Our government "leaders" refuse to go after the criminal activities that fund terrorism (because too much of that money lands in the pockets of our politicians in Washington via bribes and illicit paybacks), but they will target the American people with laws that violate the rights of the accused.
And remember - just because you are accused does not mean you are guilty. Guilt is supposed to be proven in a court of law.
Not anymore - an accusation means you get sent to a military brig, and possibly to Guantanamo. You can be subjected to "enhanced interrogation" - which is mild torture, except that we define torture to exclude the techniques that are called "enhanced interrogation" - and you will confess to something, just to get the "enhanced interrogation" to stop.
This is how it worked in the colonies, that drove us to independence: an accusation meant handing you over to military authorities for interrogation.
This is how it worked in the Soviet Union; this is how it is now in China, North Korea, Iran, Uzbekistan, and many other places: the accused is taken into custody and coerced into confession; the accused has no rights, it is the state that needs protection.
We must have liked it in the 1700's because we're bringing it back.
(a) Military Custody Requirement- Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States who is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war, or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities, and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Check this out.
Or, do a search on S.3081.IS and see what you come up with.
By the way - can you tell me which of our Constitutional "safeguards" this violates? You have, after all, read the Constitution - right?
(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT AND RIGHTS - An individual who is suspected of being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not, during interrogation under this subsection, be provided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona.