Haliburton Detention Centers

[NaughtyGeek]

Why in the world do we need these "emergency immigration centers?" What kind of immigration emergency are we really likely to have? I wont post any links as a quick google search on Haliburton Detention Centers will get you all the information you need. I'd just like a couple of the reasonable, intelligent people here to explain to me how this is anything other than a warning sign as to the direction our government is heading in.

 

[jrenz]

It would seem to reason that a reasonable, intelligent person like yourself could take your own advice and read the first frickin' Google hit-

From the NYT:

"KBR would build the centers only in an emergency like the one when thousands of Cubans floated on rafts to the United States. She emphasized that the centers might never be built if such an emergency did not arise."

"KBR, which announced the contract last month, had a similar contract with immigration agencies from 2000 to last year."

"Mr. Church said that KBR did not end up creating immigration centers under its previous contract, but that it did build temporary shelters for Hurricane Katrina evacuees."

This "news" is also over a year old. Good job on the crappy thread though.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

"With Halliburton's ever expanding track record of overcharging, it's hard to believe that the administration has decided to entrust Halliburton with even more taxpayer dollars," Mr. Waxman said. "With each new contract, the need for real oversight grows."

"It's pretty obvious that the intent of the government is to detain more and more people and to expedite their removal," said Cheryl Little, executive director of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center in Miami.

Quotes from the same article. Ineptitude of government contractors and fears of increasing people imprisoned within our boarders is concerning to me especially with the suspension of Habeas Corpus due to the Patriot Act. I didn't lead anybody to any conclusions, I only asked them to take a look.

Also, just because news is a year old doesn't make it worth discussing? I guess we should just throw out all those useless history books then.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: jrenz
This "news" is also over a year old. Good job on the crappy thread though.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Quotes from the same article. Ineptitude of government contractors and fears of increasing people imprisoned within our boarders is concerning to me especially with the suspension of Habeas Corpus due to the Patriot Act. I didn't lead anybody to any conclusions, I only asked them to take a look.

Also, just because news is a year old doesn't make it worth discussing? I guess we should just throw out all those useless history books then.

What's been suspended?

 

[NaughtyGeek]

"habeas corpus (/'he?bi?s 'k??p?s/) is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment"

If you are suspected of being a terrorist, you can be held indefinitely without a lawyer or a trial.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Quotes from the same article. Ineptitude of government contractors and fears of increasing people imprisoned within our boarders is concerning to me especially with the suspension of Habeas Corpus due to the Patriot Act. I didn't lead anybody to any conclusions, I only asked them to take a look.

Also, just because news is a year old doesn't make it worth discussing? I guess we should just throw out all those useless history books then.

What's been suspended?

Habeas Corpus is in many ways the legal basis of a free society. The right to file a writ of habeas corpus is probably the most important safeguard of your liberty.

Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

 

[Termagant]

If you've done nothing wrong, than you have nothing to fear.

Only terrists and NAMBLA like Habeas Corpus.

 

[cwjerome]

Someone show me that the Patriot Act suspended Habeas Corpus. I was not aware of this... I could be wrong.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

" ``(b) Delay.--With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court
order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and
seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal
offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice
required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
``(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that
providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant
may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
``(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible
property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in
section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121,
any stored wire or electronic information, except where the
court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
``(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice
within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may
thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.''."



Full Text Of The Patriot Act

Fixed link. Sorry about that.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
" ``(b) Delay.--With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court
order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and
seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal
offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice
required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--
``(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that
providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant
may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);
``(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible
property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in
section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121,
any stored wire or electronic information, except where the
court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
``(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice
within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may
thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.''."



Full Text Of The Patriot Act

This generally talks about lowering the threshold for warrants in some situations... Is this the part that suspends habeas corpus?

I admit I don't know a lot about this matter, but it's getting apparent that you know even less.

 

[dmcowen674]

Old news, it is for the Nuclear fallout refugees from the Middle East.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Someone show me that the Patriot Act suspended Habeas Corpus. I was not aware of this... I could be wrong.

Actually I believe it was a Bush Executive Order?

 

[Craig234]

Link

From last October:

The Bush Administration, through an amendment introduced by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, has just successfully stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear applications for habeas corpus brought by those unilaterally declared enemy combatants without any process and held by the U.S. indefinitely throughout the world and even in the United States. This was accomplished by means of a last minute amendment to the Military Authorization Bill, brought up on the floor of the Senate without committee deliberations and virtually no advance warning to the American people that it was happening...

