Posted on 03/17/2010 11:33:14 AM PDT by Whenifhow
My son just took his oath on Thursday. The interrogators will not have had to take the oath, just those guarding the individuals if they are military, and they do not have to be told the reason why the individual is being held. Will 0’s citizen squads have to swear to support and defend the Constitution and more importantly - define domestic enemy. We have a Constitution that I would interpret as literally as the Founding Fathers intended, same as I do my Bible, but obviously 0’s minions do not.
The bill asks the President to determine criteria for designating an individual as a “high-value detainee” if he/she: (1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.
#5 is the only one I could see an issue with.
Will 0’s citizen squads have to swear to support and defend the Constitution
The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination.
All parties listed have to swear to the Constitution. The military does have interrogtors, as does the CIA, and the FBI, and local law enforcement. And yes, all of these people swear an oath.
We have a Constitution that I would interpret as literally as the Founding Fathers intended
Then you agree with providing for the common defense, or should we allow terrorists to attack militry bases, blow up planes, and use civilian laws against us?
Look, I'm not happy over the provision in #5 and could see how the ambiguity could be abused. But, the folks responsible for the interrogations would all be trained interrogators that have sworn an oath to the Constitution.
I'm not happy with 99% of the things Obama does. But, I think it is ludicrous they mirandized Major Nidal Hasan, and the underwear bomber.
This law treats terrorists as unlawful combatants, which means they are not privy to protections under Geneva or US civilian law.
Why should we Miandize a terrorist during a terrorist attack so he can lawyer up and withold valuable life and death time sensitive information regarding other attacks (remember Al Qa'ida likes to do multiple coordiated attacks)?
There is a provision that forces the AG and Sec Def to make a determination with POTUS being the "tie breaker." No one person has all of the authority.
But, you may resume warning others the sky is falling over this.
This is no small problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.