On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:52:00 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
...

So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens?

None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign
terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that
with domestic terrorists, too.

What statute allows that?

Again, you are missing the point. But there are several places in
S.3886 where definitions do not include the designation "alien"

For instance:

(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy
combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of
the President or the Secretary of Defense--

`(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or
organization, including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any
international terrorist organization, or associated forces, engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its cobelligerents in
violation of the law of war;

`(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such
a force or organization so engaged; or

`(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a
force or organization so engaged.

A judge who was willing to expand this could take this text as a writ
that allows the President or Secretary of Defense to declare any
person who is "affliliated" with a terrorist or suspected terrorist
organization as an unlawful enemy combatant. It has created a loaded
term that convicts without proof- and the day will come when an
attempt is made to apply that term to a citizen.

And while it is declared he

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Alien unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in section 948a of
this title, shall be subject to trial by military commissions as set
forth in this chapter.

that alien combatants are subject to trial by military commission, it
does not clearly state that citizens are not.

And these are the real jewels:

`(c) Hearsay Evidence- Hearsay evidence is admissible, unless the
military judge finds that the circumstances render it unreliable or
lacking in probative value, provided that the proponent of the
evidence makes the evidence known to the adverse party in advance of
trial or hearing.

(3) Before classified evidence may be withheld from the accused under
this subsection, the executive or military department or governmental
agency which has control over the matter shall ensure and shall
certify in writing to the military judge that the disclosure of such
evidence to the accused could reasonably be expected to prejudice the
national security and that such evidence has been declassified to the
maximum extent possible, consistent with the requirements of national
security.

(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any defense counsel
who receives classified information admitted pursuant to paragraph (4)
shall not be obligated to, and may not, disclose that evidence to the
accused.

`(b) Treatment of Certain Items- The military judge in a
military commission under this chapter may, upon a sufficient showing,
authorize trial counsel in making documents available to the defense
through discovery conducted pursuant to such rules as the Secretary
shall prescribe--

`(1) to delete specified items of classified information
from such documents;

`(2) to substitute an unclassified summary of the
information for such classified documents; or

`(3) to substitute an unclassified statement admitting
relevant facts that classified information would tend to prove.

I don't know how you read this, but to my eyes it is an absolute
violation of both due process and Habeas Corpus. A person can be
tried for crimes without being informed of the evidence against them.
Any evidence can be deemed harmful to National Security, and a trial
can be conducted without the possibility of the accused to confront
his accusors or to review and rebuke the evidence used to convict him.

If you take this bill alone, it establishes the right of the President
or Secretary of State or their advocates to strip the rights of an
individual of their natural right to review the accusations and
evidence against them by declaring them an unlawful enemy combatant,
and hiding or altering the evidence that may or may not back those
claims.

For now, this only applies to aliens. But if another terrorist attack
occurs in the future (and that is almost certain) which is found to
have been either entirely or partially planned and carried out by
citizens of the US, that will be the real test of the legislation.

The provisions in the bill allowing the classification of evidence
whose revelation could be construed as harmful to US national security
could be taken as a precedent in the context of (for instance)
domestic wiretapping. In the period of time immediately following
such an attack, Congress will be under tremendous pressure to prevent
future outrages through legislation. The natural course for them
would be to suspend Habeas Corpus rights and expand the power of
federal agencies to monitor private communications without warrants
even further than they already have.

All it would take is one prosecutor in one government agency to
declare that they have indisputable evidence against an accused
domestic terrorist that they suspect was acting in collusion with
others, but the evidence and techniques used to obtain it needed to
remained classified in the interest of catching the others involved
with the plot, for Habeas Corpus to effectively be suspended for US
citizens.

After that, Anyone can be arrested, tried and convicted on the basis
of secret evidence. They will not have to have done anything- the
declaration that evidence was collected via classified means that a
person was planning a terrorist attack and must remain secret so that
the source of the claimed evidence will remain a viable venue for
tracking others will be enough to put any person away without a
declared reason.

If there is argument about the total lack of substance in a particular
case, the bill above allows the prosecutor "to substitute an
unclassified statement admitting relevant facts that classified
information would tend to prove." Or in other words- it could be used
to grant the accusing agency the right to usurp the jury's task of
interpreting the presented evidence and supply a set of conclusions
based on secret information in lieu of facts.

