Dan Minette wrote: > 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.
Citizens can still be declared as UEC, and held indefinitely without any recourse to courts, lawyers, family, and friends. Nothing in that bill protects the citizens from that. > > 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 nature of the attack was that it was made by folks hiding among > the general population, pretending to be engaged in lawful activities. Isn't that the nature of *all* terrorist attacks? I am struggling to think of even one example where the terrorists wore uniforms, or held press conferences to alert the authorities. > Contrast this with Pearl Harbor, where > the attackers were clearly members of the air force of Japan. Why? Are you saying that terrorism is the same as war between nation states? If not, then surely any contrast & compare has to focus on another terrorist act rather than on Pearl Harbour? > The scope of the attack was one that, with bad luck, could have killed > 50k. And the Dec. 13 2001 attack on the Parliament could have taken out the entire government of India. But it didn't. The bombs on the eve of Diwali last year could have taken out 30k, but they didn't. The attack on Sankat Mochan temple in March this year could have taken out 25k, but it didn't. A lot of terrorist attacks have the potential to take out thousands of people, and in the immediate aftermath of the attack, it is only natural to shudder over what might have been, but sooner or later one needs to get a grip and focus on what *did* happen. > > 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. Last I heard, it was two - Hamdi and Padilla. But basically, it seems to be a difference in perspective, and in the amount of trust one places in the government. You see it as only one [or two] such case in the last 5 years, I see it as one case when they didn't have the authority to do so, and wonder what they will do now when they *do* have the authority to do so. [I wrote the above almost 2 weeks ago, and since then the Mohammad Munaf case has come to light - I see that too as a gross violation of Munaf's rights, and the fact that one of the US military officials actually claimed to be the Romanian govt's representative doesn't fill me with confidence that things are proceeding as they ought to] > I do not see this as an indication that this government is intent in > stripping rights from its citizens. With this law, no citizen is left with the protection of habeus corpus. Their liberty is now dependant on the say-so of the President, or the Sec Def. Regardless of how you see it, it *is* a stripping of one of the most basic rights of the 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. The actual loss of life ~ 3000 Your estimate earlier in the mail ~ 50k It is still far below 'hundreds of thousands'. So what were you saying about hyperbole, Dan? :) > To focus this, let me ask one question. What liberties have American > citizens lost during the last 5 years? The habeus corpus. That whole bit about due cause, due process of law, a speedy trial, ban on hearsay, and a presumption of innocence. If other rights have been lost, I guess the American citizens will be keeping track. And if they wish, they might even answer this question. My interest in the bill is focused on how the bill proposes to treat non-merkins, and I find it quite despicable. Not that I find it a major concern - my govt would have to agree to this bill for it to apply in my country, and any govt which takes such a stupid step wouldn't survive too long in office. Neither would their agreement last any longer than it takes to file a PIL in the Supreme Court. > 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. Well, they keep on focusing on the Hamdan case, so your statement is not a surprise. But it also easily takes care of the problems of Hamdi and Padilla case. Just because they are US citizens [or, in Hamdi's case, were] doesn't mean they can't be declared UEC, and then they have to wait until the Govt figures out who tries them and where. But after this Bill, no US citizen can approach the courts and ask to be either charged and tried, or released. Instead, they have to wait for some bureaucrat or the other to decide what to with them, and when. I am a bit surprised you don't notice this - the military commissions can only try alien UECs, but the term UEC may well be applied to US citizens. No provision in the Act says that it is applicable to aliens and aliens alone. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
