More about that "compromise"
Sep. 26th, 2006 08:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumSomething was compromised.
Looking at what, and how, things were changed over the weekend in the text of the proposed legisaltion...
Before Friday people who could be subjected to this law were: "those who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws of war and customs of war during an armed conflict."
Apparently the working definition of the moment is: "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies. WaPo
The White House says this is better because it lets them go after lots of terrorists, but is limited to people who have "materially and purposefully supported terrorism," and those are bad people and the rest of us have nothing to fear.
But I keep looking at the fine print, where habeas is stripped from anyone who is awaiting the answer to the question, "did this person purposefully, and materially, support hostilities against the U.S. or a military ally and there is no time limit to how long it takes to make that decision.
Forget choice, forget guns, forget whatever other single issue happens to make up your mind about how you cast your vote. Tell your rep/senator that if they support this thing, you don't support them.
The same for any candidate running for office.
Make them go on the record.
Looking at what, and how, things were changed over the weekend in the text of the proposed legisaltion...
Before Friday people who could be subjected to this law were: "those who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws of war and customs of war during an armed conflict."
Apparently the working definition of the moment is: "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies. WaPo
The White House says this is better because it lets them go after lots of terrorists, but is limited to people who have "materially and purposefully supported terrorism," and those are bad people and the rest of us have nothing to fear.
But I keep looking at the fine print, where habeas is stripped from anyone who is awaiting the answer to the question, "did this person purposefully, and materially, support hostilities against the U.S. or a military ally and there is no time limit to how long it takes to make that decision.
Forget choice, forget guns, forget whatever other single issue happens to make up your mind about how you cast your vote. Tell your rep/senator that if they support this thing, you don't support them.
The same for any candidate running for office.
Make them go on the record.
