[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
It took 4 days to come up with this? Perhaps orion should listen to his own youtube post and read his own link.
Graham, on at lest 4 occasions, points out that the provisions do NOT apply to American citizens (and legal residents).
He is very fuzzy about the American citizen who happens to be an enemy combatant–here specifically designated as an member or supporter of Al Qaeda who is caught in an act of war. This provision is unnecessary, since it is already legal under Quirin and after the Padilla rulings. What the bill does is define and limit the military involvement, something which I personally think is not desirable at all.
Graham is right to make the distinction between acts of war or piracy, and criminal acts. He is in error on several other points, not limited to the Padilla rulings. Next, instead of Orrin Hatch, here is what Carl Levin–who wrote the bill–had to say:
“Al Qaeda is at war with us,” said Sen. Levin. “They brought that war to our shores. This is not just a foreign war. They brought that war to our shores on 9/11. They are at war with us. The Supreme Court said, and I am going to read these words again, ‘There is no bar to this nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.’”
Sen. Levin, then why do we need this part of the bill at all? The weak answer answer is codify and make clear and delimit the military’s responsibilities.
Hysteria is not infectious; I have not caught it. [/quote]
What you do seem to get is that what constitutes a “member of al Quaeda” is up to the executive branch without any review whatsoever.
Time to get hysterical, because if they kidnap you, you will do what exactly?
Deny that you are a terrorist?
Demand proof?
Demand to see a lawyer?
Dont worry, after a bit of freedom tickling, perfectly ok too I guess, your attitude will be properly adjusted. [/quote]
You are asking for more singing lessons?
Some homework:
Carl Levin–who “wrote” the law, orion, not Orrin Hatch–had this to say, in bureaucrateeze:
“First, modifies section 1031 of the bill, as requested by the Administration, to assure that the provision, which provides a statutory basis for the detention of individuals captured in the course of hostilities conducted pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), to make sure that those provisions and that statutory basis is consistent with existing authority that has been upheld in the courts and neither limits nor expands the scope of activities authorized by the AUMF.”
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/floor-statement-on-the-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fiscal-year-2012
Why bother? His prior explanation–which you, orion, provided but perhaps did not read–" The Supreme Court said, and I am going to read these words again, 'There is no bar to this nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant."
This is not just any random quote, it is Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the plurality in Hamdi
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-6696.pdf on page 11.
She specifically cites the AUMF as sufficient legislative authority to detain enemy combatants–whether citizens or not-- in military authority.
I know how you hate “walls of text,” orion, so here is the Wiki version of Hamdi: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld - Wikipedia
Please read the second sentence–you can do that much, can’t you, orion, as part of the singing lesson: “The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.”
There is no suspension of habeas corpus; the Supreme Court affirmed the right of habeas corpus in Hamdi, and nothing in Mr Levin’s bill–despite Mr. Graham’s errors–revokes that right.
So why bother at all with this provision in the bill? O’Connor wrote that the AUMF was suffiicient legislative authority to detain combatants, that they had the right to habeas, etc. What Mr. Levin’s bill does is “codify” the responsibility of the military in detention–it is delimited by it–and provides the legislative authority to transfer combatants from military to civilian courts.
See why I just don’t feel the hysteria? (But why I think it is stupid and unnecessary?) Mr. Levin’s bill is simply one more link in a long chain of law, including Quirin and the War Powers Act and Hamdi, which allows for the prosecution of war and the defines the legal status of enemy combatants. Contrary to your hysteria, they get rights, too.
Now, if you were truly worried about the erosion of civil rights, I would look to your own backyard, where politicians and technocrats are conspiring to deprive you of your democratic rights and institutions. Good luck, there.