The Graham amendment will create a thousand points of darkness across the globe where the United States will be free to hold people indefinitely without a hearing and beyond the reach of U.S. law and the checks and balances of the courts enshrined in our Constitution. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus has always been to relieve those wrongfully held from the oppression of unchecked executive power. The most reliable way to determine whether someone is properly held or a victim of injustice is to have a right to judicial review of the detention. This has been understood at least since the proclamation of the Magna Carta in 1215.

While the Administration and its supporters have tried to characterize the men being held at Guantánamo as the worst of the worst against all evidence, the fact is that even the military has admitted that they often apprehended the wrong people. Most have no ties to Al Qaida, many were turned over to the U.S. for bounty, and many more were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they have no way to appeal their innocence or their status, they will be left to rot in detention indefinitely.

Senator Graham's jurisdiction-stripping efforts come as allegations of secret CIA detention facilities around the world dominate headlines; the Bush Administration has consistently sought to put itself above the law and evade oversight and accountability for torture and other abuse. It is no secret that arbitrary indefinite detention and widespread prisoner mistreatment have taken and continue to take place at Guantánamo and other U.S.-run facilities. The Graham Amendment will only serve to reinforce the growing perception in the world that the United States has become an enemy of human rights.

As has been the practice of this Administration, this latest scheme was accomplished stealthily and in secret. The Center for Constitutional Rights vows to continue to fight for the rule of law. We will not allow American democracy to be eroded a little at a time, until, finally looking around, we can longer recognize what has become of this democratic nation.

 

[Harvey]

Of course, we need Halliburton detention centers. We need a place to hold all their present and former execs, including Dickwad Cheney, for their gross fraud and incompetence in Iraq. We could save a lot of construction costs by shipping them to our current facilities at Guantanamo. They've even got free waterboard rides to entertain them while they're there.

P.S. This Halliburton is spelled with a double "L."

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Someone show me that the Patriot Act suspended Habeas Corpus. I was not aware of this... I could be wrong.

You are wrong. If you value your Constitutionally protected rights, the Bushwhackos ARE VERY WRONG. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus
Attorney general's remarks on citizens' right astound the chair of Senate judiciary panel

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

One of the Bush administration's most far-reaching assertions of government power was revealed quietly last week when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that habeas corpus -- the right to go to federal court and challenge one's imprisonment -- is not protected by the Constitution.

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.''

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist -- a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

Later in the hearing, Gonzales described habeas corpus as "one of our most cherished rights'' and noted that Congress had protected that right in the 1789 law that established the federal court system. But he never budged from his position on the absence of constitutional protection -- a position that seemingly would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.

Gonzales did not propose any such drastic rollback and devoted most of his discussion to fending off senatorial attacks on a law signed by President Bush last October. That law included a provision stripping federal courts of authority to hear habeas corpus suits by noncitizens classified by the government as "enemy combatants.'' Specter and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, are sponsoring legislation to undo the restriction.

But critics on both ends of the ideological spectrum said the attorney general was claiming a broader and more chilling power.

"This is the key protection that people have if they're held in violation of the law,'' said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor who has criticized the administration's actions on civil liberties. "If there's no habeas corpus, and if the government wants to pick you or me off the street and hold us indefinitely, how do we get our release?''

Chemerinsky was joined by Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor and former Justice Department official under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

If Gonzales' view prevailed, Kmiec said, "one of the basic protections of human liberty against the powers of the state would be embarrassingly absent from our constitutional system.''

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said this week that Gonzales stood by his remarks but was asserting only that the text of the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus. The attorney general recognizes, Roehrkasse said, that the Supreme Court has declared "the Constitution protects (habeas corpus) as it existed at common law'' in England. Any such rights, he added, would not apply to foreigners held as enemy combatants.

Habeas corpus was recognized in English law at least as early as the Magna Carta, in 1215, and perhaps earlier. In the United States, it refers to bringing a prisoner's case before a federal judge, who has the power to order the government to release anyone who is being held illegally.

It has become an issue in Bush's efforts to hold military captives at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with little or no access to civilian courts. The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that that those prisoners could file habeas corpus claims in court, rejecting the administration's argument that inmates held outside the United States had no such right. That ruling was based on the court's interpretation of laws passed by Congress and did not discuss whether Guantanamo inmates had a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

The distinction is potentially crucial, because Congress, in the law signed last October, prohibited federal courts from reviewing habeas corpus suits by Guantanamo prisoners or any other noncitizens held as enemy combatants. The law's validity depends on whether the Supreme Court concludes that the prisoners' constitutional rights are being violated.

The issue of habeas corpus came up during last week's hearing when Specter asked Gonzales how a congressional statute could withdraw the right "when there's an express constitutional provision that it can't be suspended and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees?''

