There’s got to be more to this than meets the eye, because I’d expect this from John McCain, maybe Joe Liebermann, and I hope all you Scott Brown drunkards can explain this.
Previously posted on the Daily Paul, via the Smoking Argus, Ron Paul Forums and the New American. S. 3081 outlines the process by which Americans may be held indefinitely, without notice of their Miranda Rights, and without ever being charged with a crime.
SPONSOR: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
CO-SPONSOR(S) 9
Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL), Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Jefferson Sessions (R-AL), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Aside from the ominous tone, just what could be looming that could trigger the need for this kind of action against American citizens?
What’s up with these Republicans?!
h/t Craig W
The problem I have with it, and I will vote against anyone who votes for this bill because of this: Regarding who counts as a High value target “Such other matters as the President deems appropriate.”
This bill actually gives the president the ability to indefinitely detain anyone he feels like.
Oh, Bob, concerning Scott Brown, I suspect that he’s simply following his patron’s lead (McCain). Brown will likely turn out to be a moderate at best, he is from your great state, after all. Still, we can hope.
Or this: http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf
Let’s try this:
The point is that such a bill is needed to prevent such nonsense as the underwear bomber being questioned for 50 minutes, and then given his Miranda rights, after which he shuts up for three months.
The war against Jihadists is such a huge gray area on the face of it. It’s not even funny, it is dead serious.
This bill will work as long is it is not abused, unfortunately, the language is so broad that it could be abused regardless of who is in power.
Also, we have the likes of “Jihad Jane” and others to consider. So the final question is how much do you trust our leaders, and how much do you trust the election process, since that’s the only thing that keeps the politicians in check?
We are still at war, and this is a war-time measure. The language could be tightened up a bit, but even an American citizen who is committing acts of war against our fair country should be held and dealt with as an enemy combatant, in my humble opinion.
Obama re-signed most of the Patriot Act, this time with no sunset provisions recently. So a good case can be made that the Executive Branch is once again attempting to expand their scope, however, the Constitution provides that the Pres is also the Commander in Chief.
If these powers are ever abused, there will be hell to pay.
Here is a link to the original bill (pdf) that works, BTW.
<a href=http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf trarget=blank
Only an idiot would push for legislation like this with a dictator wannabe like Uuuuuhbama in the White House.
We cannot divine their intention; but, this bill will be ripe for abuse.
I don’t know what else to say. I am hesitant to condemn everyone.
What and who are the alternative? Unless they elaborate on the language, this could be a deal breaker.
“Aside from the ominous tone, just what could be looming that could trigger the need for this kind of action against American citizens?
What’s up with these Republicans?!”
and independent? holy crap
Great… another brick for the Libtards who call Republicans “warmongers” and who accuse them of “war crimes”…
Then again, the Labour Party in Britain had a law made that allows for detention without charge for up to 28 days (IIRC…)
I haven’t read the whole thing but here is part of the text regarding citizens:
SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED
11 ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.
12 An individual, including a citizen of the United
13 States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent
14 under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article
15 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
16 Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal
17 charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities
18 against the United States or its coalition partners in which
19 the individual has engaged, or which the individual has
20 purposely and materially supported, consistent with the
21 law of war and any authorization for the use of military
22 force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.
Here’s the text of the bill:
http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf
I see where they’re trying to go with this, to prevent another circus as the KSM New York trial has been. However, McCain repeatedly speaks of “enemy belligerents” but there seems to be no specific legal definition of that term. That’s the part that is most scary. As far as Obama is concerned, the TEA party participants were “enemy belligerents”; Pelosi and Reid said as much.
Congress is full of lawyers. Can any of them grow a pair and write a clear and concise bill without all the mushy terminology? I know I’m not holding my breath.
@n.n – yup I got the same thing looking for the text. The Thomas listing states that the bill hasn’t been released from the Congressional Printing Office yet. Uhm, yeah that.
Message when visiting scribd: “Sorry! This document is not publicly available.”
Access was denied to the scribd link.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR McCAIN ON THE ENEMY BELLIGERENT INTERROGATION, DETENTION, AND PROSECUTION ACT OF 2010
A bill to provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for other purposes.
bill text
Status: unavailable
Easy: They’re RINOs and *not* real Republicans. It’s also another piece of evidence that they are out of touch with their constituents.
As far as Scott Brown goes: It was a symbolic victory and a stern message/warning to Democrats and liberals in general. Yet again it was a case of the lesser of two evils, with no GOOD candidate with a possible shot in the field. Kinda like the whole Obama/McCain election. McCain was a horrible candidate for conservatives, but he was better than Obama.