue]

8. Absolutely yes, and isn't even required- It's already happened..

For Government, Wide Latitude

Federal prosecutors acknowledge they wield a formidable legal armament. Because of the USA Patriot Act and the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and as a result of court decisions and presidential orders, federal agents have wider latitude to conduct searches, tap phones, read e-mails and examine finances. The government has reactivated the military tribunals for the first time since World War II.

No previous president has asserted the right to designate American-born defendants as enemy combatants, Sonnett said. President Bush has named two, Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, both of whom are being held in a military brig in South Carolina.

U.S. Attorney Michael Battle, whose region encompasses Lackawanna, said his office never explicitly threatened to invoke enemy combatant status but that all sides knew the government held that hammer. "I don't mean to sound cavalier, but the war on terror has tilted the whole landscape," he said. "We are trying to use the full arsenal of our powers.

"I'm not saying the ends justify the means," he continued, "but you have to remember that we're protecting the rights of those who are being targeted by terror as well as the rights of the accused."

This is from 2003!

please read at link:
http://www.notinourname.net/restrictions/no-choice-but-guilty-jul03.htm

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Yes, it would seem that way.

[onenote]

10. don't think so

In addition to defining unlawful enemy combatant, the law defines the term alien to exclude US citizens and as far as I can tell, the bill applies to "alien unlawful enemy combatants". Again, this is my understanding based on my reading of the bill. If there is a specific provision I've missed, please point it out and I'll stand corrected. (I should add that, in my opinion, this bill is equally odious and should be opposed with equal fervor whether or not it is liimited to non US citizens).

[EFerrari]

11. A Representative WU in the House was arguing that their bill

did apply to US citizens because the word "alien" was missing in one passage. I'm sorry but I don't remember the page number he gave.

[LiviaOlivia]

14. It applies to US CITIZENS

Do you think that BushCo will let Jose Padilla have due process?

a must read:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/imagine-giving-donald-rumsfeld.html

and read:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[onenote]

20. Still looking for a specific citation

Yes the bill very broadly defines unlawful enemy combatants. No argument there. But it describing the jurisdiction of the military commissions, it is quite specific in referring to "alien" unlawful enemy combatants.

If there is a specific citation to support the contention that citizens are subject to the provisions of the bill rather than the ordinary civilian courts, I'm still waiting to see it.

And before anyone goes off on me about this, let me be clear. I oppose this bill with all the fiber of my being and have called my Senators to make that clear. But I don't think it would have made my argument about this bill very convincing if in my calls I had said that the bill covers US citizens when that doesn't appear to be the case. If I could show that it did, it would be one thing. But I'm not into lobbing softballs to the opposition. This bill doesn't have to reach US citizens for it to be an outrage and frankly, if it turns out that it does cover US citizens (and again, I'd like to see a citation that establishes that beyond a definition of a term that, when used in the bill, is modified by the term "alien") I won't hate the bill any more than I already do.

Put another way, if it turns out I'm right and the bill doesn't cover US citizens, do you feel better about it? I don't.

[Junkdrawer]

22. I'm told that on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Reid said it DOES APPLY...

to US citizens. I'll wait for the transcript, but there it is.

[onenote]

25. again. If someone shows me where it does that, I'll stand corrected

Although, as I said, whether it does or doesn't is besides the point. The bill is an abomination either way.

[LiviaOlivia]

32. Why can't you look it up for yourself ?

?????

[onenote]

37. I have read the bill. Have you? And if so, point me to the section.

[BelgianMadCow]

41. Can you link to the bill you've read? Would be good for this thread

A lot of the last minute actions concerned exactly the alien or not alien I think. So we need the version of the bill that was actually passed.

I unfortunately put weight in what Reid said, namely applies to US Citzens as well (verbatim) in his final statement, and it went unchallenged by Frist afterwards.

I think Reid at least should know what he is voting on.

