Can I have assurance that I, as a non-terrorist, will have some form of redress in the event that the government makes a mistake and detains and interrogates me?

If no such assurance is available, then what's the point of America?

We need to shout to the general public the names of the 34 who apparently oppose giving those in charge of dealing with terrorist the tools to protect AMERICA! Make it loud and clear – working against the best interest of Americans will warrant a harsh sting of reality. Blast them verbally and vote them out!

It’s sickening. I think the majority of Americans have had enough of the partisan bickering and can see the 2 primary political ideologies. A.) Move forward and protect America even if we make mistakes in the process, or B.) Obstruct and counter EVERY step the opposition makes with whatever means necessary including lies, deceit and treason to regain power.

When the lions share of Americans (and the rest of the world) awake to what is happening, the response will put the left in a confounding recoil and keep them from power for quite some time.

You are hereby assured of redress. The ACLU will be more than happy to get it for you. No thanks are necessary for the assurance, just remember that the islamicfascists don't want to detain and interrogate you, they want to cut your head off. Hard to get redress for that.

given the chimperor's inclinations toward the loosest of legal interpration of constitutional law, each and every one of us, american citizens or otheriwse, can now be held indefinitely without being charged!

Holy Sh*t is right!

This is crazy! The US is one step away from being a dictatorship! I'm sure Saddam had similar Bills. (Maybe that is where they got the idea for this one). Fox News will probably be very supportive of this.

Can someone explain to me the political benefit to liberals like orange who allign themselves with the terrorists on each and every issue?

Orange,
I now declare you an enemy combatant. You are now eligble for for all the benefits of the new bill. Please check your citezenship at the door. Thanx for playing.

ENJOY!!!!!!!

CJ - do you disagree with what orange said just now?

The question is whether this will be held as constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is only a matter of time before something comes up that can give them a chance to review it.

North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, China - to name only a few - welcomes the USA amongst it midst.

some form of redress in the event that the government makes a mistake and detains and interrogates me?

Are you kidding? A Government making mistakes? A Republican government admitting making mistakes? Not until Hell freezes over.
Remember, the government has paid someone $5,000 to catch you, they should at least get something in return.

remember folks, lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war. this, of course, effected not enemy combatants but American citizens.

the real issue, for me, is a sunset provision so that when this "war" is over, full civil liberities are restored.

but lets concentrate on winning first.

you mean its ok to TRUST ol' georgie with the law? i mean, he's been such an honest and trustworthy citizen for so long.

danger bob - nice snark. you had me for a minute. ;)

nate - cj does not "agree" or "disagree" rather his idea of debate forum participation is dropping in every thread or so to level the old, tired, desperate:

terrorist lover/america-hater

what should i do if i am declared an enemy combatant??

Just don't engage in acts or support hostilities against the United States. Is that too much to ask of the disloyal opposition?

Wilma, don't worry about it. You're not worth $5,000.

We are having at it over at Red State on this topic and here are my thoughts....

What about the machinations that preceded the vote? Specter is so far out of step with his tag line of Republican. Why does he feel the terrorists are entitled to constitutional rights? The habeas corpus amendment he floated earlier today(I posted this yesterday) was only narrowly defeated, 48-51.

And then you throw in....

"The habeas corpus language in this bill is as legally abusive of rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and secret prisons that were physically abusive of detainees," Sen Carl Levin - Mr Compassion Himself.

What are our right's? Where do Senator's Levin & Specter draw the line when it comes to American lives and freedoms? Does the constitution of America, that "We the People" document include Jihadi's from other countries that are fighting to the death to prevent democracy in the arab world?

What section of America do these politicians represent? Who do they speak for?

If ever there was a failure on the part of republicans in congress, it was with term limits. It really is time for a change, that doesn't mean the deomoncrats.... but the power these people hold has to be taken back to the people, by the people, for the people.

In a follow up post where, like here, after the "constitutional scholars" chimed in with their eloquent well thought out opinions, I delivered a little meat....

A long time ago I heard a phrase that has stuck with me since...

