From a reader:
Hi Jonah,
I can see why people are concerned about HR 6166. If you were to believe yesterdays NYT editorial, it ought to scare the hell out of you…..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
But, as your earlier correspondent pointed out, HR 6166 applies only to ‘alien unlawful enemy combatants’, where alien is defined as a person who is not a citizen of the U.S. By willfully leaving out the term ‘alien’, the Times seriously distorts the targets of the bill. And the last line in the paragraph is an outright…mistake. Pretty rotten stuff, even by NYT standards..
Anyone who is concerned should go here:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109vD29he
If you don’t want to read the whole thing just search the text for the term ‘alien’.
And just for fun, search the Times editorial for the term ‘alien’. Your only hit will be the following:
“…our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts”
Update: I told you readers were grumpy this week. From a reader:
The NYT said nothing even remotely misleading. As quoted by your correspondent, the Times said “the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest.” Your correspondent complains the Times ”willfully” omitted the term “alien” to “seriously distort[]” the truth. A “legal resident” is an alien, not a citizen. The Times was absolutely correct. Of course, who cares about all them damn furriners anyway. Lock ‘em up and torture ‘em.