we’re all future detainees

The president bush is not wasting any time to put the nails in the coffin of what we used to call the US Constitution. We need to only look at the statements that cheney, bush, and their cohorts have made in the past few years to know who’s going to be detained sooner or later if they manage to get this through the craven and corrupt congress.

No matter what your political inclinations are, this proposal should cause an outcry. We already know what the administration thinks about dissent. But even bush allies should be thinking about this: the bush will toss you to the wolves when you are no longer useful to him. He’s done it before. He’ll do it again. And would you really want President Hillary to have this kind of power? Remember how you treated her Bill when he was President. She might still be pissed off. Sleep on that.


Bush submits new terror detainee bill
By Anne Plummer Flaherty, Associated Press Writer
July 28, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/28/bush_submits_new_terror_detainee_bill/

WASHINGTON --U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.

Administration officials, who declined to comment on the draft, said the proposal was still under discussion and no final decisions had been made…
[...]


The Bush Administration Draft Hamdan Response Bill
byMarty Lederman
Thursday, July 27, 2006
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/07/bush-administration-draft-hamdan.html

Here's one version of the draft legislation that the Bush Administration is considering in the wake of Hamdan. I believe it's the same version that the New York Times and Washington Post have reported on in recent days. (NOTE: FWIW, I did not receive it from anyone in the Administration or those two newspapers. My sense is that it's been floating all around town today.)
[…]

One general matter: Section 104(a) appears to authorize the President to use his "constitutional authority" to establish other commissions, independent of those prescribed in the Act, "should circumstances so require."
[…]

it covers any and all "enemy combatants" against the U.S. and its allies in any conflict, anywhere and at any time. And "unlawful enemy combatant" is defined to include -- but not be limited to -- an individual who is or was "part of or supporting" Taliban or Al Qaeda forces, or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners. If I'm reading this right, if you're a citizen alleged to have "supported" a hostile group "associated" with Al Qaeda, you can be (i) detained until the "cessation of hostilities" (with whom? doesn't say); and (ii) tried before a military commission.
[…]