Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[kandrathe]

Works for me. THese people don't exist in a vacuum. These resident aliens tend to have friends and families who can bring a considerable pressure/publicity to such "abductions" and expose them as missing.

No matter the language of the law, there is a way to fight this, and it isn't a free lunch.

Face it, Thecla, there are still spies and agnents in America, working for other powers than America, just as there were Russian spies here during the Cold War. I see no reason to give such agents, if they are actually linked to terrorist organizations whose aims are no secret, any special loophole to hide behind.

Occhi

I believe the old way, before the bill, was to declare them to be either spies(out of uniform) or POW's (in uniform), try them, and incarcerate them or trade them back to their country. Since, that mostly applies to nation vs nation, a more modern asymetrical definition of "enemy combatant" is needed. Resident aliens who are accused of crimes in the US are still probably better off than any Westerner accused of ( __ Insert Crime __ ) in would be in most Middle Eastern, Asian, African, South/Central American nations. Think about how most Americans feel about even having a traffic accident in Mexico, or getting caught with a joint in Turkey, or getting caught chewing gum in Singapore. I have a naturalist friend who on a botany expedition in southern Mexico was arrested, and almost summarily executed near the Guatamalan border just because he had the good sense to buy surplus army jungle gear. Oops. They figured out after torturing him for a few days that he was just a silly professor. He learned to dress in blaze pink while working near paramilitaries.

Second point. We do not keep resident aliens (esp. convicted of crimes) any longer than we need to keep them. It costs money to keep them, so we usually deport them (about 200,000 alien deportations a year, and 1/5 after they commit a crime other than entering illegally). I don't have any problem temporarily suspending the right to a writ of Habeas Corpus in times of emergency, even for US citizens (as has been done in the past). I believe resident aliens who are accused of being terrorists or enemy combatants have "Human Rights", however they don't have rights equal to US citizens. If you want to look at massive resident alien imprisonment, wind back to the 1980's Mariel Boatlift.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Resident aliens who are accused of crimes in the US are still probably better off than any Westerner accused of ( __ Insert Crime __ ) in would be in most Middle Eastern, Asian, African, South/Central American nations.

And that is relevant in what way (Aside from smokescreens, and the warm fuzzy feeling one gets from reminding themselves that the US isn't Stalinist Russia) to this?

Are those the standards you hold yourself to? Mexico? Singapore?

[kandrathe]

And that is relevant in what way (Aside from smokescreens, and the warm fuzzy feeling one gets from reminding themselves that the US isn't Stalinist Russia) to this?

Are those the standards you hold yourself to? Mexico? Singapore?

No, but in response to Thecla's one sided, America bashing outrage, it is relevant. What are the best places in the world to be held in a jail? What are the worst? Do you think people think about that before commiting crimes, or acts of terror? I would guess they do. So, while I'm not advocating the willy nilly detention of Americans or non-Americans, I think Congress is acting within the confines of the constitution and its allowances for when the writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended. Here is a link to the text of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act for reference.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Do you think people think about that before commiting crimes, or acts of terror?

I don't think that anyone's arguing for terrorists to not be punished, here.

But if you've got a person in custody, some, you know, charges might show that you are detaining him for a reason.

I would guess they do. So, while I'm not advocating the willy nilly detention of Americans or non-Americans, I think Congress is acting within the confines of the constitution and its allowances for when the writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended.

Considering that according to the fourteenth amendment, eqaul protection under the law is to be provided to both citizens, and non-citizens, that bill should be seen as non-consitutional as well.

[kandrathe]

I don't think that anyone's arguing for terrorists to not be punished, here.

But if you've got a person in custody, some, you know, charges might show that you are detaining him for a reason.
Considering that according to the fourteenth amendment, eqaul protection under the law is to be provided to both citizens, and non-citizens, that bill should be seen as non-consitutional as well.

