Posted on 04/18/2010 7:09:37 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
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.