Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

CONGRESS: Law skirts constitutional right

Letter by Brant R. DeLarme, Bonney Lake on Dec. 9, 2011 at 12:37 pm with 77 Comments »
December 9, 2011 12:51 pm

The Senate has passed a law that may deny us our supposedly irrevocable constitutional rights.

The National Defense Authorization Act includes a provision that gives the President the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial.

Of course, the law only applies to terrorists and those who substantially support them. Then again, as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky points out, “there are laws on the books now that characterize who might be a terrorist… someone who has guns… someone who has more than seven days of food in their house.” Good thing I don’t have seven days of food.

Farewell Sixth Amendment right to “a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”
Now, section 1031 also includes the provision “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens.” But, if that is the case, why write a law that so obviously contradicts the supreme law of the land? Either lawmakers are hoping that section 1031 will give the executive room to wiggle around the constitution in the future, or they are genuinely incompetent.

So how many of our elected representatives tried to preserve our constitutional rights by voting against a bill containing such an affront to liberty? Seven. Three Republicans, three Democrats and an independent were the only senators to vote “nay.”

I thought this was the congress that cared so much they had the constitution read aloud to kick off the term. What is going on?

Leave a comment Comments → 77
  1. muckibr says:

    That constitution reading was a stunt pulled by Speaker Boehner that meant nothing to him or his Republican sycophants as they were reading, except as a publicity gimmick.

    This new act seems an extension of The Patriot Act, which should be completely repealed anyway.

    Let us not forget the warning of Benjamin Franklin who said… “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.”

    There are 435 members of The House of Representatives. Looks like 428 of them should be replaced! Let’s start with Boehner.

  2. denismenis says:

    Yes! And wait until private contractors (Blackwater, Corrections Corporation of America) make handsome revenue in holding detained citizens indefinitely. Buy shares now! There’s a great opportunity for campaign contributions, too!

    …and to think these dolts trumpet their allegiance to freedom.

  3. RW98512 says:

    One more case of the Republicans opposing something they once supported because they think Obama supports it now.

  4. aislander says:

    So…everybody is upset at the potential risk that government may use this law to imprison Americans for political reasons, right?

    Well, it already happened. Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s administration locked up about 150,000 US citizens, most of whom resisted our involvement in WWI.

    As Yogi Berra might say…

  5. RW98512 says:

    Let’s talk about Woodrow Wilson’s Administration, but when someone wants to bring up Bush, say “Bush isn’t in office anymore”

  6. aislander says:

    This from wiki: To counter opposition to the war at home, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 through Congress to suppress anti-British, pro-German, or anti-war opinions.[96] While he welcomed socialists who supported the war, he pushed at the same time to arrest and deport foreign-born radicals.[99] Citing the Espionage Act, the U.S. Post Office, following the instructions of the Justice Department, refused to carry any written materials that could be deemed critical of the U. S. war effort.[99] Some sixty newspapers judged to have revolutionary or antiwar content were deprived of their second-class mailing rights and effectively banned from the U.S. mails.[99][100] Mere criticism of the Wilson administration and its war policy became grounds for arrest and imprisonment.[99] A Jewish immigrant from Germany, Robert Goldstein, was sentenced to ten years in prison for producing The Spirit of ’76, a film that portrayed the British, now an ally, in an unfavorable light.[101]

  7. aislander says:

    It is a very different thing to point to the actions of a previous administration as a warning than to point to them as an excuse for the shortcomings of a current administration…

  8. bobcat1a says:

    xxx

  9. muckibr says:

    I don’t know why aislander had to go way back to Wilson, when he/she could have just referenced the internment of Japanese-Americans at the outbreak of WW II by FDR.

    The purpose of the current law, however misguided, is to prevent internal terrorism. That was the justification used for the Japanese internment camps.

    Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out!

  10. larsman says:

    Only 7 nay votes? Uhhh, Kardnose, that does not quite equate to a strict party-line approval now, huh? (close one eye while I roll the other).

    Bigger question, what happens to the 4th, not to mention the 2nd, amendment? Who has jurisdictional enforcement priority, Municipal, National Guard or FEMA? (.22, .308, or enforcement via leaky formaldehyde infested trailers)…

  11. alindasue says:

    larsman said, “Only 7 nay votes? Uhhh, Kardnose, that does not quite equate to a strict party-line approval now, huh?”

