Posted on 04/18/2010 7:09:37 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Sorry Gidget7, I meant that to go to TXnMA instead.
Sean Hannity has ALWAYS been a well-intentioned, but intellectually-incompetent man, both on radio and television.
He gets anything of consequence from Rush and Levin, and then echos it like a parrot.
Palin is poisoning her own well be supporting McCain.
She had a hard choice and made the wrong one.
Correct the article is from the Birchers. Others observed it soon after it was posted.
But if you look at my Post #50 it gives the exact legislation that has been proposed.
The bill Sucks in it’s present form.
Friend told me that Sessions stated this was to stop the civilian trial of the terrorists. I think it makes more problems than it solves, if that is the intent.
I don't think we do need this law. FDR didn't need any law to execute Nazi saboteurs found out of uniform on US soil after being landed by U-boats during WWII (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius). Washington had at least one spy hung after a brief trial during the Revolutionary War (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Andr%C3%A9). If saboteurs and spies can be executed under the international law of war, why would it be surprising to allow the detainment of combatants, legal or illegal, for the duration of the conflict?
Anyone remotely familiar with the relatively recent history of WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War knows prisoners were held for the duration of the conflict. As I recall, during the early part of our Civil War, it was the practice of both sides to parole prisoners -- i.e., release them under the assurance that they would no longer participate in the conflict. I believe when the Union decided to get serious about winning, they opted to not parole Confederate prisoners any more, as paroled prisoners were known to rejoin their units and the purpose of war is to win, and one wins by degrading the effectiveness of the enemy. The Confederates reciprocated.
If McCain's bill is needed, it is only because, since WWII, the progressives have degraded our laws to the point where the average American doesn't understand right from wrong. If our laws haven't been tampered with, leftist propaganda has certainly confused many, if not most. Witness the entire Guantanamo debacle. It should have never been perceived necessary to garrison illegal combatants off shore -- FDR's saboteurs and Washingtons' spy were imprisoned on US soil and executed and buried there. Some might argue that Washington and FDR were operating under formal declarations of war, but I would argue that when the Congress funds war operations, such an act is a de facto declaration of war.
The argument of weak sisters like McCain and Powell against aggressive interrogation of illegal combatants is that the illegal enemy would treat our prisoners in the same harsh manner. Hell, the throat-cutting scum treats our civilians worse than we could ever think about treating their prisoners.
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!
Sean Hannity has ALWAYS been a well-intentioned, but intellectually-incompetent man, both on radio and television.
He gets anything of consequence from Rush and Levin, and then echos it like a parrot.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Good assessment.
Don’t get me wrong, he’s a good guy and has done some good things, but when it comes to his RINO buddies, he loses his edge and objectivity.
~~~~~~~~~~~
WTH are you on about?
My only comment on this thread was a factual answer to Onyx's question re The New American and the John Birch Society.
You weren't part of that conversation. IOW, butt out!
Maybe that’s why McLame wants McAmnesty and a path to citizenship — so he can lock them up, too.
This is old news regardless, and was already published in THE ATLANTIC the day after the FIRST READING in the US Senate, in a much more sane manner, than the histrionic Lew Rockwell writer.
Mar 5 2010, 3:40 PM ET
Why is the national security community treating the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010," introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration's choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity.
According to the summary, the bill sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning.
(There is no distinction between U.S. persons--visa holders or citizens--and non-U.S. persons.)
It would require these "belligerents" to be coded as "high-value detainee[s]" to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team established by the president. (The H.I.G., of course, was established to bring a sophisticated interrogation capacity to the federal justice system.)
Any suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents considered a "high-value detainee" shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.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. The President must submit the regulations and guidance to the appropriate committees of Congress no later than 60 days after enactment.
To the extent possible, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.
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.
Note that the president himself doesn't get to make the call.
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!
Anything which CAN be abused, will be abused. This is an Unconstitutional usurpation of power, amounting to the negation of habeas corpus. While that has been done before, we were engaged in the war we do not want to repeat, if possible.
The 'stroke of a pen, law of the land' set has no compunction about abusing power--they have already done so. I believe your faith is unfounded. The proposal says what it says, the potential for abuse is written in, and there are no safeguards there.
It is bad legislation, and imho, shows McCain to be unfit for office.
“I swear to God you would side with Osama bin Laden if he got into a fight with John McCain.”
Troll. Oh wait, you already no that.
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.
You are welcome to notify the mods that you believe I'm a troll. While you are at it you might ask them how to spell "know". I know how hard those long words can be for you.
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.