More about that "compromise"

[pecunium]

Something 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.

Comments

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Let's see, now... the USSR has been, at times, a military ally of the U.S., right? Therefor anyone who has ever engaged in acts of violence against the USSR would qualify, right? Sounds a bit far-fetched, but I wouldn't want to bet they wouldn't use it if they wanted to Pin someone. Come to think on't, I might have bought a Sweepstakes Ticket sold as a fund-raiser for the IRA about fifty years ago, and they're now known to be a Terrorist Organization that has acted against the British Government, which is current a military ally of the U.S. *sigh* There does seem to be a certain element of vagueness and imprecision in this proposed law -- moreso, even than in the Geneva Conventions. Not that I could support it anyway, but this seems rather like using a section of hog-fencing to strain soup-stock.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I need to write a post about the false, and misleading, precision of the laws the present administration writes.

There is a clause it the PATRIOT Act, which says, something like, "commits, or conspires to commit, or aids in the commission of terrorist acts against the United States," which is narrowly defined and can be pretty clearly interpreted.

But it goes on to say, "or other crimes."

What other crimes?

That is left to the prosecutor to determine, or something, but they aren't defined any more clearly than that.

Other crimes.

TK

[iamcompufrog.livejournal.com]

Marginally, though not significantly, better than "or other offenses or attempted offenses."

As Nixon found out all those many years ago, MOST Americans will willingly submit to random searches and "stoppings" if they can be made to believe that it will "make them safe in their homes, on the streets, in public places, or on public transportation" with the concept of "If you're not doing anything wrong, illegal, or immoral, why should it bother you?"

I don't know, other than that sort of thing is (theoretically) banned by the Bill of Rights - which is now "... Void where prohibited or superceeded by law ..."