    The “Patriot” Act also had such broad approval – clear proof that both parties are quite capable of ignoring the Constitution and voting against the best interests of the American people.

  12. sandblower says:

    Everyone forgets that there is an election coming up and that the parties are pandering to the segments of their own constituencies which cannot or do not think for themselves. The gray portions of the Constitution fall by the wayside.

  13. Golly gee willikers! Why did aislander go all the way back to Wilson….why not mention Lincoln suspending habeas corpus and then ignoring court orders to again respect the right?

    But…..as long as we are talking about bad behavior during wartime of past president….gotta love W who not only made the publication of photos of flag-drapped coffins verboten, there was a policy to dispose of soldiers’ remains in a landfill without any notice to the survivors. Patriot Act AND dumping soldiers’ remains. Wotta guy!

  14. took14theteam says:

    I for one would be interested in seeing some PROOF of that allegation…

  15. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    There are 435 members of The House of Representatives. Looks like 428 of them should be replaced

    WhiskyTangoFoxtrot? What does the House have to do with this, muck?

    As usual, we have folks commenting on subjects about which they know little or nothing. The letter-writer was referring to the Senate vote.

    The House version of the bill passed last May, and did not contain the detention provision. The provision in question was added to the Senate bill, and the language was authored by one D and one R – specifically Carl Levin and John McCain. The bill is now in reconciliation. (You libs remember reconciliation, right? Think 0bamacare.)

    My guess is this provision will not make it to the desk of the campaigner-in-chief in its present form. But the chief campaigner will veto it anyway, to score more points with his base in an election year. (You know… 0bama; re-election first, country later… maybe after a round of golf or seventy… and a couple of junkets to Europe.)

  16. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    One more case of the Republicans opposing something they once supported because they think Obama supports it now.

    Another example of a well-informed opinion, LOL.

    Check the vote totals, Kardy, and then check the WH/ administration position. This is not only a veto waiting to happen, but a great example of McCain giving the campaigner-in-chief a club with which to beat him in an election year. However bipartisan the Senate vote was, the 0bama handlers will spin this as a Republican idea, and the lap-dogs in the media, and here, will lick it up.

  17. Sorry for the distraction about body parts…

    Here is part of the provision in question that passed the Senate. As was said it is now in reconcliation. Just some information so we are all on the same page.

    “(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”

    Feel free to go to the Library of Congress, specifically Thomas, to gander at the sausage making.

  18. “This new act seems an extension of The Patriot Act, which should be completely repealed anyway.”

    The Patriot Act was passed in the House by 357 to 66 (of 435) and in the Senate by 98 to 1 and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

    “One more case of the Republicans opposing something they once supported because they think Obama supports it now.”

    Sometimes you just have to spell it out for the math/English challenged.

  19. Now, for further explanation.

    If 100% of the Republicans approved something and 100% of the Democrats also approved, BUT after Obama voiced approval, the Republicans changed, that would be a case of:

    “Republicans opposing something they once supported because they think Obama supports it now.”

  20. woof… woof…

  21. I wrote, “There are 435 members of The House of Representatives. Looks like 428 of them should be replaced! Let’s start with Boehner.”

    My bad. The bill in question was passed byThe Senate, not the House. I should have written, looks like we need to replace 43 senators. But, I still would really like to get rid of Boehner!!!

    (You see, I can admit that sometimes I get things wrong. Doesn’t happen very often. In fact, this is the first time in any of my posts. But at least I am man enough to man up. Wish some of you others could say that! But you can’t. Can you?)

  22. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    If 100% of the Republicans approved something and 100% of the Democrats also approved, BUT after Obama voiced approval, the Republicans changed, that would be a case of…

    LMAO, that mucks cents alot… kinda’…

    And it really applies here too, Kardy, especially since no one in the administration – including the grrreat campaigner – has voiced support for the provision.

  23. Everybody climbs on the 9/11 bandwagon. Thought stopped on 9/11.
    See what a fine mess it’s gotten us into.

  24. “Then again, as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky points out, “there are laws on the books now that characterize who might be a terrorist… someone who has guns… someone who has more than seven days of food in their house.”

