McCain Proposes Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Citizens (MCCAIN ASSAULTS THE CONSTITUTION)

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill that would allow the President to imprison an unlimited number of American citizens (as well as foreigners) indefinitely without trial. Known as The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, or S. 3081, the bill authorizes the President to deny a detainee a trial by jury simply by designating that person an “enemy belligerent.”

The bill, which has eight cosponsors, explicitly names U.S. citizens as among those who can be detained indefinitely without trial:

Note that the Bush administration once said that the so-called “war on terror” would last a generation or more, and the U.S. military has officially classified many former Guantanamo detainees, such as England's Tipton Three, as having “returned to the battlefield” for merely granting an interview for the movie The Road to Guantanamo. Another five innocent Uighur (Ethnic Turkish Muslims from China) detainees had been listed as having “returned to the battlefield” after their release because their lawyer had written an op-ed protesting their prolonged detention without trial after they had been mistakenly picked up by a greedy bounty hunter. Writing an opinion or speaking an opinion against the party in power in Washington can — and already has — made some people “enemy belligerents.”

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and the Sixth Amendment stipulates the due process of law that all are required to receive:

The requirement for a jury trial has no exceptions for military reasons, and doesn't even exempt foreigners. It simply employs the phrase “all criminal prosecutions,” words that unequivocally apply to the military and civilian justice systems, as well as to both citizens and foreigners. The Founding Fathers truly applied Christ's command to “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you,” but John McCain's new bill wouldn't even do to American citizens what we would assume were basic rights. There is no greater tyranny than indefinite imprisonment at the whim of an executive without legal recourse, and that is precisely what McCain and eight other senators would impose upon America.

In other words, the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution would no longer be a right. The bill would mandate “military commissions” rather than a jury trial, if and when the President deems to hold a “trial.” Under McCain's legislation, trial by jury wouldn't just be a privilege that the President could withdraw at a whim, the President would be required to deny jury trials. The right to trial by jury would be denied entirely! Of course, any American could be held for decades without trial or even being charged with a crime under McCain's bill.

Cosponsors of the bill include Democrat/independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Republicans Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, David Vitter of Louisiana, George LeMieux of Florida, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi. Those cosponsoring this outright attack on the Bill of Rights are those same Republican neo-conservatives who have dominated the GOP for the last decade or more. Conservative constitutionalists need to reassert control of the Republican Party and purge this cancer from the party and the U.S. Senate, if they wish to retain their freedoms.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) ACT OF TERRORISM- The term `act of terrorism’ means an act of terrorism as that term is defined in section 101(16) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(16)).

http://vlex.com/source/us-code-domestic-security-1005

(4) The term “critical infrastructure” has the meaning given that term in section 5195c(e) of title 42.
***
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00005195-—c000-.html
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 68 > SUBCHAPTER IV-B > § 5195c
§ 5195c. Critical infrastructures protection

(e) Critical infrastructure defined
In this section, the term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.

***
(9) The term “key resources” means publicly or privately controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government.

(15) The term “terrorism” means any activity that - (A) involves an act that - (i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and (ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and (B) appears to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. (16)(A) The term “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Poster’s note: I already see a problem here, since the definition of terrorism is not found in ARTICLE 519c 101(16), but rather 101(15)!

However, notice the clause in SEC 6 (15)A(i)
“…is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources;”

“Dangerous to” or “potentially destructive” of what “key resource”?

The term “key resources” means publicly or privately controlled resources essential to the minimal operations of the economy and government.

Therefore, anything defined (by whom) as “dangerous to human life” or “potentially destructive of” a publicly or privately controlled resource (perhaps the internet?), deemed (by whom) essential to the operations of the economy and government, might constitute a threat. Could an American citizen’s public protest, dissent, or blogging or denunciation of a government official or policy be considered “dangerous to” or “potentially destructive” to the minimal operations of the economy and government?

It gets worse under subsection (B)...

(B) appears to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

Goodbye TEA party protests, marches on Washington DC, or any other form of active dissent against the government!

Back to the Bill in question...

SEC. 3. INTERROGATION AND DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.
(d) Regulations-
(1) IN GENERAL- The operations and activities of high-value detainee interrogation groups under this section shall be governed by such regulations and guidance as the President shall establish for purposes of implementing this section. The regulations shall specify the officer or officers of the Executive Branch responsible for determining whether an individual placed in military custody under section 2 meets the criteria for treatment as a high-value detainee for purposes of interrogation and determination of status by a high-value interrogation group under this section.

Poster’s note: “…shall be governed by such regulations and guidance as the President shall establish…” Considering certain definitions, this statement is troubling.

(2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES- The regulations required by this subsection shall include criteria for designating an individual as a high-value detainee based on the following:

(A) The potential threat the individual poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the United States or upon United States citizens or United States civilian facilities abroad at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

Posters note: Potential threat an individual poses? Who determines this, and based on what criteria? (This is especially true in light of the DHS memorandum about “potential domestic threats.”)

(B) The potential threat the individual poses to United States military personnel or United States military facilities at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

Poster’s note: Oh this clause is ripe for abuse!

(D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.

(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

Poster’s note: Under (E) any protections assumed by the definitions and stipulations made in this section become null.

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.