Balkinization  

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Imagine Giving Donald Rumsfeld Unbounded Discretion to Detain You Indefinitely

Marty Lederman

Yesterday I explained that the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" (UEC) in the latest draft of the detainee bill was so ridiculously broad and open-ended that it could not possibly be intended to establish the authority of the Executive to militarily detain all persons so defined.

But it appears I underestimated the gall and recklessness of the Administration and Congress, because there seems to be a fairly widespread understanding that the definition would do just that. Even Human Rights First seems to agree that "unlawful enemy combatants" would be subject to indefinite detention.

Most of the attention in the press has focused on subsection (i) of the definition, which would designate as an UEC any "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)." And that subsection is, indeed, broad, and fairly indeterminate, depending on how "materially supported hostilities" is interpreted (something that the Administration apparently could do without much or any judicial review).

But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any 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."

Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.

This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's not limited to aliens -- it covers U.S. citizens as well. It's not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it's not even limited to a time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime.

Therefore if, as everyone is assuming, this definition does establish who may be detained by the military outside the civilian justice system, it would quite literally give the Secretary of Defense the statutory authority to detain just about anyone he wants, indefinitely. And if that's the case, then the habeas-stripping provision would really be the least of it, because even with all the due process and habeas protections in the world, it would be almost impossible to challenge the grounds on which someone is detained if the Executive itself can establish what the permissible grounds for detention are. [NOTE: I should clarify that what I wrote yesterday remains true: The bill itself does not state, in so many words, that all "unlawful enemy combatants" may be detained until the end of hostiltiies. Indeed, it doesn't offer much of a reason at all for defining "unlawful enemy combatant." Thus, the bill could -- and perhaps should -- be construed not to establish any detention authority. But many in Washington this week fear that the Administration will read the new definition to implicitly establish a new detention authority. If -- but only if -- the bill did so, it would be an indefensible delegation to the Executive on a vital question of suppressing individual liberty. That's the (conditional) thrust of this post.]

In theory, there would be some limits on this detention power, but they would come from outside the statute itself. Three possibilities come immediately to mind.

First, presumably a detention would have to comply with the laws of war. There's a basic presumption of statutory construction that Congress does not intend for the U.S. to violate customary international law (the Charming Betsy canon); and that presumption would be especially stong here, seeing as how the principal purpose of the bill as a whole is to make provisions for punishing violations of the laws of war. As the Court suggested in Hamdan, it would not make much sense to assume that Congress intends to authorize violations of the laws of war via the very statute that establishes the terms on which we will punish others for violating those laws. (Moreover, there's actually a serious question whether Congress has the constitutional power to pass a statute that violates the laws of war. The idea that a statute can supersede the laws of war might now be commonplace, but it's actually a fairly recent notion. For most of U.S. history it was assumed by all three branches of the federal government that the laws of war delimited the constitutional war powers of Congress and the Executive -- and the Supreme Court has never said otherwise. In any event, even if that argument would fall on deaf ears in the modern Court, it provides yet another very strong reason why this new bill should not be construed to authorize detention (or any other conduct) in violation of the laws of war.)

Second, the Constitution would set some limits on who could be detained, at least with respect to U.S. citizens and persons aliens detained domestically (and possibly even with respect to aliens detained overseas, depending on whether the Court holds that they have Fifth Amendment protections -- a very important and unresolved pending question).

Finally, one might argue that the definition in this bill cannot operate of its own force, but instead must be read in pari materia with a distinct, separate authorization to use military force, such as those Congress enacted authorizing the use of necessary and proper force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and in Iraq -- so that the only UECs who may be detained are those fairly encompassed by the AUMF in force at a particular time (in this case, only persons sufficiently associated with the groups and nations responsible for the 9/11 attacks).

The problem with all three of these potential limiting principles, however, is that they would be applied in the first instance by the Bush Administration (which has demonstrated an eagerness to (mis)read such limits exceedingly narrowly), and this bill would significantly restrict the ability of detainees -- especially aliens -- to seek effective review of such decisions.

