Royal Assent of Bill C-36
The Anti-Terrorism Act

The Government of Canada has taken steps to combat terrorism and terrorist activities at home and abroad through tough new anti-terrorism measures. The new package of legislation: creates measures to deter, disable, identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorist groups; provides new investigative tools to law enforcement and national security agencies; and ensures that Canadian values of respect and fairness are preserved and the root causes of hatred are addressed through stronger laws against hate crimes and propaganda. The package also includes rigorous safeguards to ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians are upheld.

IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE, CONVICT AND PUNISH TERRORIST ACTIVITY

Under the Criminal Code, terrorists can already be prosecuted for hijacking, murder and other acts of violence. The Government of Canada has signed all 12 United Nations Conventions and under the new anti-terrorism measures, Canada will ratify the remaining two counter-terrorism conventions:

• The Suppression of Terrorist Financing Convention relates to the freezing of terrorist property by prohibiting dealing in any property of a person engaged in terrorist activities and prohibiting making available funds and financial or other related services to terrorists. Bill C-36 fulfils Canada's obligations under this convention and allows a Federal Court judge to order the seizure and forfeiture of property used in or related to terrorist activity. Fifteen other states have ratified this convention.
• The Suppression of Terrorist Bombings Convention contains provisions relating to the targeting of public places, government or infrastructure facilities or transportation systems with explosives or other lethal devices, including chemical or biological agents. Forty-five states have ratified this convention.

Through the Anti-Terrorism Act, Canada will also ratify the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel Convention, which relates to ensuring the safety of UN personnel, including peacekeepers, from attacks against their person, official premises, private accommodation and modes of transport.

Under Bill C-36, the Criminal Code will also be amended to establish provisions aimed at disabling and dismantling the activities of terrorist groups and those who support them. These include:

• defining "terrorist activity" in the Criminal Code as an action that takes place either within or outside of Canada that:
  • is an offence under one of the UN anti-terrorism conventions and protocols; or
  • is taken for political, religious or ideological purposes and intimidates the public concerning its security, or compels a government to do something, by intentionally killing, seriously harming or endangering a person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people or by seriously interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system.
     

  Under this definition, there is an interpretive clause that states for greater clarity that an expression of political, religious or ideological beliefs alone is not a "terrorist activity," unless it is part of a larger conduct that meets all of the requirements of the definition of "terrorist activity." (i.e., conduct that is committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose, is intended to intimidate the public or compel a government, and intentionally causes death or serious physical harm to people.) [Note use of the word OR, not 'as well as' in defining "terrorist activity". Furthermore, this is but one definition under this section, and there are "other conventions" that were signed but not revealed to the public. Note in above "bulleted" paragraph that terrorism is an offence under any one of the secret "UN anti-terrorism conventions and protocols".

  The Act's purpose is NOT the preservation of our Liberty, but merely the machinery of government - So what if they become the terrorists? Oh, but that can't happen, right? After all, when has government ever terrorised its own people? <snicker> ]

  The definition makes it clear that disrupting an essential service is not a terrorist activity if it occurs during a protest or a work strike and is not intended to cause death or serious harm to persons.

• permitting the designation of groups whose activities meet the definition of terrorist activity as "terrorist groups."

This definition and designation framework forms the basis for new offences in the Criminal Code that will make it a crime to:

• knowingly collect or provide funds, either directly or indirectly, in order to carry out terrorist crimes. Using this definition, the Crown must prove [by means of torture] that the accused collected, provided or made available funds that he or she knew would be used to help a terrorist group. Canadian courts will be given the jurisdiction to try this offence even if it has been committed outside Canada, when the accused is found in Canada. The maximum sentence will be 10 years.
• knowingly participate in, contribute to or facilitate the activities of a terrorist group. The participation or contribution itself does not have to be a criminal offence and will include knowingly recruiting new individuals for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the terrorist group to facilitate or commit terrorist activities. The maximum sentence for participating or contributing offences will be 10 years. The maximum sentence for facilitating will be 14 years.
• instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist activity on behalf of a terrorist group (a "leadership" offence). This offence carries a maximum life sentence.
• knowingly harbour or conceal a terrorist. The maximum sentence under this offence will be 10 years.

In addition, any indictable offence under any Act of Parliament that is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a terrorist group carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. An offender convicted of any indictable offence that is also a terrorist activity will be liable to life imprisonment.

The Criminal Code will also stipulate that the sentences imposed for each of these offences are to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed relating to the same activity or event. The offender will also be ineligible for parole for half of the sentence imposed unless the accused can demonstrate that it is not in the public interest.

In addition to these Criminal Code reforms, the new definition and designation schemes will make it easier to remove or deny charitable status to those who support terrorist groups under the Income Tax Act.