The court ruled only on the right to habeas corpus that was created by statute, Gonzales replied. He then asserted that the Constitution does not contain any express right of habeas corpus, only "a prohibition against taking it away.''

The issue extends far beyond Guantanamo.

The Supreme Court has interpreted federal judges' powers of habeas corpus to apply to prison systems around the nation and the legality of convictions in state as well as federal court.

For example, federal judges, who are appointed for life, regularly invoke habeas corpus when overturning convictions or death sentences of state inmates, overruling decisions by elected state judges.

Bruce Fein, a former Reagan Justice Department attorney who has become an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, noted that the day before his Judiciary Committee appearance, Gonzales had denounced "activist judges'' and advised them to stay out of national security matters.

Gonzales' comments to the committee on habeas corpus, Fein said, contained a message that "Congress doesn't have to let them (judges) decide national security matters.''

"It's part of an attempt to create the idea that during conflicts, the three branches of government collapse into one, and it is the president,'' Fein said.
What Gonzales, Specter said

Excerpts from the exchange between Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17:

Gonzales: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away. ...

Specter: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in cases of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's an invasion or rebellion?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except...

Specter: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

Source: Senate Judiciary Committee transcript

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Military Commissions Act of 2006

"(a) IN GENERAL.?Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section
VerDate 14-DEC-2004 16:39 Nov 07, 2006 Jkt 059139 PO 00366 Frm 00038 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL366.109 APPS24 PsN: PUBL366
120 STAT. 2636 PUBLIC LAW 109?366?OCT. 17, 2006
1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109?148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection
(e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109?163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):
??(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
??(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.??.
28 USC 2441 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.?The amendment made by subsection (a)
note. shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001."

Notice the phrase "enemy combatant."


" (5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'."

Pay particular attention to 5.B.i as many activities could be construed as an attempt to "coerce a civilian population" such as perhaps attempting to organize a civil protest against specific government policies or actions.

So, the point that it's not the Patriot Act alone which suspends Habeas Corpus is valid, it is my contention that it directly ties in with other laws, mandates and orders to accomplish said suspension. While the MCA of 2006 referenced above states "alien" to imply a non-US citizen, I believe there is an act somewhere that rolls an enemy combatant into this category. I will do a little more searching to see what I can provide. I really didn't intend to enter into a debate about the Patriot Act, but I guess my comments got me there any way and I was ill prepared to respond on that issue. I am currently doing my "due diligence" to provide supporting documentation. The warrant provisions were included in my above post as an arrest warrant is covered by this section and if you delay the issuance of said warrant then you can effectively arrest someone and suspend their right to Habeas Corpus under the guise of not having to present the warrant to be challenged under said delay provisions. Reading through all these laws is having the intended effect on me as it's like reading gibberish with the numerous references to many other articles, laws and provisions within them.

Before you write me off completely, give me a little time to "finish my homework." Fair enough?

Here is a link to the Joint Doctrine for Detainee Operations.

Here is a link to someone who highlights the portions relevant to the argument I'm trying to make about "enemy combatants."

Now, if you fall under the category of "enemy combatant," don't you in effect lose your status as a citizen and therefore the "alien" clause becomes applicable?

 

[Craig234]

Now, if you fall under the category of "enemy combatant," don't you in effect lose your status as a citizen and therefore the "alien" clause becomes applicable?

Notice the lack of any way for you to prove you are not an enemy combatant without Habeus Corpus. You can say it, and the guard will say 'you all say that'.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Of course, we need Halliburton detention centers. We need a place to hold all their present and former execs, including Dickwad Cheney, for their gross fraud and incompetence in Iraq. We could save a lot of construction costs by shipping them to our current facilities at Guantanamo. They've even got free waterboard rides to entertain them while they're there.

P.S. This Halliburton is spelled with a double "L."

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Someone show me that the Patriot Act suspended Habeas Corpus. I was not aware of this... I could be wrong.

You are wrong. If you value your Constitutionally protected rights, the Bushwhackos ARE VERY WRONG. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

The links you and others are providing do not show the Patriot Act "suspended" or otherwise removed Habeas Corpus in any way. So can we all agree the OP was wrong in saying that?

(It's the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that can suspend habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an ?unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States. Appeals have upheld it, and I'm sure it'll be at the Supreme Court sometime soon. I haven't formed a strong position on it yet...)

Getting back to the OP, there's absolutely no reason to question a contract like the one the OP mentions. He asks, "Why in the world do we need these "emergency immigration centers?" What kind of immigration emergency are we really likely to have?"