* * * *

Choosing the most indefensible provision in this bill is a tall order -- there are many worthy candidates. But a provision that would grant DoD virtually unlimited discretion to detain "unlawful enemy combatants," as defined by Donald Rumsfeld himself, would be an awfully formidable candidate for that dubious honor.

Comments:

Okay, I had thought that because U.S. citizens could be designated "enemy combatants," that they could suffer the loss of habeas. But Hilzoy & Katherine at ObWi pointed me to section 7 of the new draft, which says only *alien* enemy combatants lose habeas.

So where does the power of indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, at the Executive's pleasure, show up in the draft? I'm not understanding that part.
 

Common Article 3 was drafted after WWII in the late 1940s and ratified in the 1950s. It was supposed to provide a minimum baseline for the treatment
of all detainees. Do our enemies follow it? Certainly not. Does that justify us not following it?

The Global War on Terror is a war of ideals. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah promote violent jihad and barbarity. We promote freedom of conscience and markets and representative government. Do we promote that goal by engaging in very coercive interrogations of detainees that violate CA3? Interrogations by their very nature are coercive, but if you push the limits of coercion too
far it is torture. Any practice (other than confinement itself, which is specifically exempted) that involves severe pain or discomfort (even if it
does not cause long term physical harm) as a means of soliciting information is torture. Like pornography, it is hard to definitively describe in words
but you know it when you see it.

Abu Ghraib's damage to the Iraq War was a "moral Chernobyl" in the words of Christopher Hitchens. It was certainly a tactical Chernobyl in our efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people (especially the Arab Sunnis). Yes the night shift at Abu Ghraib was out of control, but they
were out of control in part doing the bidding of DoD interrogators under orders from Donald Rumsfeld who had said he was "taking off the gloves." Similar incidents occurred at other bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those incidents undoubtedly fueled the insurgency in Iraq and as a result led to
hundreds of American military casualties. Unlike many of the critics of it, I assume torture works (at least to a point)--but once you head down the road of using coercive force it is hard to stop and it begets more torture.
Given all that has occurred, that the Administration is still arguing for this highly coercive techniques, without any oversight, it troubling.

It is easy to look away and hope for the best, to dismiss critics as the fringe left who think the worse about the United States or opponents of the President looking for partisan advantage (and sadly to some extent that is the case). I support the Iraq War, I support
the GWOT, I voted for and support President Bush and hope the Republicans maintain control of Congress, and I want to keep my country and family safe,
but as a conservative I also know that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. I believe George W. Bush is trying to do what he deems right, but that does not mean adopting torture is the right thing to do. Human
nature (both good and bad) is universal and Americans do not have a monopoly on virtue. That is why we believe in the rule of law. I am very reluctant
to give this Administration (and by implication all future Administrations)the right to torture detainees. Perhaps a case could be made for highly
coercive force in very special cases--such as a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But as soon as you start with one high value detainee, there is always another
and another. Blanket acceptance of such coercive techniques without any meaningful oversight is a mistake. Adopting the barbarity of our enemies,
without tight constraints or controls, does not justify any ends I can see.
 

I agree with the perception of excessive porosity in the language defining prospective detainees, and this likely is a result of hasty composition, even following a four month process of review since the Hamdan decision.

It is worth re-reading the argument in Hamdan exchange between Justice Stevens and the Solicitor General where laughter erupts as the SG declares the writ of habeas is both suspended and not suspended at page 56; and farther at page 77 this time with Justice Scalia leading the SG through the uniquely vulnerable detainee condition, where the Justice intercepts a line of questioning by another justice, Kennedy.

I think there is so much due process caselaw here that the imprecision in the UEC-ii definition which opens US citizens to incommunicado detainment by the secretary of Defense would not stand, even given the brash court stripping provisos.