Well, I'm pretty sure it will need to go to the Supreme's... There is mention in the section on limitations on Congress, but it is pretty clear that the purpose of this bill, and the Detainee Treatment Act falls into that "rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" section. But, the lawyers will need to duke it out. It can be argued that foreign nationals (terrorist cells) infiltrating the US for purposes of flying planes into buildings could be considered a type of asymetrical invasion.

Section 9:The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

• The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.<>
  
• No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
  ...<>
  [st]

I think the reason that the writ can be suspended is to allow the government to insure that sources of the invasion or insurrection are contained. Otherwise, you could have a situation where the terrorists would use the writ as a shield to continue to attack. I am dubious of things like the "war on terror", "war on drugs" or the "war on unhappiness". So, I could also see where the Supremes might determine that using war powers against asymetrical foes is too far a stretch, however convenient.

Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think the extension of Constitutional rights (including the 14th amendment) to non-citizens is another open question. It regulates how States can treat the citizens, and the "any person" clauses talk about "without due process". Which we could read to mean, without a legal process. But, 1st this is a Federal jurisdiction case, so it might not apply, and 2nd they would have a due process covered by the laws recently passed by Congress on "the process for detaining, questioning, treating, and prosecuting" terrorists and enemy combatants.

[Thecla]

Thecla's one sided, America bashing outrage

I think you meant to say "Thecla's one sided, America bashing, propagandized outrage", didn't you?;)

[Swiss Mercenary]

Well, I'm pretty sure it will need to go to the Supreme's... There is mention in the section on limitations on Congress, but it is pretty clear that the purpose of this bill, and the Detainee Treatment Act falls into that "rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" section. But, the lawyers will need to duke it out. It can be argued that foreign nationals (terrorist cells) infiltrating the US for purposes of flying planes into buildings could be considered a type of asymetrical invasion.

Well, then, in that case, this is a war that is never going to end. Might as well sign 'innocent until proven guilty' off permanently.

I think the reason that the writ can be suspended is to allow the government to insure that sources of the invasion or insurrection are contained. Otherwise, you could have a situation where the terrorists would use the writ as a shield to continue to attack.

The right to a fair trial is not there to 'coddle' terrorists, and does not waste courtroom time. It's there for innocents to be able to prove their innocence. If anyone is convinced that there is nothing wrong with throwing out legal proceedings, the rule of law, and the right to be judged by one's peers, then they might as well put their money where their mouths are, and get rid of the judges, and courtrooms. After all, if the government accuses someone of terrorism, they must be guilty, and all that legal mumbo-jumbo's a waste of taxpayer money.

and 2nd they would have a due process covered by the laws recently passed by Congress on "the process for detaining, questioning, treating, and prosecuting" terrorists and enemy combatants.

Somehow, I don't think that leaving them to rot in Cuba forever, with no charges, is the 'due process' of a speedy, fair, etc, trial.

...

I simply can't imagine how (at times) reasonable people like you and Occhi can even consider this kind of bull#$%& to be permitted in a free country.

[kandrathe]

Well, then, in that case, this is a war that is never going to end.

I agree. I don't think people really understand how difficult it will be to regain the sense of peace and security we had prior to 9/11. The stated goal of driving back the Jihadi's and Qudists is probably akin to "The war on Drugs", where we get to a level of political numbness and sacrifice a bunch of personal freedom.

Might as well sign 'innocent until proven guilty' off permanently. The right to a fair trial is not there to 'coddle' terrorists, and does not waste courtroom time. It's there for innocents to be able to prove their innocence. If anyone is convinced that there is nothing wrong with throwing out legal proceedings, the rule of law, and the right to be judged by one's peers, then they might as well put their money where their mouths are, and get rid of the judges, and courtrooms. After all, if the government accuses someone of terrorism, they must be guilty, and all that legal mumbo-jumbo's a waste of taxpayer money.

