Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (52265)	10/18/2006 7:46:36 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

Wonk made an excellent submission but I think your response carries the bottom line. But even citizens who trust that this Act is legally confined to particular aliens may rue the deed. Many believe that citizen rights are simply HUMAN rights encoded by statute--as was the rationale behind the Constitution. Therefore, it is still possible to accept the legality of the Act as it relates to citizens, while lamenting the fact that it deprives certain people of fundamental rights. In this case, the "people" must be "alien" and "enemy" and "unlawful". Although these are subject to interpretation, they still provide, imo, a sufficient caution. Your post acknowledges same. Then again--war has her own rules and prerogatives... Of course, it is clear that there is a sense of "alien" in the divides of politics and religion that separate lawful citizens one from another in mind and in identity; so any Act which encourages divisiveness (whether based on thought or emotion--intellect or fear) needs to be carefully weighed. The Civil War will not be the LAST civil war. Any group in power must keep that in mind. The United States will NOT endure forever. The march of history eventually levels every mountain to the ground. But let the danger be on the outside--not within. Let the people be united in values for the sake of the good life we are all leaving for our kids. Let us not create aliens on the inside. And let us hold as much as possible to the ideal that ALL people have certain fundamental rights. If the present Administration would acknowledge this and do a better job of selling the sizzle instead of strutting the steak, there would be far less antagonism and schizophrenia generated. This political chasm that divides people on SI and creates segregationism, censureship, and toadism is a rather eery presentiment of our future. If fundamentalist Islam alienates us from one another within our shores, then we are all "aliens" to one another--and a barbaric and savage mindlessness will have toppled the greatest moral edifice of history. Bush may well have been right for the time--whether his mistakes were few or many. But what is needed now is a leader who can unite the American people. It doesn't matter from what party. America must be united. Who is that leader? Don't know...

To: Bill who wrote (52265)	10/19/2006 1:54:25 AM
From: wonk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Bill: I’ve already admitted you may be right. Perhaps I’m overly suspicious. Certainly the Attorney General states exactly the same thing. whitehouse.gov However, lets poke at this a little more. The statute clearly and affirmatively defines who is subject to trial by military commission. It needn't define all the types of individuals who are not subject. see... Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions: Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission. Remember what I said about lawyers being specific about what one can do and what one cannot do? The section you cite above grants specific authority to try “any” alien unlawful enemy combatants. It does not say “only”. It does not preclude trial of plain old “unlawful enemy combatants.” Now remember the definition of UEC. ‘‘(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means— ‘‘(i) 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);… The definition above is person, not alien. I wrote a hugely long post tying this all together showing how this law can be used against US citizens - all perfectly legal - under a reasonable interpretation, and then saw the following this evening which perhaps illustrates my concerns better. I’m stealing someone else’s work so bear with me while I plagiarize. If I told you that Congress was considering passing a law that gives the President the power, in the event of any "disaster, accident, or catastrophe" that as he deems to require it, to: - involuntarily take National Guard troops from State A and - require them to work in State B for up to a year, - in law enforcement rather than just traditional areas like disaster relief, - over the objection of both state's governors would you believe it? Probably not. And you'd be right. Congress is not considering such a bill. They passed it 3 weeks ago. So what happened with the ‘‘John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007’’? The States Rights folks will understand this pretty well. Because of the Posse Comitatus Act the federal government cannot uses the military or federalized state militia (the National Guard) to enforce the law. There are exceptions and those are contained in the Insurrection Act. Now earlier this year the Senate passed the “The National Guard Empowerment Act” as part of the Defense Appropriations bill. However, in conference, at the behest of the President & the Pentagon, they stripped most of (if not all?) the empowering provisions for the Guard, and simultaneously modified the Insurrection Act to give the President more authority over the Guard and when he can use it. For example, the circumstances in which the President can invoke such authority are greatly broadened, and now, for the first time for example, he could call up the Alabama Guard and dispatch them to Massachusetts (or vice versa), even if both Governors object. Posse Comitatus is gravely weakened and I'm quite sure that there are certain segments of the US citizenry who will not be pleased. So – long story short – you take a bill which passed the Senate, was universally supported by the State Governors – essentially change the entire substance and meaning of its the provisions in conference – amend another major law (the Insurrection Act) - stuff it into a 439 page behemoth appropriations bill - and the House and Senate pass it by unanimous consent? “(Sep 30, 2006: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.) govtrack.us Here is the Final Act. I’ll let you troll through all 439 pages (particularly see page 332). coherentbabble.com Suspend your disbelief momentarily about Sen. Leahy (since he’s a Dem) and read his remarks on this. leahy.senate.gov Here is a Goggle News Search. news.google.com Per Google - Nobody knows about this. Maybe it is the right thing to do, but shouldn’t it be discussed? I don’t believe in Legislation by Faith. I am curious at what point people start to raise their eyebrows at the continued accumulation of power by the Executive. ww