"You Can't put your foot down if you don't have a leg to stand on"

I'm happy to see my post garnered some thought, although a fair amount of it was contrived blather. Since I was most clearly talking about the Senate and the lack of representation by certain members I thought it appropriate to back up my thoughts with additional info since there is some dissention.

From the Senate's own website in regards to the Constitution, http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

"Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens."

"The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers."

For those who claimed that there is no "duty", called for in the constition, I'd suggest getting out a dictionary and looking up some of the big hard words, although many on the left have cut words like, responsibility, duty and integrity out and more's the shame as I suspect that many past democrats, if alive today, would find a new party to associate with.

but I digress......

From the Constitution, on Habeas Corpus as written..

"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."

The explaination on the site.....

"Habeas corpus is a judicial device by which jailed people may require their jailer to justify their imprisonment to a court. It is a fundamental safeguard of individual liberty, and the Supreme Court has interpreted it to give federal courts review over state court convictions and to enforce federal constitutional guarantees. It is generally accepted that only Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus. President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the right during the Civil War met with strong opposition."

OK, so anyone with basic reading skills should be able to comprehend that number one, the constitution is an outline of the governments responsibilities or duties to the "citizens" of America and number two that habeas corpus, by the admission of congress, is clearly intended to be defended as a right of a "citizen".

Congress has a duty/responsibility to the citizens of our country as outlined in the constitution. Seemingly forgotten or ignored by the democratic party and some so called republicans.

As far as my thoughts on term limits, according to a senate report on the 109th congress, the average length of service in the house is about 9.3 years, or just over 4.5 terms and in the senate 12.1 years, or two terms. With the buildup of their war chest's to fight off challengers in primaries each election cycle sees less turnover in these entrenched, less accountable, politicians.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Strange__guy,

The argument over constitutional intent is certainly an important one, but your comment seems to ignore the fact that the Bush administration wants the ability to restrice Habeas for citizens as well as aliens.

Do any of you guys believe we are at war? If not, what is it going to take for you to understand that war has been declared on us? This legislation is needed to combat the islamicfacsists.

Nate,

If you'll be so kind as to post the specicif language of the bill where it relates to what you assertain I'd love to re-read that part.

The wording from what I've found.....

"Those subject to commission trials would be any person "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents." Proponents say this definition would not apply to U.S. citizens."

Nate...

To follow up more clearly Moe over at Red State did the foot work and copied the exact language concering the habeas corpus portion of the bill, so where ever you've gotten your information it's mislead you.

The exact language of the bill reads...

SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who--

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

Nothing about citizens in there!

It's strange, all the libs here screaming about this and 30% of their guys voted for it.

Hmmmmmm...........

We are doomed. Sky is falling...sky is falling.

My question is, what's wrong with detailing what qualifies as okay interrigations? We already grant our prisoners far more rights and respect than any terrorist or foriegn power has ever granted our prisoners. We capture these folks for a reason, and that's to remove them from a battleground and to gain information. Are we just supposed to sit on these folks and any intelligence they might hold?

Strange__guy,

You're quite right. I seem to have erroneously read your comment as a defense of the presidentss position on the issue, even though you never mentioned Bush.

My discomfort with the interrogation bill has its source in the Bush adminstration's overall willingness to restrict the constitutional rights of citizens nearly as much as non-citizens. I'm no constitutional scholar, but if someone could assure me that the interrogation bill will properly confine Bush's actions as it is written (ie., affecting only aliens), I would feel better. Not great, but better. So far, I have heard no such assurances.

ray,

Well, given that you'd have to be a non-citizen and picked up in a war zone, the only thing you have to do to be sure of not being taken in to custody under this bill is to, well, not turn traitor and start fighting for the other side.

If you can manage that trick, you're entirely safe...I realise it is a rather difficult hoop for you on the left to jump through, but sometimes life can get a bit rough.

Nate,

Could you please provide the name of any American citizen who has had his rights curtailed in any way, shape or form by the Bush Administration.

What? Have you read any of the previous posts here?

Jose Padilla was imprisoned for three years, without charges. He was denied access to an attorney and he had to sue to get back his "right" to file a writ of habeas.