In 1942, half a dozen Nazi sabateurs were caught in the US, were tried in a secret military tribunal and executed. The Supreme court later reviewed the case and judged it to be within the constitutions bounds. This is better than that, and these detainees will be treated more fairly than our enemies will treat any Western prisoners. I believe we've seen that their standard is beheading with a dull knife. Now, that doesn't justify a similiar level of barbarity. If your main beef is the delay between capture and trial, then I think the recent bill will now help make a trial process possible.

Somehow, I don't think that leaving them to rot in Cuba forever, with no charges, is the 'due process' of a speedy, fair, etc, trial.

Certainly that is the 14th amendment decision that the Supremes will need to assess, whether this is equal protection or not. Citizens will get the Cadillac version of justice, while non-citizens get the Chevy version of justice. But, then, show me a country that does treat citizen and non-citizen equally.

I simply can't imagine how (at times) reasonable people like you and Occhi can even consider this kind of bull#$%& to be permitted in a free country.

First, my arguments are at times a presentation of facts as I see them, not neccesarily how I feel about those facts. I'm still wrestling with how I "feel" about this topic. I'm not blissfully ignorant of the freedoms that are being sacrificed in the name of security. It is troubling for me as well. Second, it is a victory for civilization over barbarity whenever a deliberative body, like Congress, can debate and compromise on legislation on how a nation should fairly treat those persons who seek to destroy it. There was a time not too long ago, when pillaging, scorched earth and genocide were the preferred methods for utterly defeating an enemy. I would feel better if such nebulous ideas as a "war on terror" had a sunset provision where Congress would reauthorize the President to continue the war annually, or even every four years.

The question I ask myself is; Can we just ignore the Jihadi's and carry on without any change to our modus operandi? Human nature is to shrink away from pain, so too I believe the natural societal response to terrorism is denial and appeasement. But, maybe the correct approach to save the corpus is to lance the boil, and aggressivly fight the infection. There is a careful balance with on one hand having the instruments to surgically remove the infection, while not being so savage that you cripple or kill the body. The more the Jihadi's make us sacrifice our liberties, waste our time and resources, the better off they are, and the worse off we become. But, if we ignore them completly, we also lose as they run are allowed to spread freely. So, again, I come around to that careful, intelligent, chess game where we need to patiently do the right thing at the right time. Part of my perspective is colored by my extensive study of Asian political thought, where political change is measured in life times rather than 2 year election cycles. Patience is an incredible political force that the US and its populace have no understanding of whatsoever.

[kandrathe]

I think you meant to say "Thecla's one sided, America bashing, propagandized outrage", didn't you?;)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.:D Of course, your vitriol and invective is not on the level of Pravda either.

I don't mean to bait you, but you do seem to be pretty one sided expressing your outrage against just the Bush administration alone. Not being on either Donkey or Elephants sides makes me see things more from a "Those in political power due to electorate ignorance" POV. I only ever read one sided viewpoints on the very far left progressive or communist sites, or the far right, bible banger sites. In the current discussion, there were also 12 Democratic Senators who also voted for the bill, and 1 Republican who voted against the bill you are outraged with just Bush over. If it was so truly a heinous travesty of American justice, why would it pass at all? Why would those Dems want to soil themselves with it?

Seriously, though, I watch every election cycle as a certain percentage of rabid progressives and rabid conservatives lather themselves up and foam at the mouth to the point of absurdity. I think it's not productive to work up people into a wrathful and hate-filled invective, and vitriolic attacks, rather than something more respectful. But on a personal level, I'm really ok with you hating Bush so much but it must be exhausting.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Werner Von Braun worked on V2's. He then worked on the US space program.

Albert Speer was a minister in charge of industrial coordination, he got to sit in Spandau prison until he died.

Minor nit that has nothing really to do with this discussion: Speer was released from Spandau prison in 1966, and died as late as 1981. Inbetween, he sold his memoirs and managed to somewhat convince large parts of the public that he in fact was no real Nazi, but just an architect knowing nothing about what was really going on in the Nazi regime. Yeah right.