But I'm all for facts - not that they would bring relief as you rightly point out.

[onenote]

43. here's a link

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6166eh.txt.pdf

This is the bill as it passed the House. No changes were made in the Senate (which is why it didnt have to go back to the House or to conference and could go to the WH for signature today).

[Junkdrawer]

35. Transcript of Reid's prepared statement....

...

Second, this bill authorizes a vast expansion of the President's power to detain people – even U.S. citizens -– indefinitely and without charge. No procedures for doing so are specified, no due process is provided, and no time limit on the detention is set.

At the same time, the bill would generally deprive federal judges of the power to review the legality of many such detentions. This is true even in the case of a lawful permanent resident arrested and held in the United States, and even if that person happens to be completely innocent.

...



http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73424

[treestar]

63. From the poster who provided the quote above, look at (4)

Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) ALIEN- The term `alien' means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.

`(2) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:

`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

`(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

`(3) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means an individual who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

`(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Whatever the Chimp decides.

(Yes.)

[buddhamama]

15. an "unlawful combatant" is whatever, whomever

the government says is. The answer is YES!

[BelgianMadCow]

16. It does. Reid said so in the most certain of tones, unchallenged by Frist

in his final remarks. No doubt about it.

[Junkdrawer]

18. That's what I thought. God damn NPR soothing the drive home...

again.

[Marie26]

24. If it does, it must have been

sneaked in at the last minute by Bush & Cheney. The published draft still applies only to "aliens", but reports are that Bush made some changes when he came to Capitol Hill today. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he changed it back.

[BelgianMadCow]

40. Dems stated often that there were last minute changes between the version

out of comittee (on friday I believe) and the one from monday.

The fact that Reid brought it up in his final statement and was not challenged by Frist on that point syas a lot imho.

That being said, we need the full text of the Bill. I haven't seen it.

[Junkdrawer]

42. They snuck in the "applies to citizens" thing - if people understood...

that it was their rights that were taken away, they might not be too happy with the legislation.

[Sir Jeffrey]

17. Okay...

I've read most of this bill...or at least the parts of it you can read without having access to a law library.

Two scary parts:

1. The word "alien" is used in this bill to appear as though it limits the applicability to non-citizens, but this is deceiving. Power is not necessarily in who writes the law...definitions vary as to whether someone is an alien or person or lawful enemy combatant. Rather, true power lies in who interprets the law.

This bill gives the PRESIDENT and any subordinate agent he wishes (read Don Rumsfeld) to authorize the power to DEFINE the scope of this bill. As such, if Rummy thinks you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist. Period. Regardless of what the "definition" says.

There is a small compromise in this bill that requires the Secretary of Defense to inform the relavent committees in Congress as to who is being held and for what, and these have to be made public, but there is a loophole large enough to fly a plane through...the Secretary can classify as much of the disclosure as he wants. So basically, you'll see a name, age, where they're from, what they're held for, and a bunch of black bars.

What is scarier than that? Incredibly, point 2 is.

2. Not only can you be determined by the executive branch to be subject to this bill, you would be subject to the elimination of your right to challenge the legality of your detention. Simply put, no court has jurisdiction to respond to a writ of habeas corpus. This is huge.

If you are not allowed to contest the legality of your detention, you essentially have no rights anymore. Your rights now flow from the govt instead of from the fact that you were born with the rights mentioned in our founding documents. In other words, the current govt is rewriting the founding documents to make itself (not "god") as the source of your rights.

There are provisions in US law that allow for the removal of citizenship because of certain types of behavior. Joining a foreign army, naturalization in another country, joining a terrorist organization, aiding or abetting a terrorist organization, providing aid and comfort to terrorists, etc. See where I'm going with this?

Example:

The President, acting through his authorized agent the Secretary of Defense, says you, by attending a political rally, are "aiding and abetting terrorism" and have thus forfeited your citizenship. This could make you an "unlawful enemy combatant" under this new bill since no court has jurisdiction to hear your case. You are now stuck in a military commission.

