You’re right in that both of the major recent candidates don’t offer that distinction, & therein lies the problem. Apparently most people are ignorant of, or don’t care enough that they’re being spied upon to pick a candidate who doesn’t want to spy on them.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
I’ve read about it; not in great detail but enough to know what happened. Shouldn’t civil liberties be everyone’s primary concern though? What could possibly take precedence over your freedoms? I still wouldn’t agree that because we’re at war with countries on the eastern hemisphere that we need to spy on our own citizens, or that the practice should be accepted or tolerated.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
Wasn’t even aware it was his site, it came up in the search; along with the ‘wired’ article, whom I think is a reputable website.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
Rand Paul:Originally Posted by TheWalrus
“Prior to this legislation, a US citizen accused of being allied with al Qaeda or plotting terrorist activity was considered to have committed a crime. Being accused of a crime, these people had civil rights relating to access to a lawyer and the right to remain silent. Floor statements made by Senators indicate that the legislation is intended to change this so that anyone accused of terrorist activity has not committed a crime, but has committed an act of war. In doing this, they do not have the right to remain silent or access a lawyer. In this manner, they can be held indefinitely without the right end this questioning.Originally Posted by JamesBW43
This change in classification is accomplished by classifying the US as a battlefield in the war on terror. The legislation uses the phrase "affirms" when discussing the executive power because the power of the President to arrest and detain enemy combatants on a battlefield is already established. In the case of Jose Padilla and in previous cases during WWII, it was shown that the President can indeed arrest and detain US citizens captured on US soil aiding the enemy in a time of war. However, in the Padilla case, the courts held that since the US is not a battlefield in the war on terror, Padilla must be granted habaes corpus rights and tried as a criminal in the civilian courts. Eventually, Padilla was sentenced to 17 years for his actions.
One section of the legislation states that nothing in the bill is intended to change existing laws with respect to the arrest and detention of US citizens. This has led to a belief that the bill states that it does not apply to US citizens. This is not the case. That section states that current law is not changed by the legislation, but current law already holds that the President already has the power to arrest and indefinitely detain unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. This legislation merely adds the US homeland as a battlefield and affirms the Presidents authority under that law. Therefore the effect of the law on US citizens is changed without changing the law itself.”
“Senator Feinstein of California proposed two amendments to the legislation which both had the purpose of insuring that US citizens captured on US soil would not fall under the provisions of the legisation. The first amendment simply added the word "abroad" to the end of a sentence to ensure that the legislation only applied to those captured abroad. The second simply stated that the provisions did not apply to US citizens captured on US soil.
Both amendments were defeated easily in votes on December 1, 2011.”
Not that I’m aware of. I’m not sure what’s up with your dilemma though. I’d toss that question in the questions & suggestions forum (with a little bit more flattering language), & see if one of the more tech-savvy admins can help you out.Originally Posted by Spesh