> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ritu > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:14 AM > To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' > Subject: RE: We Will Not Be Afraid > > Dan Minette wrote; > > > 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. > > I am curious about how you reached this conclusion. The Bill nowhere > says that this law is meant only for aliens, and the term 'Unlawful > Enemy Combatant' is defined in such a way as to make citizens > vulnerable.
I quoted the part that said it.... <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> That is the clause that sets up the procedures. It clearly refers not to just unlawful enemy combatants, but alien unlawful enemy combatants. The key is reading chapter 47 of the bill...where my quote comes from. Earlier it says: <quote> (a) PURPOSE.-This chapter codifies and estab- lishes procedures governing the use of military commis- sions to try unlawful enemy combatants for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions. <end quote> So, the bill states specifically that it's chapter 47 that codifies the procedures for using military commissions to try unlawful enemy combatants. Later in the chapter it says "Alien unlawful enemy combatants may be tried." Nowhere does it say that citizens who are unlawful enemy combatants. > I am confused. What *was* the nature and scope of the attack, other than > being a terrorist attack which left approximately 3000 people dead? The scope of the attack was one that, with bad luck, could have killed 50k. The twin towers workers and visitors numbered that many. After the earlier AQ attack on the WTC, '93 I think, it took about 9 hours to clear the buildings. > Uh uh. Terrorists are never as bad a risk as a Govt intent on stripping > rights from its citizens. The case that the government is intent on stripping rights from its citizens has not been well made. There is a lot of hyperbola involved. Especially when the word "unprecedented" is used. Since 9-11, IIRC, _one_ American out of 300 million has been declared an unlawful enemy combatant...and the justification is that he renounced his citizenship by fighting with a foreign army against US troops. I do not see this as an indication that this government is intent in stripping rights from its citizens. >All the terrorists can do is kill some people and blow up some >buildings/vehicles. But, when some approaches hundreds of thousands, then it falls in a different category than the Canary Warf bombings. If you just look at the risk assessment Senator Bob Kerry (not John Kerry) made as part of a bi-partisian commission working _before_ 9-11, the risk of massive loss of life is considered quite severe. The resultant risk to liberty has been for non-Americans....in particular illegal aliens. To focus this, let me ask one question. What liberties have American citizens lost during the last 5 years? Now, I think an argument that privacy has been reduced carries some weight, but I don't think that's the same as a reduction of liberty. Let me give one example of this. Phone calling patterns of many US citizens have been given to the government because the government said they wanted them to do pattern recognition to spot terrorists. When this was revealed, polls showed that most Americans were not extremely worried about it. The issue had no legs...which really showed that most Americans weren't too worried. The best explanation for this is that similar information is already being bought and sold on the open market for advertising campaigns. My Kroeger's discount card lets them have detailed records of my purchasing patterns. They promised not to sell it, but it would be legal for them to do it. >Govts can tear apart the fabric of > a polity. Pointing that out, and resisting it, is not fear-mongering, it > is the duty of every citizen. But, one should point it out _accurately_. Making false and misleading statements about what the law states is fear mongering. Governments could tear apart the fabric of society. But, the data indicates that this one is not doing this. Spying on a far lower level than has been prevalent during the 20th century is not an unprecedented attack. Stating that it is one is false. US actions against foreign combatants outside of the US may be wrong and immoral, but they are not a risk to US citizens. The law addresses a Supreme Court decision on the trial of aliens who were captured outside of the US. Reading the law, this seems clear to me. Now, I think it is poorly written enough so that it is unconstitutional. In particular, I think it could be used to attack the constitutional rights of aliens within the United States. But, one should be accurate in objecting to that. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