-Kylearan

[kandrathe]

...
For every prisoner held without any recourse in Guantanomo all these years (as one camp commander was quoted as saying "we have more goatherders than terrorists here"), how many new potential terrorists have been radicalized by the way they have been treated?

I think you make the mistake of thinking that the jihadi's think as you do. They might make some hay with Gitmo, but more than likely they will also scare off potential recruits by pointing out the reality that they might end up there. I think they actually respect strength (barbarity), but they think American are more "effeminate" than the USSR was. Please read what the Jihadi's are saying is motivating them ( e.g. Sayyid Qutb or The Management of Savagery by Abu Bakr Naji). I think western decadance(in their view), and corrupting their youth with things like MTV is far worse. They believe they are destined to bring down the remaining Satan superpower, as they did to USSR and then establish a one world Islamic caliphate.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I am amused at your presumption that the Feds will be going out of their way to pick up random and innocent persons. Manpower and money is finite.

I will let you in on a thought: no matter how screwed up the law or provision, the people out in the field tend to take what they are doing seriously. While you are not able to avoid corruption and screw ups among federal agents or cops 100%, the guys on the ground don't like wasting their time chasing after and picking up people who aren't bad guys.

I'm sure Khaled el-Masri would just love to discuss this with you. I'm sure he will be in full agreement with Bush that people accused to be terrorist don't need basic legal rights anymore. Maybe if they had tortured him a bit longer he would have finally confessed how he had planned to assassinate the US administration all along?


What happened to the country that had taught us 60 years ago the value of human rights, freedom, and the importance of a fair and independant justice system?

The terrorists clearly are winning, battle after battle, and I don't mean 9/11, Madrid, London, Koblenz, or Dortmund. They are about to bring down democracy and freedom, and this is a damn shame.

-Kylearan

[Swiss Mercenary]

Citizens will get the Cadillac version of justice, while non-citizens get the Chevy version of justice. But, then, show me a country that does treat citizen and non-citizen equally.

I think that incarcerating one without trial - for any length of time goes a bit beyond 'unequal'.

First, my arguments are at times a presentation of facts as I see them, not neccesarily how I feel about those facts. I'm still wrestling with how I "feel" about this topic. I'm not blissfully ignorant of the freedoms that are being sacrificed in the name of security. It is troubling for me as well. Second, it is a victory for civilization over barbarity whenever a deliberative body, like Congress, can debate and compromise on legislation on how a nation should fairly treat those persons who seek to destroy it.

And here's what irks me - the presumption of guilt. Now, I'm not saying you presume that all the cases mentioned were of innocent people, but this is how people try to argue for legislature of this matter.

The fact that the accused can be innocent has slipped past both that, and Occhi's arguments, and it is instrumental to why in free societies, trials of the accused are actually held, rather then skipping straight to the sentencing.

The question I ask myself is; Can we just ignore the Jihadi's and carry on without any change to our modus operandi? Human nature is to shrink away from pain, so too I believe the natural societal response to terrorism is denial and appeasement. But, maybe the correct approach to save the corpus is to lance the boil, and aggressivly fight the infection. There is a careful balance with on one hand having the instruments to surgically remove the infection, while not being so savage that you cripple or kill the body. The more the Jihadi's make us sacrifice our liberties, waste our time and resources, the better off they are, and the worse off we become. But, if we ignore them completly, we also lose as they run are allowed to spread freely.

And herein lies the other half of the problem. The assumption that giving people fair trials, possibly even not using confessions extracted through torture from them against them, and the like is 'ignoring terrorism'.

That immediately shifts the burden of argument (Not to say that you realised you were doing it) away from the person arguing why fundamental liberties should be taken away, to the person trying to defend his position that he isn't really leaving the nation open to the evil terrorists.