    So Rand Paul is agreeing with the President?

  25. Aislander,
    Republican Abe Lincoln not only locked up union citizens who opposed his war effort but suspended Habeas Corpus.
    Also check out the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

    Vox – and we all know that the mighty tide right has put the good of the country first and foremost in all thinks.
    Sounds like the Rpots in the Senate are trying to create a campaign issue that Obama vetoed a Defense Authorization bill. Would you care to wager that the Rpots will spin it as proof of Obama’s anti-Americanism and not as a defense of Constitutional Protections?

    QQ –
    Here is a Citizens, and here be a Terroist,
    But who says which is the Citizden and which the terrorist.


    “has guns and more than seven days of food in their homes” would cover just about all Mormons.

  26. xring – the terrorist is the one with the bomb, the desire and the plan to blow bits of you and me to kingdom come.

    the citizen is pretty much everyone else.

    not sure your point here dude, if you have one…

  27. alindasue says:

    Alinup said, “Everybody climbs on the 9/11 bandwagon. Thought stopped on 9/11.”

    It sure seems so sometimes… especially when it comes to “Homeland Security” (or insecurity as the case may be).

    qq98411 said, “xring – the terrorist is the one with the bomb, the desire and the plan to blow bits of you and me to kingdom come.”

    How many of the people sitting without chance of trial at Guantanamo Bay are actually “the one with the bomb”? The provisions of the so-called “Patriot” Act and the latest defense bill have made it so that the only real difference between a “citizen” accused of a crime and a “terrorist” unworthy of the rights of due process is the label placed on the accused.

    xring said, “…“has guns and more than seven days of food in their homes” would cover just about all Mormons.”

    Yeah… As a Mormon myself, I thought about that one too (although I personally don’t own any guns). It’s ironic considering the patriotism and community service level among most Mormons that they would consider preparing for possible emergencies to be a symptom of “terrorism”…

    … But then that might explain the “anyone but Romney” attitude that the much of the GOP seems to espouse these days. That’s as good an explanation as any other.

  28. the3rdpigshouse says:

    I guess the mormons, who store food and supplies, should be very worried with “OH-Bummer”!!

  29. alindasue says:

    “OH-Bummer”, as you are wont to call President Obama, is the one who said he would veto this latest legislative threat to our freedoms…

    But don’t let that get in the way of your latest rant, eh.

    President Obama has done a few things I agree with and a few things I do not and I may or may not vote for him in 2012. However, when I make my decision, it will be based on the issues and his actions and not on the name calling and hyperbole you appear so fond of.

  30. Qq – “terrorist is the one with the bomb” means that on 9/11 those planes were flow by American Citizens.

    Care to try again to inform us how to tell the tangos from the good guys?

    Alindasue – the guns/food definition would also include ‘suvivalists.’

  31. alindasue says:

    xring said, “Alindasue – the guns/food definition would also include ‘suvivalists.’”

    It would also include the back-to-the-earth types, urban farmers, and others who are inclined to do the sensible thing of putting up food while it is in season…

    Which brings us back to what Alinup said: “Thought stopped on 9/11.”

  32. Couple of things…

    One – what are we talking about? hence the post with the ‘offending’ portion of the bill. Two – these conversations tend to be shrill. Three – my post was a non-sense response to a non-sense post. Four – what are we talking about? None of us have clearly made a point.

    xring – if you have a point then make it. If you can’t tell the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a terrorist, please tell me you are not a police office.

    I am literally unable to write a response as I don’t know your position to respond to nor am I going to make one up for you. Hence, got a point… make a case and present it. If not, let’s lock ‘em all up and let God sort it out…. More nonsense.

    alindasue – I think you are taking me to literally. And please, am I not reading the law correctly. It clearly states it does not apply to US citizens. If you know something we don’t, please share.

  33. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    … the Rpots in the Senate are trying to create a campaign issue that Obama vetoed a Defense Authorization bill.

    C’mon, Kardy, you’re really grasping at straws here. If the theory for which you now grasp were even a remote possibility, it would not be a very convincing strategy considering more Dems voted for the Senate version of the NDAA, 2012, than Republicans.

