Where I currently live we have been having nothing but hard rain and massive lightening, which makes our Internet go nuts. I haven't been able to keep up with most things for the past few days, but, today I ran across This concerning the Bush Administration and your freedoms/civil rights. Read it very carefully and then never forget that Senator John McCain will make things even worse if his sorry ass makes it into the White House.
I like dictatorship! And so do you, if you know what's good for you!
by Kagro X Mon May 26, 2008
You do too. Trust me, you do. Just nod. You don't want to know what happens if you don't nod.
Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gasses and plotting a cyberattack.
To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
Yes, that's what your government's lawyers tell federal judges when push comes to shove, and they have to own up to the ultimate ramifications of what they're arguing. They really are willing to stand there and tell judges that the president can send the military to disappear anyone he wants, so long as he's willing to say that person is an enemy combatant.
The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.
"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.
"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.
And who are you to say different, citizen?
Nobody. Exactly. I thought not. Go on about your business.
(Psst! Over here! Keep it down, though. Were you wondering where they say they derive this power from? Well, it's the AUMF.)
"The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. "Today it's Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back."
Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard, said the issue comes down to whether the nation is at war. Soldiers would not need warrants to launch a strike against invading troops. So would they need a warrant to raid an al-Qaida safe house in a U.S. suburb?
Sulmasy says no. That's how Congress wrote the bill and "if they feel concerned about civil liberties, they can tighten up the language," he said.
So, how are we doing on "tightening up" that language?
Mmmm, not so hot. But mabye we can cave in on FISA first, and then talk about the AUMF.
What? FISA again? Yes, FISA again. Why FISA again? Because the Bush "administration" says the AUMF authorized both its illegal domestic spying program and its powers to invade your neighborhood and disappear your sorry ass on the president's say-so.
And just for fun, here's an interesting observation from a comment by entlord1 in an earlier diary: Bush claims the power to make a warrantless arrest of anyone, anywhere at any time, and argues in court that the power is derived from Congress (though John Yoo always argued the power was inherent in the presidency, which, while even crazier, is at least an internally consistent if powerfully stupid argument). Meanwhile, Congress pretends it has no independent power to enforce its own lawful subpoenas.
Gosh, that must have been some powerful piece of legislation! Better be careful with what you say it authorizes, Congress! Since you're actually contemplating giving the retroactive thumbs-up to the spying part, you might want to give a minute to what this crazy-ass "administration" is going to say that means about the warrantless military seizure and secret, indefinite detention of pretty much anyone the president says he doesn't like a whole lot.
Maybe. Sorta. If it's not too much trouble, and you don't think it will maybe make Republicans attack you in ads.
Otherwise, forget it. We'll just shop and wear our flag pins.
Posts