So, I present to you, as a pragmatical matter if you will:

How is actually trying the people the Feds are accusing of terrorism opening the nation up to further attacks/whatnot? How can you possibly assume that just because the person in question is accused, he is also guilty?

[kandrathe]

I think that incarcerating one without trial - for any length of time goes a bit beyond 'unequal'. And here's what irks me - the presumption of guilt.
...

Yes, they do sometimes grab innocents and falsely accuse them, interrogate them for years, and hopefully will realize that and let them go some day. Our purpose in detaining them is not justice, or fairness, or humane. I believe they are trying to get information that will prevent future terrorist attacks.

If you read the bills, there are parts of those bills that force the government to provide of a list of detainee's and then treat them within the guidelines of the Geneva Convention. Without the bill, the government had little restraint or guidance, and to see the lack of restraint look to Clinton rescinding the Exec Order barring the government from assassination attempts. Any justice system is imperfect, the Chevy or the Cadillac, which is why we let people out of the Cadillac 12 years after being condemned to death. People are pretty blissfully ignorant on what really happens to people in the shadowy world of Mossad, CIA, and KGB circles. I'm think this is an attempt at trying to reign in our behavior. You are making the assumption that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizen "enemy combatants" and terrorists captured all over the world, and held in prisons that are outside any State jurisdiction.

And herein lies the other half of the problem. The assumption that giving people fair trials, possibly even not using confessions extracted through torture from them against them, and the like is 'ignoring terrorism'.
...

The same arguments from above apply. What is the purpose of the capture? If it's not justice as I would contend, then giving them trials would not be high on the list either. I think one side here is trying to treat this as a police/justice thing, while the other side is treating it like a black op. The compromise is to constrain the latter to be humane, list who they have, give them a military tribunal, rather than keep them as ghosts and dump the bodies at deep sea when they are done torturing them for any intelligence value they might have.

What happened to the country that had taught us 60 years ago the value of human rights, freedom, and the importance of a fair and independant justice system?

Let's see... ...the CIA in 1949 buried it's war crimes evidence against, and recruited Otto von Bolschwing, a close associate of Eichman. I think you really need to read more US history, because it's not all rosey and Dr. King "I have a dream..." stuff. Don't get me wrong, there are great and noble parts, but also very seedy, hidden, and ruthless parts as well.

[Occhidiangela]

Same as how the ICC is unlikely going to be heading to your place tomorrow to pick you up, if the US signed on to it. Hello, Pot, meet Sir Kettle.

Moron. The ICC doesn't come and get you, it hides behind multiple layers of other bureuacracies. It isn't in Belguim for nothing. First, the politically motivated charge, then the request for extradition, delegated to someone else, then the kangaroo court.

Poor point. It can be used to justify doing just about anything to immigrants. Their fault that they aren't citisens, am I right?

Why do you use the word fault? You either are a citizen or you are not. What does fault have to do with it?

Why don't you answer the question: of what benefit is it to be a citizen if it incurs no advantage over the non citizen?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
But therein lies the rub. There is no provision in the bill to ensure that any such link exists or even that there be a reasonable probability of such a link. You mean like:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9)

Right, so citizens are still so protected. What am I missing here?

Or like:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; . . ." (Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, Fifth Amendment)

Right. If Congress passes the law, the first challenge to it will doubtless be about a month after the first arrest. Due process, so long as the agents act within the constraints of the law.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, . . . and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." (Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, Sixth Amendment)

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

I don't know, but I think that the fundamental law of the land is a little bit more than a "special loophole".

Its provisions are intended for the protection of the Citizens of the sovereign nations state that it is framed to create and sustain.

An argument might be made that immigrants (like me) are at best second hand citizens and anyone who didn't come over on the Mayflower or possibly was here to meet the Mayflower shouldn't be treated with the dignity and respect that the WASPs expect.

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.