When B. Berenson made his apologesis before the Senate Judiciary Committee this Monday, once again the senators listened to rhetoric chastizing them for letting an inappropriately politicized supreme court in the opinion in Hamdan ignore clear mandates in DTA.

I would hope there is more considerate evaluation in the senate in the current redrafting process, and that the senate explicitly realizes that in addition to cleaning up the imperfections and contradictions in the president's proposed law, there is a wider context to which the supreme court also alluded in its final opinion in Hamdan.

First there needed to be renewed colloquy between executive and legislature. Then the supreme court would fulfill its responsibility to advise upon what finally passed remade law would require; and the supreme court would look at whether the new law is suggesting such fundamental changes to our legal environment that amendment to the constitution would be necessary to proceed.

Even in its ungainly form as now existing, if the law passes in the senate, besides US citizens being affected (a totally unacceptable outcome) by the detainment provisions, I could foresee the diplomat community having deep concern that a new environment would develop, fostered by the impacts of the commissions and their use of torture permissively.

Hopefully a supermajority of the senate will vote against this law, perhaps separating it into smaller more manageable elements rather than its current hundred page bulk; the polls are saying a supermajority of the public is against the torture part of the law. But the habeas segments are equally worrisome. I do not think the SG, or the 'compromising' three leading senators either, should both have the writ and do away with it; as Justice Stevens replied to the SG, "Well, it can't be both."

I was reading the Chavez v Martinez case again; 01-1444; I expect that if the new law is presented in some form for assessment of its constitutionality at Scotus, there will be one vote to let it stand as is, Thomas'; and, given the direction of the other Justice's intervention in the 'uniquely vulnerable detainee' discussion loc. cit., probably two votes.
 

Thank you for the analysis. The more this travesty of a bill is covered, the better. Let's continue to put the spotlight on those elected officials who are either pushing for (Republicas), or enabling (Democrats) the destruction of our freedoms.
 

Bizarro Conservatism and Its Discontents, by Justin Raimondo


excerpt [emphasis added]:

"There was a time . . . when Americans feared the accumulation of power, especially when it accrued to the federal government in Washington: conservatives of the Goldwater stripe (and, further back, the followers of Sen. Robert A. Taft), were especially vigilant against this danger. . . Both Left and Right were joined at the root by the American libertarian consensus; a reflexive distrust of government power rooted in history and reinforced by a rebellious temperament embedded in the American consciousness.

No more: today, the "conservatives" on the Fox "News" channel and the Rush Limbaugh-radio talk show circuit are worshippers at the altar of State Power. No expansion of governmental authority is too vast, too broad, too brazenly contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution to evade their enthusiastic endorsement. . .

The ultimate expansion of the "unlawful combatant" definition to include any and all opposition to the War Party, whether military or political, is only a matter of time, and not much time at that. This administration and its allies have long maintained that their critics are "objectively" aiding the terrorist enemy. If Iraq is the main theater of our war on terrorism, then criticism of the war effort, such as organizing an antiwar demonstration, amounts to "material support" for "hostilities against the United States." . . .

For once, I agree with Andrew Sullivan:

"Whatever else this is, it is not a constitutional democracy. It is a thinly-veiled military dictatorship, subject to only one control: the will of the Great Decider. And the war that justifies this astonishing attack on American liberty is permanent, without end. "

I might add, however, that Sullivan is only getting what he asked for. . .

The program of the War Party ; perpetual war and the creation of an American empire; had to mean the overthrow of our constitutional republic, and the rise of . . . something else. Something that has been, so far, alien to America, but is now, sadly, a looming possibility: a dictatorship "legally" empowered by "emergency" measures, such as the one presently before the Senate [.pdf]."
 

Professor Lederman:

[T]he really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any 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."

This latter definition simply confirms the CiC's Article II power to hold status hearings to determine whether a capture is an unlawful enemy combatant.

It is quite simply wrong to claim that the executive can call anyone they want an enemy combatant under this statute.

This legislation defines a lawful enemy combatant in detail.