To ensure that the courts can deal with an expected increase in enforcement, appeals and reviews connected to the Government's new Anti-Terrorism Plan, the Act will increase the number of Federal Court judge positions by up to 15. Of these new positions, 13 can be added to the Trial Division, while two can be added to the Court of Appeal.

STRONGER INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS

The new anti-terrorist measures will give new investigative tools to security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies and will ensure that the prosecution of terrorist offences can be undertaken efficiently and effectively. Measures will include:

• The investigatory powers currently in the Criminal Code and in Bill C-24 that make it easier to use electronic surveillance against criminal organizations will be applied to terrorist groups. This includes eliminating the need to demonstrate that electronic surveillance is a last resort in the investigation of terrorists. The proposed legislation will extend the period of validity of a wiretap authorization from the current 60 days to up to one year when police are investigating a terrorist group offence. A Superior Court judge will still have to approve the use of electronic surveillance to ensure that these powers are used appropriately. Further, the requirement to notify a target after surveillance has taken place can be delayed for up to three years.
• The Criminal Code will be amended to require individuals with information relevant to an ongoing investigation of a terrorist crime to appear before a judge to provide that information. This will require the consent of the Attorney General. This measure will increase the ability of law enforcement to effectively investigate and obtain evidence about terrorist organizations, subject to legal safeguards to protect the witness. For example, information given by a witness cannot be used against the witness in any current or future criminal proceedings.
• The Criminal Code will be amended to create a "preventive arrest" power to impose conditions of release where appropriate on suspected terrorists. This will prevent terrorist activity and protect the lives of Canadians. This will allow a peace officer to arrest and bring a person before a judge to impose reasonable supervisory conditions if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is about to commit a terrorism activity. A warrant will be required except where exigent circumstances exist, and the person will have to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of an arrest. This will require the consent of the Attorney General.
• The Official Secrets Act will be amended to address national security concerns, including threats of espionage by foreign powers and terrorist groups, and the intimidation or coercion of ethnocultural communities in Canada. The Act will also have a new title, the Security of Information Act.

New offences will be created to improve and modernize the "spying" provisions of the Act, taking into account new realities, including new players and new threats. These offences will focus upon those situations in which it is appropriate for Canada to protect its institutions and citizenry from information-related conduct that is harmful or likely to be harmful to Canada.

New players other than the governments of traditional states include governments-in-waiting, governments in exile and other foreign powers, as well as terrorist groups.

New threats that are being recognized include threats against ethnocultural communities in Canada, threats to trade secrets and threats to essential infrastructures, both public and private.

The bill also includes specific new offences dealing with unauthorized communication, or purported communication, of special operational information (for example, the identity of confidential sources, covert agents or targets of CSIS) by persons permanently bound to secrecy.

• The Canada Evidence Act will be amended to address the judicial balancing of interests when the disclosure of information in judicial or other proceedings would encroach upon a specified public interest or be injurious to international relations or national defence or national security. Information that could be protected from disclosure might, for example, be information that, if disclosed, would threaten another country's vital interests or jeopardize intelligence networks.
• The National Defence Act will be amended to clarify the mandate of the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), under strict controls, to:
  • intercept the communications of foreign targets abroad; and
  • undertake security checks of government computer networks to protect them from terrorist activity.
     

  The permission of the Minister of National Defence will be required to authorize any interception of private communications of foreign targets abroad in order to ensure that the privacy of individual Canadians is protected.

• The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act will be amended to authorize the Financial Transactions and Reports and Analysis Centre (FINTRAC) to detect financial transactions that may constitute threats to the security of Canada and to disclose this information to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and other law enforcement agencies.
• The DNA warrant scheme and data bank will be extended to include terrorist offences in the list of "primary designated offences" for which DNA samples can be taken and stored.
• On November 23, Canada signed the Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-Crime, which requires states to criminalize certain forms of abuse of computer systems and certain crimes, like hacking, when they are committed through the use of computer systems. The convention also supports international cooperation to detect, investigate and prosecute these criminal offences, as well as to collect electronic evidence of any criminal offence, including terrorist crimes, terrorist financing and money laundering offences. Some of the other prohibited activities covered by the Convention include interference of computer systems, computer fraud and forgery.