I will also point to Article 4, section IV of the Constitution requiring the Federal Government to defend the nation's borders, which it has not done for about 20 years, dating back to Reagan's amnesty. That is defense against . . . non citizens, of a sort, from out there to in here.

If you want to argue that the probationary citizen who, in good faith, has gotten with the program, and is actively working toward full citizenship, be treated equally under the law, we are right where I left off, infiltration (thanks to the ease of forging documentation in the information age). Infiltration is a greater threat, since war has gone decentralized, than in the Cold War.

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.

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

paraphrase: "Power tends to corrupt, etc."
--Pete

Yes.

Occhi

[SwissMercenary]

Moron. The ICC doesn't come and get you, it hides behind multiple layers of other bureuacracies. It isn't in Belguim for nothing. First, the politically motivated charge, then the request for extradition, delegated to someone else, then the kangaroo court.

And its not going to happen to the little guys, while this new Bush&Cheney brand of justice certainly has been, and will be. I'm pretty sure that people like Arar are in nil danger of being dragged into the ICC. And, frankly, I think if I had a choice, I'd be better off there, where at least I get a public trial, a lawyer, and the associated soapbox, kangaroo or not, compared to getting tortured in one of your prisons, or their wholly-supported outsourced branches, have the forced confession used against me, as well as a load of evidence that cannot be revealed for 'national security' reasons in a secret trial. Which is exactly what this bill provides Bush the power to do.

And your government doesn't even nee to hide behind other beurocracies - it can simply snap its fingers, and site 'National security' for a non-reason against any appeals.


If you say that its not going to happen - then why are the provisions for all that there?

I'd especially like to hear your explanation about the one where confessions extracted with torture can be used against you.

Why don't you answer the question: of what benefit is it to be a citizen if it incurs no advantage over the non citizen?

Occhi

I'll answer it this way - it is not very relevant to this.

Citisens will still be able to vote, still have protection against deportation due to criminal activity, etc, etc.

And I'll say again - your train of reasoning can be used to justify doing just about anything, including not treating them as human beings - all it takes is an executive order from one man to do so.

There's plenty of other incentives in existance that don't require you to treat non-citisens like some sort of disease.

[SwissMercenary]

So, this essentially boils down to benefit/cost, Kan?

Well, I think one of the associated costs is the loss of what was left of your moral high ground. Considering the suicide attempts in Cuba, death'd probably be a blessing for some of the people 'detained' there.

Now, with that obvious /bash out of the way:rolleyes:, I'll say that just because the administration indulged in this kind of crap, or worse before this bill, hardly makes the provisions of the bill itself constitutional, or reasonable. If anything the 'curbing' and 'streamlining' here was just a matter of making their prior shady actions legal.

[--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

[kandrathe]

So, this essentially boils down to benefit/cost, Kan?

Well, I think one of the associated costs is the loss of what was left of your moral high ground. Considering the suicide attempts in Cuba, death'd probably be a blessing for some of the people 'detained' there.

Now, with that obvious /bash out of the way:rolleyes:, I'll say that just because the administration indulged in this kind of crap, or worse before this bill, hardly makes the provisions of the bill itself constitutional, or reasonable. If anything the 'curbing' and 'streamlining' here was just a matter of making their prior shady actions legal.

This is why I asked Thecla, "What was it like before the bill?" I understand it was mostly black ops kidnapping or secreting suspects hooded in the backs of cars to hidden detention and torture centers, with eventual disposal of the body and any evidence. I think Congress and the administration stepping up to better define some parameters for how we treat people is a better option, even if we don't quite treat them at the same level we would our own citizens. The pragmatism of intelligence is not my call, just my observation.

The tough-guy ethos of most professional intelligence officers has always militated against letting conventional ethical considerations stand in the way of collecting information or carrying out special operations. "We're not in the Boy Scouts," as latter-day CIA Director Riehard Helms often said. "lf we'd wanted to be in the Boy Scouts we would have joined the Boy Scouts.' Blowback by Christopher Simpson