Now lets say that you wish to challenge this decision as a US citizen, but guess what, you lost your citizenship according to Don Rumsfeld.

Now lets say you try to assert your basic human rights under the Geneva Convention. Too bad. This bill takes those rights away too.

[Junkdrawer]

19. So, at this moment in time, I'm not in a jail being tortured SIMPLY...

because the pResident or anyone he chooses has not decided to put me in jail.


And if I am picked up, they don't have to tell a soul. My family may think I'm lost, kidnapped, ran away, what ever.

What a pleasant thought, huh?

[buddhamama]

21. you got it. in a nutshell

[Sir Jeffrey]

33. I was thinking of this example...

Suppose you have a friend who is from Iraq. He has an arabic name but is a naturalized citizen of the US.

Suppose he just so happens to have the same name as a wanted terrorist. Suppose US Intelligence gets it wrong AGAIN and they arrest the wrong guy.

Your friend has just disappeared into the brave new world created by this bill...only now, he has no legal recourse to challenge his detention.

[onenote]

26. the term alien is specifically defined

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

Not much to interpret.

[Sir Jeffrey]

31. Read the rest of the bill...

then reread my post.

If Don Rumsfeld classifies you as a terrorist, you are a terrorist. There is no check on his classification REGARDLESS of what the definition says.

As such, you are no longer a citizen of the US after that. Once that designation occurs, you have NO RIGHTS.

[onenote]

36. if you say so. Not true. But if you say so.

Donald Rumsfeld doesn't decide citizenship. Sorry.

[Sir Jeffrey]

39. Hard to argue with that reasoning...

Did you bother to read the bill?

Go hear and read it:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/military_commissions_bill_1.pdf

I've already dealt with who interprets the definitions of "unlawful enemy combatant", "alien", and "citizen". Your claim that the definitions are already solid ignores the crucial fact that there is NO TRUE OVERSIGHT for the "definer" i.e. Rumsfeld and Bush. And since Rumsfeld has the authority to censor as much of the disclosure report as he wants, I'm missing the part where we ever find out if there was a misapplication of this law.

Some other highlights:

Section 948 (b)(f): Elimination of the right to assert Geneva Convention rights

Section 948h: The Secretary of Defense convenes the commissions.

Section 948 (k)(4): The Secretary of Defense ultimately controls the proceedings.

Section 949a (b)(1): The Secretary of Defense controls the rules of evidence.

Section 949 (a)(1): The Secretary of Defense sets the rules for the defense to assemble witnesses and evidence.

Section 950f: The Secretary of Defense establishes the military court of appeal/review.

Section 950fff: Wrongfully aiding the enemy shall be punishable under this bill.

Section 8 (3)(A): The President gets to interpret the Geneva Conventions.

Second to last page: Retroactively applied to any acts committed as far back as 1997.

You keep saying you want a specific cite to where it says "this applies to US citizens". Sorry, you aren't going to get it laid out like that. They're not going to put down on paper what they want to do. You have to look at the evidence, the history, the loopholes, and the comments they make about "Anti-war folks aid terrorists". Once you are in this system, you have no rights. There is no oversight.

All I can tell you is that true power comes from those who interpret laws...not from those who write laws. Not only does this bill allow Bush and RUmsfeld to interpret the laws, there is no true oversight for their interpretation.

I'm going to bed now. This day sucked.

[onenote]

44. i agree that yesterday sucked

But you've still not come close to making the case that this law applies to US citizens. And yes, I've read the law, quite thoroughly in fact.