STRONGER LAWS AGAINST HATE CRIMES AND PROPAGANDA

Following the attack on September 11, Canadians have called for a renewed commitment to values of respect, equality, diversity and fairness and a strong condemnation of hate-motivated violence. Bill C-36 contains legislation that addresses the root causes of hatred, reaffirms Canadian values and ensures that Canada's respect for justice and diversity is reinforced. These measures include:

[This is utter nonsense: "Canadians" did NOT ask that the government "Hate Crimes" legislation be incorporated into the anti-terrorist act, and it is clear the act was formed months before the attacks ever took place. The true goal is furthering their lust for power, and securing their own self-approved terrorist acts against people living peacefully in Canada. In December 2001, the Federal Budget allocated a whopping $7.7 billion over the next five years to  what they self-servingly describe as "keep[ing] Canada safe, terrorists out and the border open" ] [Click here for proof the government lied]

• amendments to the Criminal Code that allow the courts to order the deletion of publicly available hate propaganda from computer systems such as an Internet site. Individuals who post the material will be given the opportunity to convince the court that the material is not hate propaganda. The provision applies to hate propaganda that is located on Canadian computer systems, regardless of where the owner of the material is located or whether he or she can be identified.
• Criminal Code amendments that create a new offence of mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on religion, race, colour or national or ethnic origin, committed against a place of religious worship or associated religious property, including cemeteries. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years when prosecuted on indictment, or to a maximum penalty of eighteen months on summary conviction.
• amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to clarify that the prohibition against spreading repeated hate messages by telephonic communications includes all telecommunications technologies.

COMPREHENSIVE SAFEGUARDS

Canadians have expressed concerns about their security and support strong laws that deal effectively with terrorism. Canadians also want assurances that safeguards are in place to protect their rights and freedoms. Bill C-36 contains measures to protect both human security and human rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These safeguards include:

[Again, another lie: When did Canadians "express[ed] concerns about their security and support strong laws that deal effectively with terrorism"? Was there a national referendum on this subject? Or is this more likely their own propaganda used to sell a dangerous set of new  government powers? [Click here for proof the government lied]

• the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Canada, provincial Attorneys General and Ministers responsible for policing will be required to report annually to Parliament on the use of preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions in Bill C-36.
• a Parliamentary review of the anti-terrorism legislation as a whole in three years.
• provisions in the Act dealing with preventive arrest and investigative hearing powers will sunset after five years unless a resolution is passed by both the House of Commons and Senate to extend either or both of these powers for up to five more years. Proceedings that have already started prior to the sunset date will be grandfathered so that they could be completed, if the powers are not extended
• the scope of the Criminal Code provisions is clearly defined so that they are targeted at terrorists and terrorist groups. This is a campaign against terrorists and not against any one community, group or faith. Legitimate political activism and protests are also protected through the precise definition of terrorist activities.
• Attorney General certificates prohibiting the release of information will be subject to review by a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal. In addition, the existing provisions and process for the collection, use and protection of information will be preserved under the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
• the burden of proof is on the state to establish that there was knowledge or intent on the part of the accused "for the purpose of facilitating or carrying out terrorist activity."
• the process of adding a group to the list of terrorists incorporates a number of protections including provisions for removal from the list, judicial review and safeguards to address cases of mistaken identity. As well, the list must be reviewed every two years by the Solicitor General.
• the Attorney General's consent is required to prosecute all of the new terrorism offences.
• the Minister of Defence's authorization is required for the Communications and Security Establishment to intercept foreign communications targeted against a non-Canadian abroad that may have a Canadian connection.

- 30 -

Department of Justice
December 18, 2001
 

Olbermann: The Day Habeas Corpus Died

Crooks & Liars | October 18 2006

Today, 135 years to the day after the last American President (Ulysses S. Grant) suspended habeas corpus, President Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. At its worst, the legislation allows President Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to declare anyone — US citizen or not — an enemy combatant, lock them up and throw away the key without a chance to prove their innocence in a court of law. In other words, every thing the Founding Fathers fought the British empire to free themselves of was reversed and nullified with the stroke of a pen, all under the guise of the War on Terror.

Jonathan Turley joined Keith to talk about the law that Senator Feingold said would be seen as "a stain on our nation's history."

Turley: "People have no idea how significant this is. Really a time of shame this is for the American system.—The strange thing is that we have become sort of constitutional couch potatoes. The Congress just gave the President despotic powers and you could hear the yawn across the country as people turned to Dancing With the Stars. It's otherworldly..People clearly don't realize what a fundamental change it is about who we are as a country. What happened today changed us. And I'm not too sure we're gonna change back anytime soon."

_____________

Kudos to Keith Olbermann for speaking the truth, and trying to save his country. 

Countdown Special Comment: Death of Habeas Corpus: “Your words are lies, Sir.”

Crooks And Liars | October 19 2006

Keith Olbermann has been calling it like it is. His "Special Comments" are indeed special because no other talking head outside of Cafferty is willing to step up to the plate and say what needs to be said on 24/7. "Your words are lies, Sir." They are lies, that imperil us all.' Sounds about right to me.

Olbermann: And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus.

We have lived as if in a trance. We have lived… as people in fear.

And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy. For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

And lastly, as promised, a Special Comment tonight on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus.

We have lived as if in a trance.

We have lived… as people in fear.