By definition, an enemy combatant of any type cannot be a civilian and the detention must be during wartime for the person to be a combatant.

Thus, under process of elimination under this legislation, an unlawful combatant is a combatant, not a civilian, who does not fall under the definition of lawful combatant.

In theory, there would be some limits on this detention power, but they would come from outside the statute itself. Three possibilities come immediately to mind.

First, presumably a detention would have to comply with the laws of war. There's a basic presumption of statutory construction that Congress does not intend for the U.S. to violate customary international law (the Charming Betsy canon); and that presumption would be especially stong here, seeing as how the principal purpose of the bill as a whole is to make provisions for punishing violations of the laws of war.


This legislation expressly establishes what the laws of war are under US law as they apply to Captures. Article I of the Constitution makes Congress the final power to set rules for Captures. Treaties are subordinate to the Constitution.

Sections 948b(d) & (f) of this legislation expressly states that military commissions as formed under this legislation satisfy the requirements of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and that unlawful enemy combatants may not invoke the Geneva Conventions for rights not established in this legislation.

As to interrogation of unlawful enemy combatants, Section 6(a)(2) of the legislation states that this section fully satisfies US obligations under Article 3.

Second, the Constitution would set some limits on who could be detained, at least with respect to U.S. citizens and persons aliens detained domestically (and possibly even with respect to aliens detained overseas, depending on whether the Court holds that they have Fifth Amendment protections -- a very important and unresolved pending question).

This is yet another good argument against your slightly overwrought claim that Congress is somehow giving the President the power to detain you and I for any reason he sees fit.

Finally, one might argue that the definition in this bill cannot operate of its own force, but instead must be read in pari materia with a distinct, separate authorization to use military force...

When the enemy declares war and attacks you as al Qaeda and its allies did starting in the 90s, you are in fact at war no matter what Congress enacts. Those who war against you are by definition enemy combatants. There have been literally dozens of small and not so small wars in which Congress has not formally declared war or its equivalent through an AUMF in which we have captured prisoners.
 

Quoting Bart DePalma:
------
It is quite simply wrong to claim that the executive can call anyone they want an enemy combatant under this statute.

This legislation defines a lawful enemy combatant in detail.

By definition, an enemy combatant of any type cannot be a civilian and the detention must be during wartime for the person to be a combatant.

Thus, under process of elimination under this legislation, an unlawful combatant is a combatant, not a civilian, who does not fall under the definition of lawful combatant.
------

Again, as I posted (without response from you) here: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/it-gets-worse.html , your assertion is unsupported by the legislation. The definitions at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r1098ClbzG:e0: do not exclude civilians from the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant." Instead, s.948a(1)(A) defines "unlawful enemy combatant" as "(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...; or (ii) a person who...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."

In other words, an "unlawful enemy combatant" includes anyone who is not acting on behalf of a State who also "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" -- OR anyone whom a tribunal established by the "President or the Secretary of Defense" determines to be such a "combatant." The legislation provides no standards for the latter determination, so, yes, the standards are whatever the President or Secretary of Defense decide.

This definition greatly lengthens the list of those potentially subject to trial by military commissions. And although s.948d(a) appears to limit the commissions' applicability to "alien unlawful enemy combatant[s]," s.948d(c) makes the determination of "unlawful enemy combatant" status by a tribunal established by the President or SoD "dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial...under this chapter." Given this administration's history on handling the law, I expect that this power will also be used to determine alienage, potentially subjecting citizens to trial by these commissions.

This stuff needs to be debated long, hard, and publicly. Attempting to force it through with what? 12 hours of debate just before a legislative break is unconscionable.
 

Tonal Crow:

To start, you and Professor Lederman are focusing only on one part of a larger piece of legislation which must be read in harmony with the rest of the legislation.

As I cited above, the legislation defines a lawful enemy combatant. If a detainee falls under that definition, he is obviously not an unlawful enemy combatant.

Furthermore, words have commonly accepted meanings even if undefined by Congress.