So let me ask you something Mark. If we didn't know about Padilla, that is, if we were talking about this in 2003, before the public knew what was going on, would we be unjustified in our fear of oppressive laws and government policies? Do we have to wait for the government to actually start persecuting people before we speak up?

And then we have the Patriot Act. Just me know if you would like to talk about that, Mark.

Hey Nate we're having the same discussion on two blogs! How can two people with such great taste have such divergent perspectives?

I try to remain open and teachable, to learn new things every day, how about you?

Hell this year I'm not even voting for my parties candidate for the senate! How's that for radical politics!

Strange_guy, I had never been to redstate.com before I saw your post here. I spent some time reading through some threads yesterday, and I see there's a lot of smart people over there.

If by "open and teachable" you mean "do I stick my foot in my mouth regularly", the answer is yes, here as well as in real life. It's good practice for me, because it doesn't come naturally.

Padilla? Did you mean Abdullah al-Muhajir? The American that turned muslim who then traveled to to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The guy that was arrested with over $10,000 in cash, a cell phone and the email addresses of KNOWN terrorist operatives?

That citizen? Nate, if this is your idea of governmental abuse, I can't think of a reasonable argument to present.

If he had not been picked up and his plans to blow up three buildings with dirty bombs/natural gas had worked AND the government had been able to pick him up and prevent it I suspect youwoud be here arguning that they didn't and that they should have.

So no matter what, you get to present a failure, in your eyes, on the part of the government. Are you familiar with the term duplicitous? I don't mean that in a personal way but if we can't all agree that if a citizen who willingly leaves their country to join a terrorist organization, to train in their camps, be trained in the ways of killing, with the intent to be specifically Americans.

If we can't agree that that person is no longer a citizen and entitled to the rights of one, what else is there to discuss?

Strange_guy,

I understand that Jose Padilla is a suspected terrorist. I understand that he is accused of plotting a catastrophic attack. And I understand that the crimes of which he is accused would, if true, make him a more dangerous criminal than your average rapist/murder/thief.

The problem here is I don't know if these things are true. And neither do you. We haven't seen the evidence against him. We only know what we've seen from the media. And if the Bush administration had it's way, you and I would never have heard about Padilla, and neither would his lawyers.

You seem to be proposing that some accusations are SO SERIOUS that we need to strip the accused of their citizenship FIRST, with no due process, and then try the accused outside of the justice system. Is that what you're saying?

How many other accusations are so serious to you, that they warrant stripping the accused of their citizenship as a first step?

Let's try this: What if I propose to you that anyone accused of major dealings in illegal drugs should also be stripped of their citizenship, not allowed to speak to a laywer, and be tried and judged in secret without ever seeing the evidence against them. Would you agree? Can you argue that illegal drugs are less dangerous or damaging to America than international terrorism?

Nate,

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1990 defines the actions which may result in loss of citizenship:

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

(2) taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

(3) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

(4) accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

(5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

(6) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war") (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

(7) conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

Paqdilla swore alegiance to OBL and Al Queda and admitted such under oath.

Although AL Queda is not officially a state, it can be reasonably argued that Padilla forfieted his citizenship when he did so.

Nate - You can be an American citizen, an enemy combatant and a prisoner of war without being tried. The Civil War proved that.

The United States Army and Navy killed nearly as many American citizens in the years 1860-1865 as were killed in World War Two. There were no trials, and the Justice Deoartment was not involved. Suspected "enemy" spies were summarily tied and executed by military forces in the field.

Are you saying we acted illegally? Should Confederacy still exist?

The large number of dead I referred to was of course the regular soldiers, not the spies. I think that current laws would make it illegal fight the Civil War again. Hear that Alabama?

Oh, and as usual - I spot the typos while waiting for the post to finish loading.

phnxbmed -

Good point. If Padilla did indeed admit to swearing allegiance to OBL or Al Queda under oath, then I agree that it could reasonably be argued that Padilla forfeited his citizenship.

Can't say for sure that's what I believe, but it's a very good point.