And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight, have we truly become, the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before — and we have been here before led here — by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use those Acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote, about America.

We have been here, when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said, about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9-0-6-6 was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Order to imprison and pauperize 110-thousand Americans…

While his man-in-charge…

General DeWitt, told Congress: "It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen — he is still a Japanese."

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did — but for the choices they or their ancestors had made, about coming to America.

Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And each, was a betrayal of that for which the President who advocated them, claimed to be fighting.

Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

Many of the very people Wilson silenced, survived him, and…

…one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900-thousand votes… though his Presidential campaign was conducted entirely… from his jail cell.

And Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States, to the citizens of the United States, whose lives it ruined.

The most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.

In times of fright, we have been, only human.

We have let Roosevelt's "fear of fear itself" overtake us.

We have listened to the little voice inside that has said "the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass."

We have accepted, that the only way to stop the terrorists, is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.

Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets, was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

Or substitute… the Japanese.

Or the Germans.

Or the Socialists.

Or the Anarchists.

Or the Immigrants.

Or the British.

Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always… wrong.

"With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly — of course — the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously… was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But even within this history, we have not before codified, the poisoning of Habeas Corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital… the most urgent… the most inescapable of reasons.

And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done, to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that "the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values" and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens "Unlawful Enemy Combatants" and ship them somewhere — anywhere — but may now, if he so decides, declare you an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was President, or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was President, or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was President.

And if you somehow think Habeas Corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant" — exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this Attorney General is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope, he has not lied about how he intends to use it, nor who he intends to use it against?

"These military commissions will provide a fair trial," you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush. "In which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney, and can hear all the evidence against them."

'Presumed innocent,' Mr. Bush?

The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain "serious mental and physical trauma" in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

'Access to an attorney,' Mr. Bush?

Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant, on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

'Hearing all the evidence,' Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies, that imperil us all.

"One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks," …you told us yesterday… "said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America."

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas Corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The Moral Force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush… they would be "the beginning of the end of America."

And did it even occur to you once sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 — that with only a little further shift in this world we now know — just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died —

Did it ever occur to you once, that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future President and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" for… and convene a Military Commission to try… not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, sir, all of them — as always — wrong.

Joe Scarborough is next.

Good night, and good luck.

_________________

Military Commissions Act Does Affect US Citizens
Recent application of terror legislation proves American citizens not exempt from intent of bill

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | October 22 2006

Neo-Con government mouthpieces and others are claiming that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which heralded the official end of the "great experiment" of the American democratic republic, does not affect U.S. citizens, only illegal aliens and foreign terrorists. Recent history of how terror legislation was used to target American citizens clearly indicates the legislation will be used domestically.

A coordinated effort to downplay the implications of the fact that the bill affects American citizens, in the face of extensive coverage on the part of Keith Olbermann, is underway in an attempt to offset the possible repeal of this draconian legislation.

The most recent example of a U.S. citizen being targeted using terror legislation involved BBC investigative journalist Greg Palast, who was pursued by Homeland Security and charged with unauthorized filming of a “critical national security structure,” (an Exxon Oil refinery that was readily available to anyone with an Internet connection at Google Maps), under PATRIOT Act legislation. The charge was later dropped after an activist outcry.

The recent historical precedent for U.S. citizens being charged under legislation originally passed in the name of combating non-US terrorists only, provides clear motivation for the Military Commissions Act to be used in the same way.

Since 9/11 the PATRIOT Act has been used in numerous cases involving American citizens, including strip club owners, toy store proprietors, the homeless, owners of websites, writers, artists, photographers, and common criminals.

Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act is specifically aimed at US citizens and announces any crime as "domestic terrorism". Citizens can be held without a trial as "Enemy Combatants". The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in January 2003 that U.S. citizens can be stripped of their citizenship and held as enemy combatants.

Therefore any legislation passed by Bush automatically applies to American citizens because, as the Washington Post reported, after 9/11 Bush announced his "parallel legal system" in which he could declare any individual on the planet an enemy combatant and order their summary execution.

"The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike -- may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside and outside the government say."

The trick being played on the American people in falsely assuring them that they are not the target is simple to decode. The Act states that it only applies to enemy combatants yet the President and his legal advisors like Alberto Gonzales have routinely announced that the President has the power to strip Americans of citizenship and declare them to be enemy combatants. The "enemy combatant designation" was ascribed to U.S. citizen Jose Padilla who was interned in a Navy brig for over three years with no charges against him.

Top legal experts and scholars are nearly unanimous that the Military Commissions Act does affect American citizens.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] 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."

Professor Jonathan Turley, who teaches constitutional law at George Washington University, agrees that the bill contains no provision in which American citizens are exempt from the intent of the legislation, and outlined this during a recent appearance on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show.