Posted on 04/18/2010 7:09:37 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
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:
An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent ... may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities. [Emphasis added.]
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:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
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.
McCain defended his bill in a speech on the Senate floor March 4, stating:
The legislation would authorize detention of enemy belligerents without criminal charges for the duration of the hostilities consistent with standards under the law of war which have been recognized by the Supreme Court. Importantly, if a decision is made to hold a criminal trial after the necessary intelligence information is obtained, the bill mandates trial by military commission where we are best able to protect U.S. national security interests, including sensitive classified sources and methods, as well as the place and the people involved in the trial itself.
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.
Before you pull the thread, look at the Bill as listed on Thomas. Authoratative source.
It is listed in my post #50
Regardless of the source of the original article, this is in fact the wording of the bill as it stands.
WOAH! Brown is participating in this perfidy too?!!
Read Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. Our original writing allows for indefinite jailing of terrorist suspects.
I do not think the intent of those proposing it is what was stated in the original post.
It is however a far too powerful an authority to bestow on Obozo.
They will draw fire for this one.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I hate to say it’ll likely work.
Every AMERICAN CITIZEN IS ENTITLED to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers... even those citizens accused of treason!
Senator John McCain is insane! He has completely gone around the bend, and needs to be removed from office. This legislation is a complete violation of his Oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Just what exactly is HIS definition of “enemy belligerent”?
From Merriam-Webster...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/belligerent
Main Entry: bel·lig·er·ent
Function: adjective
Etymology: modification of Latin belligerant-, belligerans, present participle of belligerare to wage war, from belliger waging war, from bellum + gerere to wage Date: 1577
1 : waging war; specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war
2 : inclined to or exhibiting assertiveness, hostility, or combativeness
— belligerent noun
— bel·lig·er·ent·ly adverb
Synonyms belligerent, bellicose, pugnacious, quarrelsome, contentious mean having an aggressive or fighting attitude.
Belligerent often implies being actually at war or engaged in hostilities (belligerent nations). Bellicose suggests a disposition to fight (a drunk in a bellicose mood). Pugnacious suggests a disposition that takes pleasure in personal combat (a pugnacious gangster). Quarrelsome stresses an ill-natured readiness to fight without good cause (the heat made us all quarrelsome). Contentious implies perverse and irritating fondness for arguing and quarreling (wearied by his contentious disposition).
With this term, the regime could tag any dissenting American as an enemy belligerent!
“I wasn’t particularly stunned that McCain is pushing this, but Inhofe and Sessions??? What the ??? Are we missing something here??”
That’s what I was thinking (after I read further).
>>>Clearly, parts of the MSM would sit on their hands if certain of these people that they deem undesirable were to be spirited away!<<<
I disagree. They MSM would not sit on their hands.
They’d use their hands to applaud.
Yep!
If this goes through, there will be a civil war.
They can’t take away the constitutional rights of Americans without consequences.
Yes, I think we are missing the point. Althought the dangers of allowing this power are very serious.
“I wonder how McCain liked being held indefinitely without trial.”
.
He apparently still holds a grudge!
.
later
I take it then that you favor this bit of abject tyranny?
.
I take it then that you adore Osama bin Laden.
Rabs,thanks for the ping and TF, thanks for posting the bill.This section bothers me, because of 2(E). Even though 2(D) seems to limit the definiton of a high value detainee to Al Qaeda, (E) undoes that limitation. Besides, how does one prove that someone is a member of AQ or one of its affiliates—look in their yearbook?
Another McStupid boondoggle, aimed to make him suddenly look Conservative in a re-election year.
I am disappointed that Sessions and Inhofe chose to be mixed up in this ambiguous bill. Lieberman—no surprise there—you can find Joe whichever way the wind is blowing.
(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.
(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.
(C) The potential intelligence value of the individual.
(D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.
(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate
In other words if you’re going to be absurd I’ll just give the same back.
“Althought the dangers of allowing this power are very serious.”
Especially when we have the Chicago thugs in the WH.
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.