Does this new detainee bill apply to American citizens?

[AX10]

Is so, where is that stated?

[RufusEarl]

1. The way i understand it, it certainly can!

[katinmn]

2. From legal scholars

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=237748&mesg_id=237748

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=237747&mesg_id=237747

[mmonk]

3. I believe the words concerning "foreign" have been taken

out and I believe its up to the executive branch to determine.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Transcript of Senate Democratic Leader Reid's prepared statement....

...

Second, this bill authorizes a vast expansion of the President's power to detain people – even U.S. citizens -– indefinitely and without charge. No procedures for doing so are specified, no due process is provided, and no time limit on the detention is set.

At the same time, the bill would generally deprive federal judges of the power to review the legality of many such detentions. This is true even in the case of a lawful permanent resident arrested and held in the United States, and even if that person happens to be completely innocent.

...


http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73424

[whistle]

5. If you are detained as a terror suspect most certainly

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

6. They just have to be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant"

you know, the kind of people who try to kill you "illegally" as opposed to those who try to kill you "legally"

[babylonsister]

7. Yes.

The White House Warden Updated at 11:11 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep...

Congress may give the president the power to lock up almost anyone he thinks is a terror threat.

By Bruce Ackerman, BRUCE ACKERMAN is a professor of law and political science at Yale and author of "Before the Next Attack: Preserving Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism."
September 28, 2006


BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

more

[grizmaster]

8. that link isn't working

any chance you have a working one?

[babylonsister]

13. Sorry. Try this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,2039999.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[grizmaster]

23. great that works, thanks

[Bridget Burke]

9. But--how can you prove you gave money "innocently".....

If you've been thrown into a military prison indefinitely?

The "military tribunals" won't use the same rules as our civilian justice system--or of the courts martial system.

[leveymg]

10. The problem is, that isn't at all clear.

The Bill's sponsors and most major corporate media have said it only expressly applies to non-citizens. However, there is well-informed legal opinion that reads the Bill to authorize the indefinite military detention of anyone, citizen or non-citizen, who either takes up arms or knowingly provides material support to groups deemed "terrorist" by the Administration.

The Bill authorizes the president to seize and hold persons as "enemy combatants" who have fought against U.S. troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."

A Yale Law Professor writes in The LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

We are not dealing with hypothetical abuses. The president has already subjected a citizen to military confinement. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after 9/11, he was seized by the Bush administration as an "enemy combatant" upon his arrival at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. He was wearing civilian clothes and had no weapons. Despite his American citizenship, he was held for more than three years in a military brig, without any chance to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal. After a federal appellate court upheld the president's extraordinary action, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, handing the administration's lawyers a terrible precedent.

The new bill, if passed, would further entrench presidential power. At the very least, it would encourage the Supreme Court to draw an invidious distinction between citizens and legal residents. There are tens of millions of legal immigrants living among us, and the bill encourages the justices to uphold mass detentions without the semblance of judicial review.

But the bill also reinforces the presidential claims, made in the Padilla case, that the commander in chief has the right to designate a U.S. citizen on American soil as an enemy combatant and subject him to military justice. Congress is poised to authorized this presidential overreaching. Under existing constitutional doctrine, this show of explicit congressional support would be a key factor that the Supreme Court would consider in assessing the limits of presidential authority.

This is no time to play politics with our fundamental freedoms. Even without this massive congressional expansion of the class of enemy combatants, it is by no means clear that the present Supreme Court will protect the Bill of Rights. The Korematsu case — upholding the military detention of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II — has never been explicitly overruled. It will be tough for the high court to condemn this notorious decision, especially if passions are inflamed by another terrorist incident. But congressional support of presidential power will make it much easier to extend the Korematsu decision to future mass seizures.

Though it may not feel that way, we are living at a moment of relative calm. It would be tragic if the Republican leadership rammed through an election-year measure that would haunt all of us on the morning after the next terrorist attack.

[PATRICK]

14. Anyone in the world

First they ratified acceptance of all direct abuses of past law saying in effect that the president can interpret or act as he pleases and laws will be fixed retroactively. Second, the bill does Bush leeway of interpretation anyway. No doubt there will be some who might catch Bush violating the spirit and letter of THIS regal giveaway, but the precedent is given for this as well.

Bush is supreme dictator. He could send his Segway to the Senate to be declared a Senator(ref. Caligula) and he would likely succeed. Those who voted and enabled this are supreme traitors to their office, their country and their own souls. If we didn't have a SCOTUS possibly almost as bad this would be thrown out with extreme judicial condemnation. But then the pre-Bush SCOTUS sold their souls in 2000.

The people, as far as their blinded eyes can guide them, are consistently against this betrayal of everything imaginable. But as they are not considered real players in these abominable games of degraded humanity(aka national leadership) they must be coerced by panic and rage if necessary by becoming fodder for GOP false legitimacy(aka terror victims and dead soldiers).

[BurtWorm]

11. Only if Bush calls them "enemy combatants"

[Tesha]

12. A presidential commision can declare *ANYONE* an "enemy combatant".

That makes it apply to *EVERYONE*.

Tesha

[leveymg]

15. NO - THOMAS still shows this language for S. 3930

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109UHYLng:e9565:
S.3930
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter.

`Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter, sections 904 and 906 of this title (articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

`(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.

`(c) Punishments- A miliary commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter, chapter 47 of this title, or the law of war.

[Tesha]

16. NPR reported elsewise this morning.

NPR reported elsewise this morning and here's a
reference from the print media.

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/cj/details.cfm?id=47403 (extract only, no login required)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29detain.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin (login required)

> The measure would broaden the definition of enemy combatants
> beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include
> noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those
> in foreign countries and anyone determined to be an enemy combatant
> under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.

