There’s no way this could go wrong. [face-palm]
This should once and for all finish McCain’s chances of reelection. It’s almost like he’s begging to be defeated.
McCain’s a progressive moron, but holding an enemy prisoner of war without trial for the duration of hostilities is the norm within the international law of warfare. In fact, if the enemy is an illegal combatant, he can be executed (but, I believe some sort of trial is required before doing so).
It seems to me that McCain may be discovering the international law of warfare, which he didn’t seem to understand during Bush’s administration.
“enemy belligerent”
An enemy belligerent is anyone the PTB decides it is.
Just say NO!
Geez, this guy is such a dangerous loose cannon.
I’d be careful with the Birchers interpretation of this.
OK Sarah...enough is enough!
You need to cut the ties with A$$ Hole immediately! You owe him nothing more!
I’m sure his good buddy, Sean Hannity will have him on for a glowing interview, while completely ignoring this topic.
Sean is beyond useless at times when it comes to his RINO buddies: McLame, Newt, Huckebee, and Romney!
WTF?
McLame must go!
bookmark
And Palin supports him. Sorry Sarah, I won’t support someone as careless to freedom as you. Too bad. You had some promise, but I am afraid I was being deceived.
Reference to entire text of this Bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s3081:
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)).
***Poster’s note: Some explanation of terms here:
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 human life” or “potentially destructive” of what “key resource”?
As stated above: 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 (the internet?), deemed (by whom?) essential to the operations of the economy and government, might constitute a threat. Could an American citizen’s web blogging, public protest or dissent, or any form of denunciation directed at a government official or administration’s policy be considered “dangerous to human life” or “potentially destructive” to the minimal operations of the economy and government? Back to the proposed Bill, read SEC. 3d(2)A closely… “The potential threat the individual poses for an attack on civilians…” That phrase may be construed any number of ways, and is open to abuse by those desiring to eliminate political enemies or opposition.
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 for purposes of implementing this section.” Considering certain definitions, within the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(16)).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 potentiality, and based on what criteria? (This is especially troubling in light of the DHS memoranda 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.
(C) The potential intelligence value of the individual.
Poster’s note: 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: Any protections assumed by the definitions and stipulations made in this section are made null by this clause!
Maybe that’s why McLame wants McAmnesty and a path to citizenship — so he can lock them up, too.
If this gets traction, we are indeed one step closer to extermination camps—and only a short step away.
Wonder if 0dumb0 could be held?
TIME TO RETIRE McCain!
Are there any enumerated criteria for determining that someone is an enemy belligerent, and a process for redress in the courts to contest that determination? If so, then it is possible to preserve the constitution and still detain these belligerents. But if not, it’s in effect a suspension of habeas corpus, to be done under the constitution only in time of insurrection and invasion. Arguably, the US experiencing both. But if habeas corpus is suspended for a whole generation, rather than for a few years as it was during the Civil War and WW II, then we’re talking about discarding the constitution.
Under international law, terrorists, soldiers out of uniform, and spies can be shot out of hand. Gen. Loan's execution of the notorious Viet Cong captain caught shooting up Gen. Loan's men's housing area was in fact lawful.
Note that this bill incorporates the Geneva Convention to U.S. law, or vice versa. Not sure I'm pleased about that:
An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 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 supplied.]
Not sure I'm really wild about their putting that into the law. It's one thing to observe the conventions, and another entirely, to write them into U.S. law.
I despise McCain. That being said, this article so distorts the bill as to be little more than a propaganda piece.
The bill is selectively quoted. Here is the ACTUAL wording:
“
An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial...”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3081
The bill is about how they are to decide who is “an unprivileged enemy belligerent;” and how they are to be treated. Also, it keeps any trial of such OUTSIDE the US. Although it is obviously flawed, it is NOT as depicted in this article. Please read the bill at the link provided, and discuss the REALITY, not this distortion.
DG
One of those things he must have learned in that North Vietnamese POW camp.