    Would you care to wager that the Rpots will spin it as proof of Obama’s anti-Americanism and not as a defense of Constitutional Protections?

    In politics, I suppose anything is possible. So yes, I would take that bet if the provision survives reconciliation. But, Kardy, you will recall my earlier post wherein I expressed my sincerest doubt such will be the case. (There is a possibility here for a more likely, and relevant, wager.)

    Thus you can save the false bravado. After all it wasn’t even a very good attempt at deflection… this time.

  34. qq – your confidence in the government’s ability to not make mistakes nor abuse the system is rather naive. There are too many on either side of the aisle who, whether in support of Section 1031 or against it, have confirmed that it allows for indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charge or trial:

    Section 1031 is problematic because it authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process.
    http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/sen-feinstein-confirms-s-1867s-detention-of-u-s-citizens-wout-trial/

    Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, bragged that the law “basically says … for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and that people can be jailed without trial, be they “American citizen or not.”
    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/12/09/matt-tiabbi-s-1867-indefinite-detention-of-american-citizens-coming-soon-to-battlefield-u-s-a/

  35. Welcome to the Distraction Circus of the 2012 Campaign Season. Step right up; for the paltry sum of half your brain cells, you can see the show.

    Watch the fears of delusional anarchist basement dwellers come alive in full color and 3D; see the craven vote selling in Congress in all of its sleazy detail; feel the fear as the MSM uses its First Amendment protections to mislead and confuse you.

    Come in and sit down. The show is starting.

    WARNING: Nothing you see or hear is real in the media. Do not vote based on propaganda claims that you have not verified. Get a spine and use it.

  36. Here’s the point I made in the first post to this blog…

    Let us not forget the warning of Benjamin Franklin who said… “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.”

    I think its been really interesting to see the furor generated by this slipped-in anti-terrorist provision. And also that Rick Perry says he would cut 3 departments if elected president (but could only name two), and Ron Paul says he would get rid of 5. But neither of these guys would get rid of the Department of Homeland Security. And that’s really weird because it is obviously a duplication of government, since we already have a Department of Defense. What is the DoD if it is not dedicated to the security of the United States? For any other internal issues we already have The FBI, Federal, state, county and city police. The Department of Homeland Security is as useless as teats on a boar!

    All this garbage about Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the TSA and the latest provision in the National Defense Authorization Act is just what Franklin was talking about. And, my friends, as long as those three things exist Al Qaeda is winning.

  37. Bb – be friggin accurate, that is the problem with these conversations.

    The issue is ‘covered person’ and if the lawmakers aren’t clear then no I have little faith in their ability to apply the law. So, one please don’t paint your view onto me. Do something simple like ask me. On that note, I read your statement and please correct me if you think ALL American citizens without charge or trial.

    In your reference, it also states that Feinstein reached a compromise “that no existing law or authorities to detain suspected terrorists are changed by this section of the bill.”

    Like I said, everyone needs to be clear and accurate on the law and its application if we are to have any hope of a conversation about this.

    I am not even going to respond to your premise and Tiabbi… that is not what he said in context. I saw the Sunday interview with his and though I knew that section would be taken out of context I knew what he was saying IN context.

  38. “qq – your confidence in the government’s ability to not make mistakes nor abuse the system is rather naive.”

    Now for the typical partisan bomb throwing…

    In a nutshell, if you were outraged by the Patriot act, President Bush, AG whoever he was, and Donny Rummy, then you should be beyond outraged at President Obama and company.

    He was the one that ran on Change and the hopes that he was the one to change it. The big ‘O’ has doubled downed on Bush policies, bragged about it in the White House Press room, and even went so far as to outright shoot unarmed terrorist in the face, in somebody else’s backyard too… uninvited. (They are still pissed by the way) As well as lob missiles at American citizens out for a Sunday drive.

    Outrage then, outrage now… cool. Supportive then, supportive now… cool.

    Believe it not bb, the above sort of stuff is not the stuff that keeps me up at night. It is the nut sack check to get on an airplane. Do anybody really feel safer knowing that my nuts are pack and stowed for a safe flight…. Really. The Homeland Security report on right wing wackos…. Heck that describes dang near everybody I know. That’s dangerous because that is the thinking in this administration.

