The question that comes to my mind, after reading this NPR piece, is, are we past the stage of "nipping" the assault on our constitution, "in the bud"?
If somewhere near 60 percent of our "elected representatives", and certainly, the executive branch, clearly choose to represent the "government"...our government.....instead of us, "the people", as the following piece describes, what else has to happen before there is a grassroots response to the suspension of any of our constitutional guarantees to a fair and speedy independent review by a court of competent jurisdiction, of any criminal charges brought against any individual by the government?
Doesn't this "legislation" make it more difficult for "the people" to intimidate the government into protecting our rights..... instead of taking them away, when it is indicated that actions by the government, make it neccessary to do so, as it seems, right now?
The irony seems to be that the alleged "protections" advertised as being neccessary to "fight terror", have the direct effect of making the government less accountable to "the people", and better able to indefinitely detain those designated as the "leaders" of any attempted organization of grassroots opposition to this new law, and to the trend toward loss of representation in the legislature and the former protections against unreasonable arrest, detention, and a guaranteed fair and speedy trial, in a civilian court, judged by a jury of our peers.
So.....since it is past the time "to nip it".....is it time now, to discuss when it is appropriate to intercede, via a grassroots opposition movement, and if not now.......when? Is it still "too early", is it "too late", is it simply to be dismissed as "out of the question", or is it past the time....but it isn't even fucking worth it, anymore, or anyway?
Was the plurality of the vote by our representatives, against our "rights", large enough to convince anyone that the situation described below, cannot be corrected via the ballot box?
Quote:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6167856
<b>Bill Lets U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants</b>
Listen to this story... by Ari Shapiro
Inside the Detainee Bill
All Things Considered, September 29, 2006 · The new detainee legislation passed by Congress this week addresses who can be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant and what rights enemy combatants are entitled to. And it could have an impact on the president's ability to declare that an American citizen is an enemy combatant.
In this politically charged atmosphere, competing perspectives on the topic emerge. Bradford Berenson, a White House lawyer during President Bush's first term, says the legislation is consistent with what courts have said about the president's right to imprison U.S. citizens as enemy combatants.
"U.S. citizens can be detained as enemy combatants if they take up arms on the side of al-Qaida," Berenson says. "But they get some extra judicial protections in that case."
Interpretation at the Discretion of the White House
The legislation that Congress passed <b>does not say enemy combatants are people who "take up arms on the side of al-Qaida." The bill instead refers to people who provide "material support" to the enemy. The language of the bill says that is the standard for both citizens and non-citizens. But Berenson says that's not how the administration will apply it.</b>
"As a practical matter, it would turn out to be a much higher standard for an American citizen," Berenson says. He says a "very demanding review" would need to take place within the executive branch before the president would sign an order declaring a U.S. citizen to be an enemy combatant.
"There's really no risk that a U.S. citizen who merely gives a charitable contribution, in error, to an organization that supports terrorism is going to find him or herself declared an enemy combatant," he says.
<b>Yet this higher standard is not spelled out anywhere in the bill. Berenson acknowledges that what he describes is the White House's interpretation.
To Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, that sounds as if the administration is saying, "Trust us." And with a phrase as general as "material support," he's not comfortable doing that.</b>
Ratner says the Bush administration has a history of broadly interpreting what constitutes material support. 'It certainly includes a very broad level of behavior, " Ratner says. "The real problem is, it's really up to the administration to define it, and that's pretty sad to me."
<b>[host asks: Wasn't the US Constitution drafted, and then amended by the addition of the "Bill of Rights", specifically to guarantee to "the people", in exchange for relinquishing "some rights", in exchange for formation of a representative government, that afforded the additional protections of "the people", via a 3 branch structure that "checked and balanced" each other against abuse and the usurping of the ultimate authority....that of "the people".....SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID SCENARIOS OF POTENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER.....SUCH AS THE ONES DESCRIBED ABOVE?]</b>
Legal Protections for Citizens vs. Non-Citizens
So far the courts have been vague on the topic of defining Americans as enemy combatants. The only explicit ruling the Supreme Court offered was in the case of Yasser Hamdi. The justices said an American detained on the battlefield in Afghanistan could be declared an enemy combatant, as long as he had an opportunity to challenge his detention.
The high court hasn't ruled yet on whether Americans picked up in the United States can be enemy combatants, and if so, under what standard. The new legislation spells that out. Fordham University law professor Catherine Powell says the court is more likely to defer to Congress than to a rule that comes straight from the White House.
"Going back to the Civil War, the Supreme Court has often felt more comfortable with actions that have the support of both the executive and legislative branch than those that just have the support of the executive branch," Powell says.
Americans held as enemy combatants have certain legal rights. They can challenge their detention, and if they're charged with war crimes, they get more rights at their trials than non-citizens.
By contrast, the legislation puts non-citizen enemy combatants in a very different situation. If they aren't charged with a war crime, they may never be brought to court at all.
|
<h3>By passing this "Detainee Bill", into law, hasn't the POTUS and 60+ percent of our representatives, staged their boldest coup yet, against "the people"? Aren't they....with each incremental weakening of our individual rights and thus, the strengthening of the government's, testing our response....and....it follows....emboldening them to take the next "nip", and the "next".....until.....what ????</h3>