On Dec 15, 11:44*am, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On Dec 15, 11:06*am, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2011 8:27 AM, Home Guy wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ace-guantanamo
...

Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

Defence funding bill allows American citizens to be arrested as
terrorists on home soil and held indefinitely without trial

Chris McGreal in Washington
Thursday 15 December 2011 04.34 GMT

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law
that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial
American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be
shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

[remainder snipped for brevity]

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the
6th Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? *Also, there may
be a violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. *I
predict legal challenges if this legislation is enacted.

This troll started the same nonsense a couple weeks ago and it
was soundly demolished. *The bill simply does not say what he claims
it says. *Here, from the actual bill:

"(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces
of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2)
who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in
military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to
any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is
determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force
that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-
Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an
attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition
partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection,
the
disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in
section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in
paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with
the
requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National
Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary
submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.

(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.

So first in only applies to Al-Qaeda that have participated in
planning attacks on the USA . Second, it specifically excludes
US citizens and resident aliens.

He's just an American bashing troll that makes off topic posts
here and continues to try to get away with it again, after it's been
pointed out that what he's posted is a lie.

I'm not a lawyer, so I am not sure that all the except this or that would
or would not permit a legal US citizen or resident to be detained under
this military rule.

You don't have to be a lawyer to read what is written above in
plain English. How about demanding from the troll who starts
this crap that he show you were it says it applies to US citizens?



*I am also not sure that this will not lead to
classifying some idiot shooting off his big mouth to an entrapment agent
under this law. *It seems to me that some of the prosecutions that are
ongoing against some idiots are getting too close to that line for
comfort.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly which prosecutions are entrapment of of someone
just shooting his mouth off? I've seen cases where after
learning someone was looking to make a bomb with terrorist
motives, the FBI then hand an undercover team supply
the bomb making material. Is that what makes you
uncomfortable? Nothing new there, that has been going
on in the criminal world forever and the resulting prosecutions
have been upheld. Specific examples please. I'.m betting
there aren't any.

And when there are, then the ACLU can go defend them
and make their case. It's sort of like saying robbery should
not be a crime because someday, somewhere, some cop
might misapply it.