It's that last line, "under criteria defined by the president or
secretary of defense" that is the crux of the matter. Somewhere in
all the law that was just passed is the ability of a duly appointed
presidential commision to declare *ANYONE* an enemy combatant.

Tesha

[leveymg]

18. I don't see that redefinition of "enemy combatant" in the Senate Bill

If someone can point it out, we'd all be grateful.

Has anyone seen it in the House Bill, perhaps?

[leveymg]

21. The House Bill is similar, but in part, more ambiguous

Compare and contrast the House definition of "enemy combatant" with the simpler Senate version, posted in the thread above. One can see the House version may have some ambiguity built into it about who can be tried by a military commission. However, even the beginning of the definition in the House Bill does refer to "alien unlawful combatant", and it would seem that would carry along to the following sections - but, maybe not. Bastards. They did this on purpose, I have no doubt.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109evlIx4:e8419:


H.R.6166
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

`Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.

`(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.

`(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

`(d) Punishments- A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.

[RethugAssKicker]

17. Citizen or NOT... This bill is TERRORISM at its worst !

[Kashka-Kat]

19. Well, yeah!!!! There already are 2 american citizens who have been held

without charges for several yrs now-- Jose Padilla and I forget the other guy. Now, apparently there is reason to believe he mightve actually done some bad, terrorist sympathizer kinds of things but how will we ever really know since.... THERES BEEN NO TRIAL OR CHARGES MADE!!!

This bill is intended to retroactively cover Bush's a** for previous actions, as well as future. Therefore logically I tend to think that if citizens were subject to illegal detentions in the past they will tend to continue the practice in the future.

Connecting the dots...

This bill basically suspends civil liberties, and allows for indefinite detention and torture solely on the basis of whether someone is said to be terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. Bush (and/or his minions) gets to decide who that is! With no accountability or need to show evidence.

There are LOTS in the Bush administration (as well as right wing media and public at large) who believe that anti war protest of citizens constitutes terrorist sympathizing.

You do the math!

Correction-- Padilla was held for 3 yrs w/o charges, but has now been charged. I'm not sure about the other guy, havent had time to look. Still tend to think this was/is dangerous precedent or indication of how far they might be willing to push things....

[KansDem]

20. Do the words "Environmentalist" & "Animal-rights activist" sound familiar?

Both have been accused of supporting "terrorism" to advance their causes. And once they are renamed "terrorists," all bets are off...

[leveymg]

22. Note this: the acts of the "enemy combatant" need not have occurred abroad

In the end, I think (hope) military commissions will be applied only to non-citizens. But, there's nothing in the language of either version of this bill that would seem to restrict the application to acts committed outside the U.S.

This legislation also doesn't seem to restrict what might define a group as "terrorist". To fall under the "knowing material support" clause, the group need only have been designated as such, and the person charged fot material support need only know about it.

I think we all need to be aware of that.

[leveymg]

24. Here are some other important definitions - Crimes Triable by Mil Coms

The material support clause appears to apply to designated "international terrorist organizations". That could theoretically apply to PETA or Earth First, if the US Secretary of State, were to so designate those groups.

NOTE: this is another section of the House bill, H.R.6054, found elsewhere, at:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:mSOW2VGP8x4J:thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/%3F%26sid%3Dcp109p3bcL%26refer%3D%26r_n%3Dhr664p1.109%26db_id%3D109%26item%3D%26sel%3DTOC_188574%26+Military+Commissions+material+support&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&ie=UTF-8

House Report 109-664 - Part 1 - AMENDING TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full Display Related Information
PDF Printer Friendly Display Bill Summary and Status Full Text of Bill


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sec. 950v. Crimes triable by military commissions

(23) TERRORISM- An alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to this title who intentionally kills or inflicts great bodily harm on one or more persons, or intentionally engages in an act that evinces a wanton disregard for human life, in a manner calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government or civilian population by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct, shall be guilty of the offense of terrorism and shall be subject to whatever punishment a commission may direct, including, if death results to one or more of the victims, the penalty of death.

(24) PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM- An alien unlawful enemy combatant who provides material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, an act of terrorism (as defined in paragraph (23)), or who intentionally provides material support or resources to an international terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the United States, knowing that such organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in paragraph (23)), shall be guilty of the offense of providing material support for terrorism and shall be subject to whatever punishment a commission may direct. In this paragraph, the term `material support or resources' has the meaning given that term in section 2339A(b) of title 18.

(25) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- An alien unlawful enemy combatant who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States or one its co-belligerents shall be guilty of the offense of wrongfully aiding the enemy and shall be subject to whatever punishment a commission may direct.

(26) SPYING- An alien unlawful enemy combatant who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect certain information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States or one of its co-belligerents, shall be guilty of the offense of spying and shall be subject to whatever punishment a commission may direct, including the penalty of death.

(27) CONSPIRACY- An alien unlawful enemy combatant who conspires to commit one or more substantive offenses triable under this section, and who knowingly does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall be guilty of conspiracy and shall be subject to whatever punishment a commission may direct, including, if death results to one or more of the victims, the penalty of death.

[leveymg]

25. Note that the term, "alien unlawful enemy combatant" carries through these

definitions of crimes punishable under the House Bill.

I think, on its face, it's pretty clear that U.S. citizens are not subject to this particular version of the law.

[anarch]

26. I believe those groups have already been declared to be "terrorists"

And yeah, formally dispensing with habeas corpus...takes us back to what, 1214 AD or so? I'd have to agree, all bets are off. Hail King George.