General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus [View all]Fiendish Thingy
(15,611 posts)that's the status quo; it offers no new protections to US citizens.
Glenn Greenwald writing on Salon.com:
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.
(snip)
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the requirement of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the compromise reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. Thats because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The compromise was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but thats because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.
(snip)
Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.
Entire article at:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
FarLeftFist, you really should read this scholarly article by a noted Constitutional litigator; it might expand your point of view beyond repeatedly quoting sec. 1032.
If you could be convinced that US citizens are not protected from indefinite detention without trial, and that the president /executive branch reserves the right to detain anyone they deem to offer "significant" support to terrorists, would you be against the bill? Or do you feel the presidents (ANY president) should have the power to detain anyone without trial?
What people get confused about, is the Constitution doesn't just gaurantee rights to US citizens; it's supposed to dictate the conduct of the government towards all people (i.e. the rule of law, not men). That's how you prevent tyranny, not by giving up your rights in an "emergency", even in a "war".
Brave citizens must prioritize freedom over safety, despite the fact that in this Global War On Terror, although there are risks to our safety, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE the US will be overthrown by Al Qaeda or the Taliban or any other terrorist organization, and therefore NO CHANCE we will live under occupation by Muslim extremists (unless one is a teabagger and believe to already be true).