A combatant is by definition a person who wages war either as front line fighter or personnel supporting and supplying those fighters.

A combatant is the polar opposite of a noncombatant civilian bystander.

An enemy combatant is someone who is warring against us or our allies.

Congress meant any person, they would have used the term person.
 

An enemy combatant is someone who is warring against us or our allies.

Mr. DePalma, what was Jose Padilla, according to the Executive?

Is there any reason to think they won't interpret this statute consistently with their theories about their right to deny habeas to Padilla?
 

Would the provision allowing the use of evidence gathered in the US without a warrant allow the Bush Admin to use the evidence obtained under the wiretap program to be used in court?
 

Anderson:

Jose Padilla was an enemy combatant who was also a US citizen.

That leaves an interesting hybrid situation which has not been fully resolved.

During the Civil War, US citizens were also enemy combatants and imprisoned without criminal trials. However, we are not in a civil war and are instead dealing with traitors fighting for a foreign enemy.

4th Cir held that Padilla had limited rights and could be detained as an enemy combatant without being charged with a crime.

I personally subscribe to Scalia's holding in another enemy combatant case that US citizens have full rights under the Constitution and should be tried for treason or other applicable crimes.

Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall if the Padilla appeal went to the Supremes, the executive moved Padilla to civilian court and mooted the issue for now.

This legislation is largely irrelevant to Padilla's case. Either citizen enemy combatants have constitutional rights which trump this legislation or they do not.
 

Mr. DePalma, I think I stated my point poorly.

It seems obvious to me that if the statute leaves any ambiguity whatsoever, the same administration that denied Padilla had any habeas rights, will exploit that ambiguity in its reading of the statute.

For the years unless/until the Supreme Court decides the question, THAT will be what the statute means.

Glad to see that you and I both agree with Justice Scalia on this issue.
 

Anderson:

I make a very fundamental distinction between US citizen and foreign enemy combatants.

Unlawful foreign enemy combatants have never been extended constitutional rights of citizen criminal defendants, nor should they now.

The Bush military commission system and the enhanced rights under the proposed legislation are far more due process than unlawful foreign enemy combatants have historically received.

With the exception of our voluntary extension of Geneva POW rights to Viet Cong unlawful combatants fighting in civilian clothing, due process has historically been a cursory battlefield hearing to determine if the person in civilian clothing or our own uniforms was a combatant followed by a summary execution if he was. During the Battle of the Bulge, our military simply shot captured SS dressed in our clothing. There was no trial.

Granting unlawful enemy combatants fighting in civilian clothing amongst and behind civilian non combatants the same rights as those who fight in uniform and do not unnecessarily endanger civilians simply rewards war crimes which endanger civilians.
 

A Lawful Enemy Combatant is someone who enlists in and is serving in an enemy armed force at the time of capture. If captured on the battlefield, he must be wearing a uniform, carrying an ID card, and he must give some version of name, rank, and serial number. If captured when a rear area is overrun there is some slop in the wearing of a uniform since he can be captured in bed or in the shower.

There are several types of unlawful enemy combatants. First, there are soldiers who engage in combat or attempt to cross lines of defense out of uniform. There are also civilians who engage in combat with US forces. A civilian not captured in combat or captured in a rear area cannot be an enemy combatant.

Jose Padillia was an enemy soldier out of uniform captured while attempting to cross lines of defense (specifically the customs checkpoint of O'Haire Airport). He enlisted in Al Qaeda, served as a soldier, and was at the time on a military mission assigned to him by his commanding officer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In traditional terms, he was a military Spy.

If we compare the traditional definiton of UEC with the language in this bill, it does seem to expand the definition quite a bit. A civilian traditionally cannot be an enemy combatant unless he engages in combat. A truck driver who drives a load of ammunition to the front remains a civilian even though he has provided material support to the enemy.

