Nothing But Love :: golf blogger

Unlawful Enemy Combatants

And why have I been reading in most of the press that the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which the Congress, without regard for our civil rights, hurriedly passed and the President, with his usual smirky grin, signed with great flourish, does not apply to citizens of the United States of America? Apparently, they are not reading the same law I'm reading, which says:

Sec. 948a. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term "unlawful enemy combatant" means--
(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Please tell me where it says the law doesn't apply to U.S. citizens.

The military commissions to be established will "try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States ..." [emphasis added]. So, citizens cannot be tried by military commissions, which would seem to imply that citizens are to be tried in federal or state courts ... or nowhere.

Under the Detainee Treatment Act, the detainess can be held indefinitely if declared an enemy combatant; so, it would appear that a U.S. citizen can be held indefinitely without being charged, if designated an unlawful enemy combatant.

And don't believe that arrests of U.S. citizens won't be detained for suspicion of materially supporting hostilities. President Bush has already submitted many a "signing statement," declaring that he is omnipotent when it comes to the "War on Terror," which is not a Constitutional war at all, but a Crusade created by W and his power hungry supporters and given the imprimatur of legitimacy by a populace and Congress that was gripped by a patriotic fervor after 9/11. They aren't ever going to give up the power once given to them, legal or not.

So, here's hoping that you haven't contributed to one of the thousands of organizations that are on a list of those that W and his supporters believe are associated with or support "terrorists" because that, my dear friends, constitutes material support. Be prepared to be detained indefinitely, never charged with any crime, and tortured ... oops, interrogated harshly, while in detention while your case winds its way through the courts on your habeas corpus petition, which you just might be able to file.

And what if you perchance give up information ... what if you can't hold out ... what if you tell them what they want to hear ... and what if you tell them things that aren't true because you just want the sleeplessness, bright lights, blasting music, dunking in water until you nearly drown, hallucination-causing thirst and hunger to stop?

What if you tell them what you've been convinced your friends, neighbors, and relatives do ... what you've been convinced the swarthy-complected guy down the street has done?

And would it be surprising if U.S. citizens were looked upon as more dangerous than foreigners? They travel among us ... those U.S. citizens who look just like you.

Maybe U.S. citizens should be required to sign loyalty oaths and carry papers that law enforcement can check. Loyalty oaths ... you chuckle under your breath and ask if I am seriously warped ... hmmmm ....

Loyalty oaths ... kind of like the one Ohio Homeland Security requires?

But we're safe ... aren't we? From the enemy?

Posted by Bill at October 20, 2006 11:40 PM