Depending on who you talk to, there already is an emergency. Do you have any idea how many illegally flow across the border yearly? In Arizona, our jails and whole criminal justice system are overburdened... and we're supposed to be doing away with the "catch-and-release" system.

Williams Gateway Airport in the Phoenix area is the busiest air deportation hub in the US as record numbers of aliens are caught and detained. Where are they often detained you ask? Surprisingly, many are held at centers build by contractors... not exactly the suspicious "warning sign" of ominous big-brother as implied in the original post.

In 2001, there were 10,830 non-Mexican aliens deported on government flights. That number has shot to 51,300 in fiscal 2006. Bottom line is, these people have to be held somewhere. If you're against detention centers, perhaps you and others like you will open your home to them.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

This is exactly why I posted the question in the first place and asked someone to explain it to me. I was not aware that the problem had those kind of numbers associated with it. They're too busy "reporting" on Anna Nichole Smith to waste time on informing the public why these things are present. I was told to look into it and came across plenty of thoughts as to why they were there and I didn't care for any of them. I am trying to be informed so I don't go off half cocked talking about something out of context. I don't trust the media or the internet, I rely on people who are more informed than me to clue me in on things I don't understand.

As you may have guessed I have little faith in our current government and feel that the rights I defended while serving in the military are being eroded. To hear about things like this without an experienced person's input causes me concern especially when there are so many conspiracy folks willing to lead me astray.

As I stated above, the Patriot Act alone does not suspend Habeas Corpus, but it's provisions detailing what is an act of domestic terrorism coupled with the provisions of the other above referenced laws and acts makes it so for an American Citizen. Thank you VERY much for your input, I just wish you hadn't felt it necessary to attack me rather than just state what you apparently knew in the first place. I come here and many other places to learn and one cannot learn without calling some things into question from time to time.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
This is exactly why I posted the question in the first place and asked someone to explain it to me.

[...]

Thank you VERY much for your input, I just wish you hadn't felt it necessary to attack me rather than just state what you apparently knew in the first place. I come here and many other places to learn and one cannot learn without calling some things into question from time to time.

No problem. Nothings personal, it's just my writing style.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
The links you and others are providing do not show the Patriot Act "suspended" or otherwise removed Habeas Corpus in any way. So can we all agree the OP was wrong in saying that?

First, I think any attempt to separate the onorous provisions of the "Patriot Act" from the rest of the destruction this monstrous administration has been pursuing is a sham that distracts from the fact that the sum total of these wannabe nazis is a brutal frontal assault on the rights guaranteed to every American under the U.S. Constitution and an insult to those who have fought for it, both from the beginning of our nation until now.

The Bill of Rights Defense Committee di...p://www.bordc.org/resources/repeal.pdf lists provisions of the act and other administration actions that violate the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Ammendments of the U.S. Constitution:

What follows is a brief summary of some of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (USAPA) and Federal Executive orders that threaten our rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. We recommend that these sections be repealed.

Their presentation is laid out in table form and covers more than the Patriot Act, itself and more areas of abuse than those relating to habaeus corpus so I'll post some of the most relevant items they list, here.

Amendment IV

This amendment forms a substantial basis of the constitutional right to privacy.

• "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
  
  Title or Provision
  
  USAPA §412: Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review
  
  What It Says/What It Changes
  
  Gives Attorney General broad powers to certify immigrants as risks.
  
  How it can be misused
  
  Reduces previous standard from "probable cause."

Amendment V

• "No person shall be held to answer for a ? crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury?, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
  
  Title or Provision
  
  President Bush's order designating "Enemy combatant"
  
  What It Says/What It Changes
  
  Allows committee of attorney general, defense secretary, and CIA director to label citizens and noncitizens as "enemy combatants,? placing them in military custody, holding them in detention indefinitely, interrogating them, and denying them communication with outsiders or judicial review.
  
  How it can be misused
  
  No opportunity to prove innocence. Denial of "liberty without due process of law

Amendment VI

• "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ? and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with
  the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
  
  Title or Provision
  
  USAPA §412: Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review
  
  What It Says/What It Changes
  
  Gives Attorney General broad powers to certify immigrants as risks.
  
  How it can be misused
  
  Infringes upon the rights "to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district?, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him," and "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
  
  Title or Provision
  
  President Bush's order designating "Enemy combatant"
  
  What It Says/What It Changes
  
  Any U.S. citizen or noncitizen designated as an enemy combatant may be placed in military custody, held in detention indefinitely,
  interrogated, and denied communication with outsiders or judicial review.
  
  How it can be misused
  
  Infringes upon the rights "to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district?, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him," and "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."