You gloss over several facts. One is that the jurisdiction of the military commissions is expressly limited to alien unlawful enemy combatants. And that the term alien is defined unambiguously to exclude US citizens. You also skip over the fact that there is ultimately review of the actions of the military commissions in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Also while you claim that the Act gives chimpy and his ilk broad authority to interpret every single term of the law, you haven't cited to where that authority is given in the act, probably because its not there.
It does, horrifically, give chimpy the right to re-interpret the Geneva Conventions, which is in and of itself reason to hate this law. But that's not the same as saying that they can define what the term alien means or expand the jurisdiction of the military commissions. Another thing about this bill that is horrific is the limits it places on habeas corpus. But even those limits expressly apply only to petitions for habeas corpus by an "alien"...as a matter of law, courts will have the jurisdiction and authority to make an initial decision as to whether the person making the habeas petition is a citizen (in which case the law doesn't apply) or an alien (in which case the person is fucked royally).

[Sir Jeffrey]

45. Well...

Would a respectable administration avoid the loopholes and stay within the spirit of this bill? Yes, therefore I would agree with your assessment. A respectable administration would have left in the sunset provision too.

Has the present administration used loopholes in the law previously to violate the spirit of the law? Yes, and not only that, but this administration has no problem outright violating any federal laws it deems necessary to violate (FISA, for example).

The one who applies the law BY DEFINITION interprets the law. Judicial review is after the initial designation...and in this case, the first non-military commission to review the case comes not only after the trial (which Rumsfeld controls), but after the "independent" military review (also controlled by Rumsfeld). And there is no guarantee that the DC courts would ever hear the case anyway because the rights of the accused flow not from international treaties but instead through the rules Rumsfeld sets granted him under this bill.

If you trust them to interpret the laws, you are willing to extend them a lot more leeway than me.

1. "One is that the jurisdiction of the military commissions is expressly limited to alien unlawful enemy combatants. And that the term alien is defined unambiguously to exclude US citizens."

Yes, the law is written that way, but again, if you have no true oversight anywhere in the system the law could say it applies to French Canadians, for example, and we'd have no way of knowing whether it is being applied properly.

2. "You also skip over the fact that there is ultimately review of the actions of the military commissions in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia."

The "ultimate appeal" to the DC court is after we've had the military reviews I mentioned in my post. And, why don't you go look at the composition of the DC Court of Appeals. See if 10 of 14 Republican appointees (with two current vacancies) makes you feel any better. Besides, all they need to do is claim "national security" and black bar evidence even if the case is allowed to get there.

And again, no court in the land has jurisdiction to hear a petition for writ of habeas corpus if you have been deignated an "alien" or an "unlawful enemy combatant".

3. "Also while you claim that the Act gives chimpy and his ilk broad authority to interpret every single term of the law, you haven't cited to where that authority is given in the act, probably because its not there."

As the head of the executive branch and Commander in Chief, the President (and by extension the Secretary of Defense) wields the authority in this bill. Who do you think they are talking about in this bill?

Again, the bill is not going to be drafted as "Rumsfeld has the authority to arrest war-protesters and strip them of their citizenship" because that wouldn't pass. Laws aren't written that way. They are intentionally vague, and obvious loopholes can give you insight in what the true purpose of the law is.

Remember when we were going to outlaw soft money? McCain-Feingold? Now we have more soft money than ever before through 527 groups...because there was a loophole in the law that was left there INTENTIONALLY because neither party wanted to get rid of soft money.

I am telling you this bill has the same kind of loophole. Harry Reid even said it could apply to US citizens, so it isn't just me. He isn't talking about the language in the bill...unless it was changed. He is talking about the loopholes I'm talking about.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73424

4."It does, horrifically, give chimpy the right to re-interpret the Geneva Conventions, which is in and of itself reason to hate this law. But that's not the same as saying that they can define what the term alien means or expand the jurisdiction of the military commissions."

Who designates military combatants? The President as Commander in Chief...but he typically delegates that to Secretary of Defense.

Have we ever locked someone up indefinitely only to find out years later they were innocent? What do you think it matters what the law says if the President/Secretary of Defense makes the initial designation...and by making that designation strips the detainee of the rights pursuant to this bill?

