[byncnombmub]

Here is the final text of the Senate Bill that passed:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...cP2Ca:e548990:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."



They're sticking with existing law. And existing law, as determined by the SCOTUS, says that the military can detain American citizens indefinitely.

Here's the opinon, By Justice O'Connor, on the Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld case of 2004:

http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/su...s/hamvrum.html

"There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of . . . the law of war." While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. . . . Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be "part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners" and "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States”; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.

In light of these principles, it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention. Because detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war, in permitting the use of "necessary and appropriate force," Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here."

[Siuchingach]

FIRE THIS ROTTEN CONGRESS.

[casinobonbiner]

During World War II several American citizens were incarcerated for allegedly spying for and cooperating with Germany. Then there were the Japanese that were sent to internment camps. In other words during a time of war the government detaining persons they believe to be involved with enemy forces is nothing new.

[Aizutox]

During World War II several American citizens were incarcerated for allegedly spying for and cooperating with Germany. Then there were the Japanese that were sent to internment camps. In other words during a time of war the government detaining persons they believe to be involved with enemy forces is nothing new.

That's true. But there is a major difference today. The "War on Terror" is very different, because it can last forever. There is no nation that can surrender to us and end the war.

[Voliscietle]

THERE IS NO WAR.... THUS, ANY DETENTION IS PEACE TIME DETENTION.

[awagsFare]

IF THEY'RE OUTSIDE U.S. TERRITORY, JUST SHOOT THEM.

[jabader]

IF YOU HAVEN'T GOT THE BALLS TO DECLARE WAR,

SHUT UP AND GO FUCK YOURSELVES.

[forebirdo]

THERE IS NO WAR.... THUS, ANY DETENTION IS PEACE TIME DETENTION.

I agree. This is very troubling. It's a handoff of extraordinary power to the Executive Branch. There is a reason that the beginning and ending of wars are supposed to be managed by Congress.

[ddxbovMQ]

I agree. This is very troubling. It's a handoff of extraordinary power to the Executive Branch. There is a reason that the beginning and ending of wars are supposed to be managed by Congress.

and the alternative is what? just ignore the fact that there people plotting the death of americans every day? should we just wait until some of us are dead and then try to find the preps? oh, can't do that because they are suicide bombers and they will also be dead.

I am not saying this is totally right, but the alternative is unacceptable.

[DoniandaCoado]

Who wrote the bill?

[soipguibbom]

and the alternative is what? just ignore the fact that there people plotting the death of americans every day? should we just wait until some of us are dead and then try to find the preps? oh, can't do that because they are suicide bombers and they will also be dead.

I am not saying this is totally right, but the alternative is unacceptable.

Could we, maybe, arrest people and prosecute them in a court of law?

[PypeDeft]

I've tried to debate this with him in another thread. He thinks that his liberty trumps American lives and that the government should not be given the tools to do what they are constitutionally obligated to do.

Constitutionally obligated? No, no, no. This authorization to use military force goes completely against the Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress must declare war. Not hand off all kinds of extraordinary powers to the Executive Branch.

[moredasers]

READ THE BILL!.... (page 362)

Read Section 1032 REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY ....

(2) Covered Persons...[/B].
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co-ordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack of attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

Then go down to paragraph 4 ..Waivers For National Security where waivers are extended to US Citizens and Legal Resident Aliens.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...12s1867pcs.pdf

Did you read the OP?

Levin himself said that the military can detain citizens. But it's because of an earlier SCOTUS decision.

I laid all of this out in the OP.

[reawnvam]

Post the relevant section!

How can you not know it?!?!?

Congress declares war and grants letters of marque and reprisal...

The Executive has very little power under the Constitution.


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

[Gaxiciverfere]

Could we, maybe, arrest people and prosecute them in a court of law?

geez, here we go again, who is saying they would not be tried when arrested? the bill does not say the president has the right to be come judge, jury, and executioner. come on jes, you are smarter than that.

[xsVfF9Em]

Constitutionally obligated? No, no, no. This authorization to use military force goes completely against the Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress must declare war. Not hand off all kinds of extraordinary powers to the Executive Branch.

the govenment, via the congress, has the obligation of national protection, if the congress deems that the circumstances mandate that some authority be given to the exec branch in order to effectivly protect the country, then that act is completely in concert with the constitution.

you may disagree with that, and you can take it up with the SCOTUS if you like, but there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

[gtyruzzel]

I don't think he is. I know his heart is in the right place, but logic evades him.

youth and a little knowledge sometimes lead to the wrong conclusions, but I agree that Jes has his heart in the right place, except for his obsession with ron paul.

[Mimsykzr]

Levin and McCain didn't write the 600+ page bill.
They just stuck their names to a bill that was handed to them.
Who wrote the bill?

[Hervams]

There is simply no need to militarize the judicial system for domestic "terrorists"

It's ridiculous.. America is a nation of big government loving cowards.

[i6mbwwdh]

Well, with Ron they are at least half-right.

don't tell me that you are a paulista too???