Replies

First reading looks fine to me. They want to make sure an “unprivileged enemy belligerent” is not afforded constitutional protections. They seem to be setting a time limit of 48hrs for such a determination to be made. They can already hold somebody for 24hrs without a reason why, right?

Or are we just trusting the far-right publication the Atlantic to report this and basing comments on that?

From the bill -

SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED
11 ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.
12 An individual, including a citizen of the United
13 States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent
14 under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article
15 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
16 Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal
17 charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities
18 against the United States or its coalition partners in which
19 the individual has engaged, or which the individual has
20 purposely and materially supported, consistent with the
21 law of war and any authorization for the use of military
22 force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.”

Seems to be quite open to interpretation. Also, I don’t have it copied and pasted, but way too many details are left up to the discretion, and definition of “The President”.... and somehow, considering that Tea Partiers have been described as “extremist” by the current administration, I am not feeling real good about leaving the specifics up to THIS President : /

Tatt

-- First reading looks fine to me. --

All we have are introductory remarks, not the text of the legislation. But, assuming the introductory remarks are a fair presentation, the proposal has the constitutional infirmity of legislating executive discretion.