5."Another thing about this bill that is horrific is the limits it places on habeas corpus. But even those limits expressly apply only to petitions for habeas corpus by an "alien"...as a matter of law, courts will have the jurisdiction and authority to make an initial decision as to whether the person making the habeas petition is a citizen (in which case the law doesn't apply) or an alien (in which case the person is fucked royally)."

Again, once the designation is made my point is that the person is fucked royally no matter what...and some of the points I made in my last post about the Secretary of Defense controlling virtually all aspects of the case should give you chills.

But we'll see what happens in the coming months. The next time Rumsfeld has to make a disclosure is in December.

[onenote]

46. the reason I have pushed this debate

In case the method behind my madness hasn't become clear, let me explain.

We have to hone our arguments against this bill. While a minority of Democrats, for reasons of political expediency, cowardice, or otherwise, voted for the bill, the majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted against it. The repubs are going to try and use that against all Democrats over the next five weeks. We need to be prepared to give a short, simple answer that not only responds to the attack, but that puts the other side on the defensive.

Now, I think we have to start from the assumption that the knee-jerk reaction of John Q Public is that the US Government is going to sneak into his house in the middle of the night and cart him off to some secret prison for trial before some military tribunal. To the extent we argue that Democrats opposed the bill because that could happen, we had better be able to back up that claim or we not only will fail to persuade John Q Public that the bill is bad, we will undermine everything else we say. The problem that I see is that while we can make the claim that the bill threatens US citizens, the other side can simply come back, as I have, and point to very specific language in the bill that purports to limit it to non-citizens. To the extent we have a response to that, as the posts in this thread have shown, its a paragraph, not a sentence. If we need a paragraph to answer the other side's one sentence claim, we lose. Its not pretty, its not right, but its political reality.

It is for that reason that I think that we need to focus on our strongest, clearest arguments against this legislation. Arguments that I believe are harder for the repubs to quickly rebut. Arguments that force them into the position of offering a paragraph in response to our sentence. I think we should be hammering away at the following message: We Democrats opposed this bill because it breaks with fundamental, basic American principles by giving too much power to the President and by sanctioning treatment of prisoners that goes against core values and international norms, leaving our own military personnel vulnerable and putting us, as a nation, at greater risk, rather than making us more safe.

[Sir Jeffrey]

55. Well...

let me just say that the vast majority of people in the country are not going to get bogged down in legal minutae. And most are very angry at this govt and are waiting for someone to speak the truth about what is happening.

IMO Our biggest problem isn't how we frame the debate now that it has passed. Our biggest problem now is that the 7 Senate Dems that voted for this thing sold us out for political expediency. Now the argument becomes "Well, if the bill was so bad then why did Stabenow and others in your party vote for it?". They didn't even attempt to filibuster. "Well, if it was so bad then why didn't you filibuster? You filibustered some judges a few months back."

When, not if, Bush starts abusing this law, the same damned Dems who didn't fight this with all their might are going to be smeared and humiliated for it.

[Cerridwen]

50. The Patriot Act provides the means to remove citizenship from

U.S. citizens.

See post #49.

[onenote]

58. nope

The DSEA was a the Feb 7 2003 draft of the Patriot Act II. It was never enacted. And the expatriation provision, as best I can determine, was not part of the Patriot Act renewal that was passed or any other law enacted.

[bigtree]

I think it can involve citizens as part of a case against a foreigner

as providing material support through some tangential connection, like a charity, for example.

[Tellurian]

52. Yep, just read..

If it so happens you send a $5 donation for an Orphan in A-stan, your name is on a LIST..
and could cause serious problems further on down the road.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

23. The Gitmo Attys are afraid they'll try to declare them "enemy combatants"

n/t

[stop the bleeding]

27. It's this easy....

Bang - you are an enemy combatant, proof??? I don't need no stinking proof. I know it is a simplistic way of looking at it, but nothing would surprise me now.

