Americans, kiss your liberty good bye

[dps]

Why? Does everyone who posts a story on Languish first does a thorough background check and researche of primary sources? 

Of course not.  That's why they usually qualify their conclusions and don't call people ignorant rednecks for pointing out their errors.  As I used to say on Paradox, you can be a dick, and you can be wrong, but you shouldn't be both at the same time.

Yeah that's when you go oh, the source I had stated it wrong. Sorry guys!

Yep.  I think almost all of us have done that at some time or another.  We might not be the thread starter, but there have been many, many threads that have linked and/or quoted a news article or blog with a story about a new law or new interpretation of existing law that have seemed outrageous, but then when someone has actually looked up the wording of the statute/interpretation, etc., it's turned out to not say what the account presented in the opening post said or suggested it said, and then people who had expressed outrage have said, "Oh, that's not bad.  It doesn't say what we were told it said".  Preferably without using a long run-on sentence. 

[Martinus]

I thought Jon Stuart's Daily Show is a valid source of US news. 

[Ideologue]

i have read this debate and after careful deliberation my judgment is for 11b4v. Marty has had his ass kicked by a drunk redneck who used to schlep a rifle for uncle sam for a living

in marty's defense i assume that english is his second language and he is a pollack (albeit a high priced one) so reading the united states code may be tough for him  as it is for many new american law students

additionally, my guess is marty reads the code like a lawyer from a napoleonic code jurisdiction and is clueless as to how an american lawyer would read the text given the federal constitution's applicability to all statutes and the body of common law jurisprudence that guides us in our interpretation of similar existing federal statutes... that is to say i suspect marty comes from a jurisdiction where the statute stands alone as a text (although he still loses -- likely because his english is poor) as opposed to reading the statute in the context of applicable extrinsic factors such as decisional law and the constitution

Yep.  This was why I was wondering if there's some other section where it says (not that it would matter in the long run, but it could cause someone some trouble) "Oh, BTW, notwithstanding Amendments IV, V, VI, VIII, and XI of the U.S. Constitution, and superseding any other statutory authority, if blank is satisfied, American citizens may totally be detained by military authorities forever without trial."

P.S. I've been misspelling "supersede" for years.

any legislation that has to contain the phrase "notwithstanding the constitution" is by definition likely doa

so i guess the answer to your question would have to be "so what if it did".

That's what I said...

[Martinus]

Incidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?

It would raise serious concerns here.

[Valmy]

That's what I said...

Well that is the thing, if there is legislation that seems to violate a part of the Constitution (the Fourth Amendment seems to get run over alot) they just do not mention it.  Like the laws that redefine how wars are waged, in direct violation of the Constitution at least in what it says in black and white, they just do not address the issue.  I think the problem is how hard it is to change the Constitution and how sacred it is perceived.  When it needs to be worked around for expediency, it seems you just ignore it or come up with some convoluted justification.  I mean if there was not this fanatical and politically powerful gun lobby the Second Amendment would be pretty much ignored.

In my totally amateurish perception natch.

[Ideologue]

Incidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?

That sort of language gets reasonably often, e.g. long-arm statutes establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants often include language "to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution of this state and the Constitution of the United States" or similar.

It would raise serious concerns here.

Why?  Surely the legislature can act within its constitutional powers?  My understanding is that the only thing that language is for is to clarify how the statute should be interpreted.  It would always be limited by constitutional language, regardless of that clause, but the statute itself need not be relegislated if it violates constitutional rights or exceeds constitutional authority in any given application.

[Ideologue]

That's what I said...

Well that is the thing, if there is legislation that seems to violate a part of the Constitution (the Fourth Amendment seems to get run over alot) they just do not mention it.  Like the laws that redefine how wars are waged, in direct violation of the Constitution at least in what it says in black and white, they just do not address the issue.  I think the problem is how hard it is to change the Constitution and how sacred it is perceived.  When it needs to be worked around for expediency, it seems you just ignore it or come up with some convoluted justification.  I mean if there was not this fanatical and politically powerful gun lobby the Second Amendment would be pretty much ignored.

In my totally amateurish perception natch.

If you mean that the constitution is basically what courts (and to a lesser degree the executive and legislature) say it is, then yeah.  The only way around that would be to draft a highly detailed constitution that ran into the hundreds of pages.  And that would be an ugly thing, unable to evolve--and even worse, it probably wouldn't even work.

On balance, the vague crappiness of our constitution is something of a virtue.

[dps]

Well that is the thing, if there is legislation that seems to violate a part of the Constitution (the Fourth Amendment seems to get run over alot) they just do not mention it.  Like the laws that redefine how wars are waged, in direct violation of the Constitution at least in what it says in black and white, they just do not address the issue. In my totally amateurish perception natch.

What are you talking about?  Where in the Constitution does it define how wars are to be waged?  The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but it doesn't say anything about how wars are waged, unless I'm having a massive brain fart and have forgotten a whole article or something.

[Valmy]

What are you talking about?  Where in the Constitution does it define how wars are to be waged?  The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but it doesn't say anything about how wars are waged, unless I'm having a massive brain fart and have forgotten a whole article or something.

Oh for fucksake.

[The Minsky Moment]

Incidentally, does the "this law applies to the extent the constitution allows it" (which seems to be the wording used for non-US citizens who are legal residents) meet the muster of proper legislation by US standards?

That's not exactly what the statute says.
What the cited section does is set forth an interpretive rule for the Courts to apply that it was not Congress' intent to alter existing law.  Thus, if the courts are presented with two or more possible interpretations or applications of the statute, they are being instructed to apply that interpretation which does not result in an alteration of prior law on the issue, including (especially!) constitutional law.

I can't think of any reason it would be improper for Congress to include in legislation guidance on how that legislation should be interpreted and applied and an explanation of the law's intent.  In fact, Congress might be well served doing that more often.

[The Minsky Moment]

So in other words, any fighter who either belongs to AQ or to any organization deemed friendly to AQ is now legally considered an unlawful combatant and thus stripped of both the protections of the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war and habeas corpus in the United States?

Not so.

First it is not enough to belong to an organization "deemed friendly to AQ"  The organization must either be directed by AQ or acting in coordination with it.

Second, it is not enough to belong to such an organization.  The person must also have actually participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or one or more of its coalition partners, AND they must also have been captured in the course of such "hostilities" under the authority granted in the AUMF.   Thus, a person who is an active AQ but did not plan attacks on the US or its allies is not subject to this law.  An active AQ member who carries out terror attacks on non-coalition members is also not subject.  A terrorist who plans or even carries out attacks on the US is also not covered unless in AQ or an organization acting in coordination with AQ.

Third, as I interpret the law and in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, Geneva applies.

[Ed Anger]

I thought Jon Stuart's Daily Show is a valid source of US news. 

Your first of many mistakes.

[Eddie Teach]

It's as valid a source as Leno or Letterman and usually at least marginally funny.

[Barrister]

any legislation that has to contain the phrase "notwithstanding the constitution" is by definition likely doa

Not in Canada!!!111

[Admiral Yi]

It's as valid a source as Leno or Letterman and usually at least marginally funny.

Seems to me Leno and Letterman play the setup a lot more straight than Stewart.  Stewart's not a punchline guy so he needs the story itself to be the joke.