Fear of terrorism seems to give people who want more police power to rationalize seeking it at great expense to our rights as private citizens.  I refuse to fly any more so sick am I of seeing elders in wheelchairs being searched or having some stranger seize my toothpaste as a potential exlosive device. 

Be well.

I agree wholeheartedly.  That's why I support the ACLU. 

Mason,

This is a good article! However constitutionally speaking I believe Americans have far more to worry about from the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which basically repeals the magna carta and habeaus corpus. In this little gem;

- You can be seized at any time, for any reason, on the grounds that you are suspected of being an 'unlawful' combatant. Okay, so what is an unlawful combatant? Whatever the Administration says it is. But then they would have to prove you are an 'unlwaful' combatant? Nope. They can say they have evidence that would compromise national security and therefore don't have to divulge it. In a nutshell, they can say "since we think you're a terrorist we're going to take away all your rights and do whatevah we want to you! Oh, and you can't see the evidence we have that proves you're a terrorist because it's secret"

- No notice of your arrest has to be given to your family, lawyer, and you DO NOT go before a civillian judge.

- You can be held indefinitely. No rights to a timely trial. This means they can keep you in prison for years without ever seeing a court room.

- Your lawyer is a military officer appointed for you (you have no choice in the matter)

- Your court is a military panel of officers, again you guessed, no choice in the matter as this panel is also appointed by the executive.

- During your trial, the "secret" evidence that I mentioned earlier doesn't get shown to you or your lawyer. It simply is discussed between the prosecution and the judge, all of whom are military officers appointed by the executive.

Can anyone here say kangaroo court? Can anyone here say Star Chambers that have effectively circumvented the established, CONSTITUTIONAL justice system of your great nation?

And yes, this act applies to U.S citizens, on U.S soil.

El-Duderino-

The point of the trial is the same point that kangaroo courts hold in dictatorships across the world... to at least give the impression or image that there is a functioning, impartial justice system at work. You are correct that the Pentagon has the power to detain indefinitely regardless of the verdict.

"but this will only happen to the bad guys!" folks will cry. Will it? What's to stop them from using this against political dissidents? What about anti-war activists, labor union leaders, there's a whole slough of ordinary citizens, who, under the MCA of 2006 can suddenly be labeled "unlawful combatants" and thrown in jail indefinitely with no rights or representation by a lawyer, and NO OVERSIGHT to prove that these people really are a threat or terrorists or "unlawful combatants" (whatever the heck that means, as it's essentially a term the administration made up in their so-called war against an idea)

I see this got into the senate bill, as well. Anyone know if it remained in the version just passed?

While i agree with Mason's post, the ACLU is worse than the government.  They would have every terrorists running around with diplomatic immunity if they had their way.

Did all those talking points come from Moveon.org?  The Act applies to non-U.S. citizens.

No, actually it does apply to U.S citizens. And they're not talking points from a democratic website, as I repeatedly state I am not a democrat and have no love for that hypocritical party. In fact I'm not even an American!!

If you actually read the act, there are areas that refer only to 'unlawful' enemy combatants, not 'alien unlawful enemy combatants'. The definition of simply 'unlawful enemy combatant' does not list U.S citizenship as a means of exclusion, therefore including U.S citizens as possible for being and unlawful combatant!

And I quote- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act#Criticism

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the MCA constituted an unconstitutional encroachment of Habeas Corpus rights, and established jurisdiction for federal courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus from Guantanamo detainees tried under the Act.^[20]

Aditionally, a number of legal scholars and Congressional members—including Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R–PA)—have said that the habeas provision of the Act violates a clause of the Constitution that says the right to challenge detention "shall not be suspended" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion."^[21]

In the House debate, Representative David Wu of Oregon offered this scenario:

Let us say that my wife, who is here in the gallery with us tonight, a sixth generation Oregonian, is walking by the friendly, local military base and is picked up as an unlawful enemy combatant. What is her recourse? She says, “I am a U.S. citizen”. That is a jurisdictional fact under this statute, and she will not have recourse to the courts? She can take it to Donald Rumsfeld, but she cannot take it across the street to an article 3 court.^[22]

^sadf

Sorry, but quoting something from Wikipedia has about as much credibility as quoting from the DailyKooks.  The Act applies to non-U.S. citizens only, this is something that is commonly left out of these "criticism".  That's what you will discover if you actually read the Act like I did earlier today. 

Habeas Corpus does not apply to foreign terrorists, and it never should.  You can quote hypotheticals all day, but it doesn't change what the Act actually does.