    It’s the little things that you should be outraged at to put a kybosh on the big things… or better yet we never get there.

    How do you lose your freedoms… one nudge at a time.

    Confidence….. pffttt… I got that hanging a little left today.

  39. QQ – my point is “Who gets to separate the Tango from the Citizens, and what is the selection basis.”

    And what happens when ‘the one with the bomb” is also a Citizen?

  40. xring – two things, talk to your Congressman, they write the law and even amongst them there is disagreement as to what the meaning of the current language of the bill means.

    Does it or does it not apply to US citizens. I am reading from the bill it does not. Dianne Feinstein sees it differently.

    Can you people with an ‘S’ in your distinguished title figure it out so that We, the People can have confidence in our government to protect us.

    Your scenario – the person ‘the one with the bomb’ has the intent to do harm to the good people on the soil of the United States…

    I don’t care where he was born, nor what paperwork he filled out to stay in this country, intent to do harm… bullet to the face, severing the spinal column.

  41. qq – the Security Theatre we endure at the Airport is, I’m convinced, there to keep the citizens aware of the “threats” to our security that should make us happy about signing away our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

  42. took14theteam says:

    qq, I feel much safer knowing your boys are packed and stowed before a flight.

    ;-)

  43. BlaineCGarver says:

    Until we start emulating Israeli Security Measures, we are just painting rocks white for busy work.

  44. LarryFine says:

    Hey, if the government can force you to buy health insurance and you’re ok with that… why the heck wouldn’t you fully expect that government would further infringe on your rights ?

  45. LMAO… The TSA nut check was a preview of ObamaCare. So true…

    You see bb, this is why you take nothing from the government. Once they know they can get away with forcing you to buy something, add a nutcheck just to go see Granny in Orlando, what else is left dude… just say no to anything from the government.

    took14 – feel safe? good, I am willing to sacrific my dignity and pride for my country. ;)

  46. Qq -Let me help you take your blinders off.

    First:
    The bill says it does not apply to US Citizens, the problem is how to separate Citizens from terrorists.

    Second:
    Progressives believe in the power of the government to help and protect American Citizend.

    The right wing fears the power of government and believes solely in the power of the private sector is.

    Third,
    The TSA came to us under Bush II, along with warrantless wiretaps, torture, and rendition.

  47. Some pretty big leaps (back in time) to connect the TSA to “Obamacare”.

  48. xring – ‘how to separate Citizens from terrorists’ I have no clue what you are arguing, do you? You can be a Citizen of this fine nation, wake up one day and begin the process and soon cross the line to becoming a terrorist.

    If you are a foreign national – Gitmo. If you are “Citizen” – no bail for you, pleade not guilty and a trial of your peers await you.

    Please tell me you know this.

    Second and third premise, stop wasting pixels… BS, rose colored characteratures.

  49. No leaps anywhere, no connecting anywhere… except to say for the progs, it comes from government so it must be good.

    as usual, you got something, make a case. I’ll even accept one of your internet blogs as a starting point.

  50. Took14theteam – ignorance is bliss so you must be positively ecstatic.

    QQ – the only thing faster than fools losing money is alcoholic fools losing their reason.

  51. took14theteam says:

    So xring, I am not safer with qq’s boys packed and stowed?

    I wonder what he is doing with them….

    (Just between you and me qq, I am just playing with xring, because, well, you know, he is xring)

  52. LarryFine says:

    Actually… it’s a leap forward bB.

  53. LarryFine says:

    … r u going to “pick nits” next???

  54. Took – people who play with fire get burned.

  55. QQ -you are, for once, correct. You are clueless.

  56. I think it is an appropiate question took14… xring, do you feel safer flying knowing that my nuts are packed appropiately… TSA seal of approval I might add.

    On a serious note, do you feel safer knowing that TSA has ensured your nuts are packed and stowed in the uprigth position?

    The insults (do you really think they work on an anonymous board?) tell me you got nothing left, nothing more to offer. But the above question is a deceptively simple one. Can you at least answer that one?

