"Greg" == Greg Broiles <gbroiles@parrhesia.com> writes:
Greg> At 11:14 PM 11/18/2001 -0500, Peter Capelli wrote: >> Okay, here's a question from a 'stupid fuck'; Did *you* read the order? >> Check out Section 7 (a) (3): >> >> Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums. >> >> (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to -- >> >> (1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise >> authorized to have access to them; >> (2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed >> Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or >> >> (3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military >> commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any >> State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this >> order. >> >> >> Now I am not a lawyer, but doesn't that mean that this can be applied to >> anyone? Greg> No, it means it's not meant to alter people's pre-existing status vis-a-vis Greg> detentions or trials; if they didn't include a clause like that, then Greg> people would argue that the executive order didn't just add to existing Greg> law, but replaced it, such that previously possible prosecutions would no Greg> longer be possible since they weren't explicitly permitted in the EO. Or, to put it in clear laymen's terms: it means this order only gives them *more* rights, it doesn't take any rights away from LEOs/the govermin'. Bye, J -- Jürgen A. Erhard (juergen.erhard@gmx.net, jae@users.sf.net) MARS http://mars.jerhard.org The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned. -- Bruce Ediger