title

Not sure what the significance is, but this law applies to people engaged in hostilities against the United States. It is narrowly defined, not a law suspending habeas corpus altogether against everyone. This is even all that unusual. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the civil war and FDR suspended it during WWII. When at war, this is the norm.

Sorry, Virgil, but the suspension applies to every citizen of the United States. If I, or you, or one of my grandchildren, made the wrong person mad, and that person had the ability to take me to jail and lock me up for no other reason other than they didn't like me, there is nothing to stop them. I understand it's not likely to happen, but now it CAN happen and that is what is frightening. We are not in a Civil War in our country anyway and this country has been attacked, but not invaded. I grew up during Nixon's admin. and thus I really don't trust the government to "do the right thing".

On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would suspend habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States”[3][4] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[5]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially suspends habeas corpus for any resident, citizen or non-citizen, of the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

There is a lot of demogogery out there, and Olberman is one of the worst. Yes it applies to citizen and non-ctitizen, but it's scope is only directed at crimes directed against the United States as I highlighted in bold. That's terrorists. And it passed the senate 65-34, that's fairly bi-partesan. Actually if I'm remembering correctly, Lincoln suspended habeas copus entirely, so someone accused of any crime, even those not related to the war, was denied habeas corpus. That is not the case here.

I have personally held the private belief that the United States was left alone MUCH longer then we had a right to expect (based on security briefings over the years while in Uncle Sam's cluches so 9/11 did not have quite the unexpected impact on me as it did others that never gave it much thought.

Also used to having my 'rights' shall we say 'adjusted' at the issuance of a memo from the Pentagon. At the end of the day it would take arresting the 'wrong' person to finally get a fuss raised and if there is one thing government types fear most it's justified ridicule on their watch.

In addition to ridicule, Rich, law suits. If someone were picked up and shown not to have anything to do with terrorism, the lawyers would be jostling for position to represent him.