[guinivere]

28. The Decider will decide who it applies to and when.

People who made fun of * in grammar school - it applies. People who make fun of * now - it applies. Anybody on the street - it applies.

[TahitiNut]

29. Just try and PROVE you're a citizen! Remember, no habeas corpus ...

... and no judicial review. Just who the FUCK is going to hold these people to any rule of law when the sole authority for locking you up and throwing away the key is an unchecked and unbalanced pResident (or his puppeteer)?

All they have to do is accuse a person of being an 'unlawful enemy combaatant' and that's it. Since there's absolutely no appeal or revieww, just how the hell is anyone going to say otherwise??

[Junkdrawer]

34. You're right. No day in court. Nada zip zilch. Shades of Pinochet's Chile.

Families making desperate pleas into thin air...

[onenote]

59. wrong. No habeas corpus if you're an alien

If you file a petition for habeas corpus and the government claims you're not entitled because you're not a citizen, the court receiving the petition will have to make a factual determination as to whether you're a citizen. If so, you have the right to have your petition heard. If not, you're screwed.

[Quiet_Dem_Mom]

30. The president of the American Bar Assoc sent a letter to the Senators

expressing the ABA's view on the provisions of the bill. Of course, if you go by the media reports only the loony-left terrorist-coddling Dems are against the bill. x(

QDM

Link to PDF of letter: http://www.abanet.org/poladv/letters/109th/natlsec/SenMilCom92706.pdf

----
The ABA is strongly opposed to the provision in S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act
of 2006, that would strip judicial review of existing habeas corpus claims for detainees in
U.S. custody. The writ of habeas corpus, which ensures protection against unjust
government imprisonment, is one of the pillars of our constitutional system. It serves as
an important check on the power of executive detention and embodies the fundamental
principle that one should not be imprisoned by the government without opportunity for a
fair and impartial determination that the detention is in accordance with the Constitution
and laws of the United States.

----
The ABA believes these provisions may invite future abuse, since they apply to any alien
(including a lawful permanent resident of the United States) being held by the
government outside the country. Thus, once a non-citizen were, transported from this
country to a United States facility abroad he would lose his habeas corpus rights and be
relegated to the truncated review provided by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
The ABA opposes this provision and the retroactive removal of pending habeas corpus
claims from the U.S. court system. We understand that Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA)
and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) may offer an amendment to strike this provision from S. 3930
and we urge you to support this amendment if offered.

[mmonk]

38. Whom ever and where ever the adminstration decides

in its judgement and its judgement alone it applies. The executive branch is thus in this sense, judge, jury, and executioner.

[leftofthedial]

47. if you are aiding the "terrists" you have no right to claim citizenship

AND you are an enemy combatant

[angstlessk]

48. I looked up 'domestic terrorists' and found this...

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/presley.htm

Here from Appendix B

APPENDIX B.

SOME OF THE ACTIVE GROUPS OPERATING WITHIN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PAST DECADE THAT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "TERRORIST":

African National Prison Organization (ANPO). An arm of the African Peoples Socialist Party.

Animal Rights. Principally against use of animals for any purpose beyond their natural existence.

Armed Resistance Group (ARG). aka Revolutionary Fighting Group, Red Guerrilla Faction. This group has been characterized in 1988 as "tired and aging revolutionaries."

Greenpeace. Principally environmental-use extremists.

Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Reorganized and relocated several arms of its group in 1989.

Macheteros. Puerto Rican nationalists.

Ohio Seven.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Very public-relations oriented.

Radical Feminist Organizing Committee (RFOC). Driven-out of the feminist movement in 1989, operating independently.

RAMBOC (Restore a More Benevolent Order Coalition). Targets and actively pursues the US assets and people of foreign groups with terrorist links, such as the PLO, SWAPO, ANC, etc...

