I have watched Olberman (he is the only thing worth watching on CNBC) and have heard him refer to the Enemy Combatant Declaration and how it lessens freedoms in the US for US Citizens.
[
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter" - with "alien" defined in section 948a(3) as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States"
]
I personally love the example of the Japanese detainment, GWB didnt sign a law authorizing the detainment of a segregated group of individials residing in the US.
The fact of the matter is the US Consitituion doesnt protect the freedoms of those who build bombs out of chess sets and shoes only to believe they will get 99 virgins when they die, it protects those who call them selves Americans living in America (whether they be for or against America) (not those who live in a country whose economic power is largely only because of its purposeful depreciation of its own currency so its workers can be paid less so buisness is brought here and spit at the American flag like some on this board).
While I am not 100% up to speed in the bill, I am pretty sure that a US citizen residing in the US cannot be called an Enemy Combatant (there is no current jargon describing it but one would have/hope to assume it doesnt or that the Supreme court (left or right) would shoot that section down). Does that bill not only affect those who are captured in forward combat areas (Iraq, Afghanistan, or more covertly in SE Asia, Europe, Africa, Canada etc).
I am pretty sure the Enemy Combatant legal jargon comes from the way to get around Guantanamo with the UN.
If that is the case I fail to see how the law then violates the rights of US Citizens, if US citizens are captured in FA's they are treaded as Enemy Combatants (they should be shot for treason but we cant do that can we now).
While I agree that there are some disturbing clauses in cased in the Homeland security bill (such as secret warrants, warrants with no cause, media tapping and surveilance etc) the Enemy Combatants section (if I am reading it correctly) doesnt violate the constitution - it may not be in the utopian proper spirit of law but we dont live in a utopia, we live in a world where freedom of expression is attacked by the same group who wants to kill us. We live in a world where people spit and burn one religion but are so afraid of another that if someone publishes cartoons they are thought as racist - you would have to be a backwards savant not to see that.
While I personally agree the US should have never gone into Iraq or even Afghanistan (covert ops, assasiantions, blackmailing other countries would have sufficed) or even be in places like Germany, Saudi Arabia etc - how else would you have handled the 9-11 attacks. The US has taken a proactive stance on the issue rather than a reactionary stance (everyone complains how Iraq is this sticky area for terrorists now - well why is that a bad thing, you are now fighting terrorists with your people who are paid to kill instead of cops, nurses, firefighters who are soley a reactionary/deterent force and not the first line of defence).
Just my thoughts.
MYK
|