The problem with the current war is that both sides seem to lose track of the distinction between ordinary criminal activity and a foreign military. If this is a real war with real combatants, then you have to treat Al Qaeda as a potential group of Lawful Enemy Combatants who only need to put on uniforms to become POWs. You cannot, as the President has done, declare them unlawful as a group, nor can you as some judges have done declare them lawful unless processed by an Article 5 tribunal. They are lawful or unlawful depending on what they are wearing, where they were captured, and their enlistment status. If someone is captured in combat, without a uniform, without an ID, and refuses to say anything, then he is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant and you do not need a Competent Tribunal to determine it any more than you need a Court to declare that the sun rose this morning.

If Al Qaeda is a real army and a real enemy, then they are entitled to support by their civilian population. Their civilians do not become enemy combatants by providing normal material support. If this is not a criminal enterprise, then the truck driver cannot become part of the conspiracy.

This has no effect on Jose Padillia's orginal status, but it may call into question the status of many of the people in Guantanamo.
 

Quoting Bart DePalma:
------
Furthermore, words have commonly accepted meanings even if undefined by Congress.

A combatant is by definition a person who wages war either as front line fighter or personnel supporting and supplying those fighters.

A combatant is the polar opposite of a noncombatant civilian bystander.

An enemy combatant is someone who is warring against us or our allies.

Congress meant any person, they would have used the term person.
------

They did use the word "person." You are ignoring the plain reading of the language before Congress. Again I quote s.948a(1)(A), which defines "unlawful enemy combatant" as "(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...; or (ii) a person who...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."

Taking (i) first, let's go through the clauses one at a time to draw a linguistic Venn Diagram. First, an "unlawful enemy combatant" is a "person." Second, it is a person who is not a "lawful enemy combatant." That set includes civilians of all descriptions as well as non-lawful fighters. Third, the definition selects such persons of that set who "ha[ve] engaged in hostilities or who ha[ve] purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This last set includes fighters, spies and logistics personnel, but it also includes civilians whom the President deems to satisfy the "purposeful[] and material[]" language.

Now (ii) is even more obvious. It allows the President or SoD to determine, via procedures and under rules that he, at his sole discretion, designates, who is an "unlawful enemy combatant."

Clear enough?
 

Take a look at Section 948r(c). If you compare the two parts, it plainly implies that self-incriminating statements obtained prior to enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act, by interrogation methods that violate the cruel, unusual, or inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, may be allowed into evidence.
 

Tonal Crow:

My friend, this bill does not define unlawful enemy combatants as generic "persons." Rather, it expressly defines them as "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."

Words have meanings.
 

Quoting Bart DePalma:

------
Tonal Crow:

My friend, this bill does not define unlawful enemy combatants as generic "persons." Rather, it expressly defines them as "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."

Words have meanings.
------

Yes. And if you read them in appropriate context instead of intentionally omitting the context so as to score political points, you actually can understand what they are intended to mean. The hypocritical postmodernism here is quite out of control.
 

Well, I did at least what I could for now, and left voicemail messages for both my senators pointing out these difficulties with the bill and urging them not to pass something equivalent to the House version, but instead to come up with something that will better protect some kind of basic legal standards.
 

This is on the floor now. Ask your Senator not only to oppose it, but to table it for this session by withdrawing unamimous consent (which turns Senate procedure to molasses).

This bill is far too important to be rushed through on the 12 hours of debate that I understand Sen. Frist to have allocated for it.
 

I live in Colorado. Both my Donkey senator Salazar and my Elephant senator Allard will vote for this bill if they expect to get reelected out here.

Nearly every Elephant in the House and every Donkey in anything like a close district voted for this bill.

I expect the same in the Senate.
 

Howard:
I find most of what you say agreeable. However, and this is a small point, I always thought that the President declared them unlawful as a group because they specifically were refusing to abide by the laws of war (including refusing to wear uniforms).

