Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[--Pete]

Hi,

We already don't have speedy trials, Pete, that fantasy is long gone.

But the rest of the provisions still apply. Such as actually being charged; such as actually being told what the charges are; such as actually being confronted by the accuser in an environment where an impartial authority gets to determine if the charges are viable; such as the accuser actually having to present evidence supporting their accusation; such as the accused actually being able to present evidence of of their innocence.

Do we (the citizens) have to accord these rights to the non-citizens? Not by law. But if the USA stands for anything, then we must extend equal justice to all. Or just throw in the towel, admit the barbarians have won and become just like them -- ignorant, intolerant. Over the last half of the century, one could see it happening in Israel. It is now, in many ways, indistinguishable in attitude and methods from the remaining primitive nations in that region. The middle East appears to be a sink hole for enlightened, progressive thought. And we appear only too happy to jump into that hole, give up the principles that made us a strong and proud nation, and become barbarians because we are fighting barbarians.

To surrender our principles in the process of defending our principles will be our ultimate defeat.

Are you a citizen or not? My grandma wasn't, but she became one. The "I" word "Immigrant" used carelessly, and improperly, given the context of the discussion. It is citizen, not immigrant, that is the qualifier being dealt with herre.

A question of semantics. I am an 'immigrant' (a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence) and I am a citizen. Under the existing laws, my citizenship, unlike that of a person born on American soil, is subjected to revocation. Thus, it is not at all impossible that by speaking out against the policies of a popular administration at a time of heightened feelings I could be accused of treason (shortly after 9/11, for example). The right conservative judge and a jury of rednecks could then have put me in a position where my citizenship would be stripped. And the bill we are discussing could then have made my observation that Shrub is an idiot a crime meriting a life sentence. Far fetched? Yes. But in a true democracy, laws should make even far fetched possibilities like that impossible rather than enabling them.

If you feel that "Probable Cause" needs to be shown, or at least documented, I'll grant that as a shortcoming in the language and agree that the language requires amending. FISA still is an active statute, separate issue that I don't think has been handled well.

That is exactly my contention. But what seems to be a minor point to you is the major reason that I find the bill so offensive. I see a huge difference between locking people up with and without probable cause.

Undocumented aliens and those illegally in the country deserve no such consideration.

I agree, but maintain that this is a different topic. The bill in question applies to aliens who are in the USA legally as well as illegally and to people who are not and may never have been in the USA at all.

--Pete