I guess I'm confused, then. If someone who gives a dollar to someone who supports an organization that supports terrorism is classified as a terrorist, I see that as getting pretty far down the road to a police state. Maybe I'm not clear myself on the differentiation between acts of war and criminal acts.
I thought the thrust of his essay was about the concentration of power in the executive. I've always had a problem with so-called "IRAs," those Independent governmental Regulatory Agencies that write regulations, police them, and punish offenders (e.g. OSHA, IRS, BATFE, etc). As I understood the essay, he's pointing out that the executive branch is now gathering that same omnipotent power onto itself. And I agree with him that that's kinda scary.
If a US citizen is introduced into this extra-legal maze, he'll be denied outside counsel or even contact with the outside world, and his defence that he's a citizen and that he doesn't fall under that law will be heard by people who won't care, and he has no recourse. Again, I'm thinking of Padilla.
I can't think of any law that hasn't been abused or misconstrued by authorities at some time or another. If the mechanism is in place, it will be used, and not necessarily only against those who fall into its strictly defined (which it isn't, in this case) parameters. As an example, consider the Branch Davidians; the FBI stated they were producing drugs even though they knew the Davidians weren't. This was done in order to get the military equipment they wanted (tanks and helicopters) to employ against the sect.
Again I ask, "what would Hitler do with this law?"
"He's a wonk, and all wonks write well. -g-"
Yeah, but he's a self-proclaimed wonk! They hardly ever write and think well! <GGG> |