Also, isn't there a requirement that the lawful combatants be answerable to some sort of state apparatus (that is, one with a defined and recognizable territory). I mean, no matter what one says about parts of Pakistan, I don't think AQ can ever claim that status.
 

instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online
 

credit reports online internet credit reports online credit history ringtones ringtone ring-tones polyphonic ringtones mp3 ringtones alltel ringtones samsung ringtones nextel ringtones t-mobile ringtones download ringtones credit history online credit history online credit history online credit history online online credit history internet credit reports internet credit reports internet credit reports internet credit reports online credit history online credit history credit reports online credit reports online credit reports online credit reports online web credit report credit reports online web credit report web credit report web credit report web credit report free credit history instant credit report online free credit history free credit history free credit history free credit history check credit history check credit history check credit history check credit history check credit history instant credit report online instant credit report online

Ringtone Ringtones Verizon Ringtones WWE Ringtones Polyphonic Ringtones Rap Ringtones Hip Hop Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Alternative Ringtones Alternative Ringtones Alternative Ringtones Alternative Ringtones Alternative Ringtones 80s Ringtones 80s Ringtones 80s Ringtones 80s Ringtones 80s Ringtones Ringtone Ringtones Verizon Ringtones WWE Ringtones Polyphonic Ringtones Rap Ringtones Hip Hop Ringtones Ringtone Ringtones Verizon Ringtones WWE Ringtones At & T Ringtones At & T Ringtones At & T Ringtones At & T Ringtones At & T Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones
 

http://creditreport-crs.tripod.com
http://creditreport-crs1.tripod.com
http://creditreport-crs2.tripod.com
http://creditreport-crs3.tripod.com
http://creditreport-crs4.tripod.com
http://creditreport-crs5.tripod.com
http://credithistoryonline.tripod.com
http://online-credit-histor.tripod.com
http://creditreportrachana.tripod.com
http://creditreportrachana1.tripod.com
http://creditreportrachana2.tripod.com
http://creditreportrachana3.tripod.com
http://creditreportrachana4.tripod.com
http://www.internetcreditreport.150m.com
http://www.webcreditreport.150m.com
http://www.onlinecredithistory-arit.150m.com
http://www.credithistoryonline.150m.com
http://www.internetcreditreports.150m.com
http://www.checkcredithistory-arit.150m.com
http://www.web-credit-report.150m.com
http://www.quizilla.com/users/rajee/journal/586406/web_credit_report/
http://www.quizilla.com/users/internetcreditreports/journal/623759/credit_reports_online/
http://www.quizilla.com/users/internetcreditreports/journal/623752/free_credit_history/
http://www.quizilla.com/users/internetcreditreports/journal/623750/check_credit_history/
http://www.quizilla.com/users/internetcreditreports/journal/623745/credit_history_online/
http://www.quizilla.com/users/internetcreditreports/journal/623744/online_credit_history/
http://www.quizilla.com/users/internetcreditreports/journal/623739/internet_credit_report/
http://www.quizilla.com/users/internetcreditreports/journal/623738/internet_credit_reports/
 

top spywares best antispywares antispyware reviews compare antispywares top spywares compare anti-spywares best spywares best spywares best spywares top spywares top spywares top spywares best spywares best spywares top spywares top spywares anti spyware programs compare antispywares best antispywares anti spyware programmes best spywares best spywares antispyware programmes top anti spywares anti spyware programmes anti-spyware programmes antispyware reviews free spyware scans top anti-spywares anti spyware reviews antispyware antispyware programmes antispywares anti-spywares best anti spywares free anti spywares free spyware scanners spyware removers top antispywares top anti-spywares anti spyware programmes anti spyware anti-spyware anti-spyware programs anti-spyware reviews spyware removal anti spyware programs anti spywares antispywares anti-spywares free anti spywares antispyware antispyware programs anti-spyware reviews best anti spywares best anti-spywares free anti-spywares free spyware scanners spyware removers xoftspy xoftspy se xoftspy-se compare anti-spywares anti spyware anti-spyware anti-spyware programs spyware removal antispyware programmes anti-spyware programmes top anti-spywares anti spyware reviews antispyware programs free spyware scans spyware softwares free antispywares best spywares best spywares top spywares top spywares compare antispywares antispyware programmes compare antispywares compare antispywares compare antispywares compare antispywares compare antispywares compare antispywares anti spyware programmes anti-spyware programmes top anti-spywares top anti spywares top antispywares compare anti-spywares free antispywares spyware softwares best anti spywares best anti-spywares best antispywares free anti-spywares free anti spywares free spyware scanners free spyware scans antispyware reviews xoftspy se xoftspy-se anti spyware reviews anti-spyware reviews antispywares anti-spywares anti spywares antispyware programs xoftspy antispyware anti-spyware programs anti spyware programs spyware removers anti spyware anti-spyware spyware removal antispyware programmes antispyware programmes antispyware programmes antispyware programmes antispyware programmes antispyware programmes
 

