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?
No, it means it's not meant to alter people's pre-existing status vis-a-vis detentions or trials; if they didn't include a clause like that, then people would argue that the executive order didn't just add to existing law, but replaced it, such that previously possible prosecutions would no longer be possible since they weren't explicitly permitted in the EO. The crucial language is "limit the lawful authority", where the scope of the pre-existing "lawful authority" may be tiny or nonexistent. It's not correct to assume that there's (necessarily) any such lawful authority, absent other facts (like a declaration of martial law, or a person's status as a member of the military, etc.) -- Greg Broiles -- gbroiles@parrhesia.com -- PGP 0x26E4488c or 0x94245961 5000 dead in NYC? National tragedy. 1000 detained incommunicado without trial, expanded surveillance? National disgrace.