> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:29 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid > > > > I think this is an example of what Charlie is talking about when he > describes "erosion": > > ******************************************************* > http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn09302006.html > > The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of > detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush > administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks. > Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone > noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also > U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."
I see where it sorta does that, but her statement is still disingenuous. Basically, it is possible for Bush to rule that a US citizen is an unlawful enemy combatant, but the law that lets him do that specifically excludes citizens from being tried by these military commissions. I found the bill at a Georgetown Law School website. It's at: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf# search=%22military%20commission%20act%20of%202006%20text%22 http://tinyurl.com/gvyrk I quickly read through the bill...and then focused on the beginning, where the scope of the bill was set out. Let me quote from the bill: <quote> Alien unlawful enemy combatants may be tried for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions committed against the United States or its co-belligerents before, on, or after September 11, 2001. <end quote> This is the key provision of the bill, as far as I can see. (If someone else wants to also go through the bill, I'd be more than happy to have them double check my work.) There are some key words here that need to be defined....which they are in the bill: <quote> ALIEN.-The term 'alien' means an in- 3 dividual who is not a citizen of the United States..... "(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.-The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means an indi- vidual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense- "(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization-including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any interna- tional terrorist organization, or associated forces-engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in viola- tion of the law of war; "(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so en- gaged; or "(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so en- gaged. "This definition includes any individual de- termined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, before the effective date of this Act, to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but ex- cludes any alien determined by the President or the Secretary of Defense (whether on an individual- ized or collective basis), or by any competent tri- bunal established under their authority, to be (i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war), or (ii) a protected person whose trial by these military commissions would be inconsistent with Articles 64-76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. For purposes of this sec- tion, the term "protected person" refers to the cate- gory of persons described in Article 4 of the Ge- neva Convention Relative to the Protection of Ci- vilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. <end quote> Now, do I find problems with this? Yes. I think it's overly broad, and risks allowing presidents to make broad interpretations of this law to detain non-citizens on their word alone. I agree with Specter that some parts of this law are probably unconstitutional. But, the law _specifically_ addresses the treatment of aliens, not citizens. So, by this law, I think the President could declare a citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant", but he clearly could not subject a citizen to these tribunals...because...by the definition of alien given within the bill...citizens are excluded. Let me go back to my problem with this bill, and with Bush's actions in general. The main risk to liberty that I see from what Bush has done is not who he has spied on, or the imprisonment of foreign nationals. In doing this, he has pushed some boundaries with his actions, but those actions have had minimal impact on Americans and legal alien residents. For example, his use of warrentless wiretaps has not resulted in a single indictment. Where I see the problem lies is that, the claims he makes as well as his actions could set a precedent for later Presidents to act in a manner that attacks the liberties of Americans and legal aliens. Since the war on terror will probably last decades, there is a real risk of some future president having a Hoover-like domestic spying program...using Bush's precedent as justification. That's a real risk, and one that should be countered. But, given the nature and scope attack on the US on 9-11, we see a relatively modest risk to liberty in our response...compared to the risk posed earlier in our history towards smaller domestic risks. Thus, I see the claims of "an unprecedented attack on liberty" as fear mongering. Most Americans do not see the Republicans as a worst risk than Al Quida. By arguing that they are, talking about Republicans as RepubliKKKans and the new Gestapo, leftists can whip up the faithful, but do not contribute to a meaningful discussion. Discussions of ensuring that the law doesn't enable some future president to restrict American liberty may not be as stirring as yelling Gestapo, but I think they would be much more productive. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
