Quote:
quite true and while there are a lot of laws in the books that are patently unconstitutional, one that is allegedly as unconstitutional as this is not going to escape the legal eagles wanting to make a name for themselves in constitutional law.
Unconstitutional laws need to be challenged.
Unless it is ruled a matter of national security, Executive Authority/Directive/Powers, and etc, the bill's challenge is then negated and dismissed. Considering, the war on terror is under the basis of an undeclared war against essentially Ronin groups of in essence Non-governmental Organizations otherwise known as terrorists/freedom fighters respectively.
Considering, no declaration of war has been declared; wartime laws should not apply.
Quote:
if your not a terrorist living in the USA then you have nothing to worry about.
You should probably research into the Lexicon's assessment of potential terrorist activities, and the various terrorist classifications. Then, there's the issue of aid and comfort to take into consideration particularly without a declaration of war.
Quote:
Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... 5C20111005Quote:
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
As far as I can gather Awlaki's crime was being very *verbally aggressively *and advocated violence against the US, this runs parallel to several groups who are in participation of the Occupy Wall Street, and Awlaki's US citizenship was withdrawn by the administration (The Obama Administration to be precise) and then liquidated/purged by the same administration/State. In essence, this sets the precedent in accordance to the Lexicon that OWS as a whole represents giving aid and comfort to suspected terrorists who are also participating in the movement, which amounts to not only crime prevention and prevention of terrorism but also guilty by association.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1Quote:
After years of struggling with issues of who should investigate, detain and try suspected terrorists -- civilian authorities and courts or the military and its tribunal system
Suspected Terrorists and suspected terrorist activity, please refer to the Lexicon and No-Fly List. The No-fly List includes many US Citizens and/or legal residents under the basis on their behavior within the country according to the physical document under discussion.
Quote:
However, critics complained the deal was weighted toward the military because it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military.
While I didn't see the designation of the homeland being incorporated into the battlefield in the physical document in summary reading... Then, there's the inside the US in reference to capture to consider.
Quote:
warned that Americans could possibly be detained indefinitely by the military.
I would have thought that this would raise some eyebrows.
Requoted without commentary:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1Quote:
After years of struggling with issues of who should investigate, detain and try suspected terrorists -- civilian authorities and courts or the military and its tribunal system
(5)
Quote:
However, critics complained the deal was weighted toward the military because it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military.
(6)
Quote:
That concerned the White House and many lawmakers who think the responsibility belongs, in part, to law enforcement agencies and the federal courts and warned that Americans could possibly be detained indefinitely by the military.
(6)
Quote:
Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.
"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.
"It supports present law," Feinstein added.
(10-12 referenced by Suz).
Quote:
"You have people on the left who hate saying 'the war on terror,'" responded Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina. "They would never ever use the military and always insist the law enforcement be used because they don't buy into the idea that we're at war. They want to criminalize the war."
By past precedent, this should probably be analyzed as well.
Quote:
Therein lies the key to this whole thing. What would constitute the "end of hostilities"? By definition the war on terror is an infinite war with undefined combatants who could be anyone depending on the current definition of the day. In otherwords the USA is at war and will forever remain that way unless at some point an end to hostilities is declared.
Well said.
(Re-reading the post, I realized that I was less complete; than, I should have. * marks the edit).
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
