Sens. Johnson and Kohl Vote to Blow Off Posse Comitatus Act

Don't for one minute be snookered by the "AlQuaeda" language here.

This bill is horrible.  Why RoJo and Kohl voted for it (particularly Kohl, who ought to understand the term "Kristallnacht") is unfathomable.

Sen. Rand Paul reminds us that Janet Napolitano happily includes anti-abortionists, "preppers", 2A advocates and forceful Christians in her "terrorist" list.

AlQuaeda is transitory and--at this time--damn near toothless.

The definition of "terrorist" is extremely elastic. Remember that, folks, when your neighbor disappears in a Humvee.

Andy McCarthy disagrees with the take of Judge Napolitano and Sen. Rand Paul.  He seems to think that all politicians are pure as the driven snow.  Perhaps he's never heard of this website, which finds several instances of mal- and mis-feasance by elected officials every week.  And while McCarthy says that the legislation 'merely affirms' what was enacted in the Patriot Act, it is odd that the Administration objected to language which would assure some Constitutional protections.

I don't like AlQuaeda, either, and disabling its operations in the US is fine with me.  But allowing the Executive to utilize the military for this purpose--on the Executive's word alone, with no need for proof and documentation, no hearings........

Sorry.  I don't buy it.

Nor does Jim Antle of the AmSpec blog.

Nor does notorious Lefty Greenwald, who tells us that the bill:

(1) mandates that all accused Terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; it also unquestionably permits (but does not mandate) that even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil accused of Terrorism be held by the military rather than charged in the civilian court system (Sec. 1032);

(2) renews the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) with more expansive language: to allow force (and military detention) against not only those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and countries which harbored them, but also anyone who "substantially supports" Al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces" (Sec. 1031); and,

(3) imposes new restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo (Secs. 1033-35).

It seems (repeat:  seems) that this is directed only at AlQuaeda folks until you get to the "associated forces" and "substantially" stuff.  We've seen how some people read the Establishment Clause, folks.  We've seen how some people find remarkable elasticity in recall-petition procedures.  Do you think those people cannot read "associated" and "substantially" any way they want?

Don't bet your life on it.