anti-spyware programmes antispyware programmes best antispywares best spywares compare antispywares free antispywares free spyware scanners free spyware scans top anti-spywares top spywares antispyware programmes antispyware programmes best antispywares best spywares compare antispywares free antispywares free spyware scanners top anti-spywares top spywares best spywares antispyware programmes best antispywares best spywares compare antispywares free antispywares free spyware scanners free spyware scans top anti-spywares top spywares compare antispywares antispyware programmes best antispywares best spywares compare antispywares free antispywares free spyware scanners free spyware scans top anti-spywares top spywares free spyware scanners antispyware programmes best antispywares best spywares compare antispywares free antispywares free spyware scanners free spyware scans top anti-spywares top spywares free spyware scans antispyware programmes best antispywares best spywares compare antispywares free antispywares free spyware scanners free spyware scans top anti-spywares top spywares anti spyware programmes antispyware programmes best antispywares best spywares compare antispywares free antispywares free spyware scanners free spyware scans top anti-spywares top spywares top anti spywares top anti-spywares antispyware programmes antispyware programmes best antispywares best antispywares best spywares best spywares compare antispywares compare antispywares free antispywares free antispywares free spyware scanners free spyware scanners free spyware scans free spyware scans top anti-spywares top anti-spywares top spywares top spywares top spywares antispyware programmes best antispywares best spywares compare antispywares free antispywares free spyware scanners free spyware scans top anti-spywares top spywares anti spyware programmes free spyware scanners free spyware scans compare antispywares top anti-spywares best spywares top spywares free antispywares spyware softwares best antispywares anti spyware anti spyware programmes anti spyware programs anti spyware reviews anti spywares antispyware anti-spyware antispyware programmes anti-spyware programmes antispyware programs anti-spyware programs antispyware reviews anti-spyware reviews antispywares anti-spywares best anti spywares best antispywares best anti-spywares best spywares compare antispywares compare anti-spywares free anti spywares free antispywares free anti-spywares free spyware scanners free spyware scans spyware removal spyware removers spyware softwares top anti spywares top antispywares top anti-spywares top spywares xoftspy xoftspy se xoftspy-se
 

An "alien" according to Law.com is anybody who is not a citizen of the country. A classification of "enemy combatant", thanks to prior legislation, would replace a US Citizen's designation as a "Citizen" and therefore not only remove that person out from under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, but leave said person without any country to live in.
 

I don't know what donald rumsfeld has to do with small business cash advances, he's definitely one of the last people I see needing one!
 

They build up characters and their gold stash, which will also ensure you the Cheap WOW Gold Eu
. What’s more, we usually launch big promotion, to provide the Buy WOW Gold EU to you, you can use less money to get more Tera Gold by using the special discount code. And the more you order, the more bonus you will get, rather competitive.
 

I found your blog website on google and check just a few of your early posts. Continue to keep up the excellent operate.
World entertainment
 

Way cool, some valid points! I appreciate you making this article available, the rest of the site is also high quality. Have a fun.
Small Business Cash Advance

 

Post a Comment

Home