Rolling Thunder. aka American Foundation for Accountability; primary focus is to draw attention to the POW/MIA issue from Vietnam War.

Satanic Cult. Associated with attempted bombing of churches and kidnapping, and animal sacrifices, tombstone vandalism, and miscellaneous actions.

Skinheads (SKA). Groups consists of both racist and anti-racist factions.

SS Action Group. Principally anti-Semitic.

(From: Frank G. McGuire, Security Intelligence Sourcebook: Who's Who in Terrorism, (Silver Spring, MD, Interests, Ltd., 1990).

[Cerridwen]

49. A U.S. citizen's citizenship can/may be revoked under a portion

of the Patriot Act...

Other provisions of the DSEA, including Section 501, amend the “expatriation statute”— the law defining when and under what circumstances an American citizen can be stripped of citizenship—to provide that “an American could be expatriated if, with the intent to relinquish nationality, he becomes a member of, or provides material support to, a group that the United States has designated as a ‘terrorist organization.’” Importantly, “(t)his provision would also make explicit that the intent to relinquish nationality need not be manifested in words, but can be inferred from conduct.” Thus, whenever a U.S. citizen is accused of “providing material support” to a terrorist organization, he or she could be subjected to losing citizenship status and removed from the country. Similarly, Section 503 grants the Attorney General the power to deny admission to the U.S. or remove from the country any individual that he determines he has “reason to believe would pose a danger to the national security of the United States.”

So, the Patriot Act removes your citizenship thereby making you an "alien" at which time the provisions in the "Torture Bill" now apply to you.

[onenote]

56. this would be more convincing if the DSEA had been enacted

But it wasn't. It was a provision in the Feb. 7 2003 "leaked draft" of Patriot II. That legislation was never enacted. And as far as I know (and I've checked pretty thoroughly) the expatriation provision has never been enacted as part of any other bill.

[treestar]

62. EXACTLY! They will find a way to strip the person of citizenship

manipulate the words of the statutes, as they will "material support to terrorists."

Anyone with any experience with the federal government knows that even in the best of times they will twist the words to mean what they want them to mean. This power mad administration will have no trouble doing that, in fact, don't they already float the idea that opposing * on anything is to "support" terrorists?

They will define "material support to terrorists" to include the most ridiculous, broad based actions, like they have interpreted "aggravated felony" to include common law misdemeanors.

[onenote]

64. as noted, this isn't the law

the expatriation provision was never enacted.

[treestar]

53. Does it provide for the opportunity to prove you are a citizen

before you are indefinitely detained? If not, then it can easily apply to citizens. The government need only claim you're not a citizen. If there is no place in which to challenge that, they can say it of anyone.

Besides, I don't see that birth in the US is some sort of aristocratic privilege. What made America great was the idea of justice for all. We don't have noble classes, that is, some people entitled to justice when they are accused and others considered beneath human and subject to detention and punishment without trial.

[Junkdrawer]

54. And does it provide for a way oversee that US citizens ARE given...

their habeas Corpus rights. Given that this is BushCo we're talking about, they'll do ANYTHING as long as there's no chance of getting caught.

[onenote]

57. sure. You file a petition for habeas corpus

The government objects claiming you're not entitled to file because you aren't a citizen. The court then has to decide, are you a citizen, in which case you still have habeas corpus rights or are you not a citizen, in which case you're screwed.

[treestar]

60. In fact it doesn't matter what the issue is, whether you are a citizen

or whether you are in fact supporting a terror organization - if the decider can decide that without any relief to the courts, they can just accuse and then detain and that's it. That's what people don't seem to get when they say it only applies to terrorists. It's being outside the rule of law that is the problem - the decider can just decide you are a terrorist and that's it, no right to defend yourself. Once they get to wield that type of power over aliens, they won't be able to wait until they can get it over citizens. Injustice is the issue, not whether or not someone is a US citizen.

[LSK]

61. Randi just had a Constitutional Lawyer who said it does