    Do you feel safer?

    BTW, can you provide your own wisdom on your citizen vs terrorist question?

  57. I am reading from the bill it does not. Dianne Feinstein sees it differently.

    As my post that included quotes and links shows, Lindsey Graham (and many others) also sees it differently.

    You have stated that you don’t see it (without posting any support for that view), I post a couple links that have supported the view and then you complain that I haven’t supported my view and I should post some links (even blogs).

    Dude. Time to put the Olde English can down – you aren’t making sense. The, “I don’t believe it, I don’t believe your sources and so you aren’t making sense” line is weak. Why don’t you cite some sources that support your view?

  58. bb – here is the post from the Senate version of the bill, Feinstein is in the Senate, what is she seeing that I am not? Plain English as opposed to Olde English:

    “(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”

    DUDE!!! What part of that is hard to understand? I am reading these peoples version and am wondering wtf are they drinking…

    “Why don’t you cite some sources that support your view?”

    How about the f’in bill dude… the actual bill… the one voted on by the United States Senate… the one archive in the Library of Congress…

    that’s my friggin’ source!!!

  59. took and qq – IMO the Keystone Cops would do a better job than TSA.
    Which is why I no longer fly.

  60. took14theteam says:

    Thank you, xring.

  61. xring – you don’t fly? Now I feel safer… ;)

  62. LarryFine says:

    I think bB’s ego got hurt qq…

  63. LF I’m sure you have a quote archived about a fool thinking he knows someone else’s mind…..

  64. qq – read section 1031…..not just section 1032.

    There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
    http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

    And again – Lindsey Graham said on the Senate floor:
    “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600840428

    Sorry…as much as I value your input as a Constitutional scholar, I’m giving more weight to folks who have actual qualifications and it is their jobs to interpret laws.

  65. LarryFine says:

    No, but I did find this…

    Submitted by beerBoy on October 29, 2008 – 8:30am.
    c’mon now – I don’t cite the dailykos nor moveon.org (I don’t even visit their sites) – could you try a little harder to find believable sources?

    …considering the links you’ve been citing this is quite the knee-slapper.

  66. Not sure how a video from the Senate floor is a knee-slapper.

  67. And…ACLU was a real knee-slapper for Rush Limbaugh….until he needed them.

  68. Rush didn’t ask the ACLU to help, come on man…

  69. “Section 1031:

    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

    (e) Authorities- 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.”

  70. ACLU post is rhetoric not a legal opinion. They misquote Graham.

    They did not once speak of the exception (and neither did you until I pressed it) until the ACLU issued an update talking about the exception.

    In the ACLU update they still didn’t define the exception.

    This is why these conversation never go anywhere. We spend more time trying to get true factual information into the conversation. I provided not once but twice the actual bill from the LoC, the one voted on in the Senate. What you and others provide is pontification, yes, ACLU pontification. Ohh, I am impressed counselor. Graham is trying to ‘sell’ the bill.

    Please, enough with the shrill implication that all American citizens. It is limited to those that demonstrate… blah, blah, blah as described in the actual bill.

    Now, I actually agree that this is ripe for potential abuse. And hence my position for those who railed against this type of stuff under Bush, I expect that they have called their Congressman and Senator to detail exactly how they believe this is wrong for America.

    Be consistent or be a flaming hypocrite, their choice.

  71. Actually, on the sites I frequent it appears that Obama’s doubling down on Bush’s “security” measures is one of the primary reason the left-of-center-but-still-Democrats are displeased with the O-man.

  72. LarryFine says:

    “links” is plural bB.

  73. The grounds on which golf is played are called links, being the barren sandy soil from which the sea has retired in recent geological times. In their natural state links are covered with long, rank bent grass and gorse. Links are too barren for cultivation: but sheep, rabbits, geese and professionals pick up a precarious livelihood on them.”

    Sir Walter Simpson was a 19th century Scottish philosopher and the author of the 1887 book “the Art of Golf”.

    You know…..like Chambers Bay without the sheep.

  74. Then this bb, should send them over the edge.

    “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

  75. As predicted – Obama has backed down from his veto threat.

  76. Good.

  77. keepinitreal says:

    Good.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0