If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an
authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock
someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too
dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused.

So who have "they" "done it to" and what specific legislation has you so
upset?

They, being the Congress under the direct leadership of the current
President, have granted the President and the Secretary of State the
power to suspend the right of Habeas Corpus for persons who are
accused of crimes, by what effectively amounts to a declaration that
the revelation of the evidence against those persons is detrimental to
national security, without the checks and balances built into our
system of government by the founding fathers. The specific
legislation is the "Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and
Prosecution Act of 2006"

Placing that kind of power in the hands of an unfettered few men is a
terribly dangerous thing to do- which is why the Constitution
prohibits it. Judging from the continuing reactions to the Sept. 11th
attacks, and the expected reaction to any future attacks from any
quarter -foreign or domestic-, it's not only possible, but extremely
likely that this power will eventually be expanded so it may be used
against citizens who are suspected of either being active, or in
collusion with, terrorists.

That is where the reminder of Sen. McCarthy comes in. There was a man
whose personality allowed him to start a massive witch hunt using the
word "Communism". With the amount of fear and anger generated by
terrorism, another witch hunt using the term "Terrorist" is not only
possible, but in the event of another incident, likely.


We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government
declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people
would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it
a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when
doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A
lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags.

So you're saying that laws that specifically do not affect US citizens are
the camel's nose?

If I am interpreting "the camel's nose" correctly by assuming that you
meant that they are the groundwork for future erosion of our domestic
rights, then yes, I am saying that.

Yes, I do. You're the one who isn't "getting it" because either you are
misinformed about the legislation you fear or you believe that a nation is
obligated to make no distinction between its own citizens and those of other
nations.

As you wish.

Torturing? Who is being tortured?

You don't watch the news?

There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an
elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens-
wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again?

Well, now, it happened to US citizens without whatever legislation has you
so upset so what difference does that legislation make?

The difference is that instead of slander that hurts an innocent
person's reputation but leaves them free, the current administration
has opened the door to imprisoning us and stripping our rights by
decree.

"Did it?" Did _what_, enacted legislation allowing the government to try
noncitizen terrorists by military tribunal, with review by the civilian
courts? Yeah, they did it. So what?

See Above.

If you're thinking that they'll remove the limitation to aliens that is
there specifically because the Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot
apply such rules to citizens. "They" can't "expand it" unless they replace
the Supreme Court.

Wrong. Article 1 of the US constitution states that "the priviledge of
the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases
of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The mechanism by which the right may be suspended is already given to
the US congress in the Constitution itself- but it must not be invoked
in this instance. By declaring a "war" on a nebulous and ill-defined
concept like "terrorism", the President has granted the Congress the
power and justification to indefinately suspend the writ on the basis
of a single attack on domestic soil. We can not and will not ever
"win" a war against a concept or behavior. If we were just at war
with Iraq or Afganistan, there would eventually be an end to it- one
way or the other.

By passing the Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act
of 2006, they have defined an alternate system of law that can be used
as an alternative venue of prosecution for any person who stands
accused of terrorism without allowing that person to challenge the
evidence that is brought against them. It sounds just fair enough and
good enough that most people will swallow it. So instead of being
protected by the laws governing evidence and due process, we are now
effectively at the mercy of the good intentions of our elected
officials- many of whom have already shown us time and time again that
they are not to be trusted.

And then there are the murmurings that come flowing out of the spin
machine that is the GOP. Evidently, if you're not one of their boys,
you're one of the terrorists. If you care about your civil rights,
you must have a shady hidden agenda that involves supporting
terrorism. There have been propiganda machines like that before in
history, and they've never ended in peace and happiness for all. I
don't care for the Democrats either- but on balance, I don't see them
pulling all the old hateful and murderous tricks in the despot's
handbook out of their hats.

I really wish people like you who go around being terrified of their own
shadows would get lives.

And what about you, who are so afraid of the boogeyman Arabs that you
are willing to give your rights away at the first glimmer of trouble
or danger? I'm not afraid of my shadow, and I'm not afraid of
Terrorists. You know what I'm afraid of? Guys like you- who would
sell your soul for a moment of fuzzy false security.