On March 4th, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bill called the "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010" that, if passed, would set this country on a course to become a military dictatorship.

The bill is only 12 pages long, but that is plenty of room to grant the president the power to order the arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment of anyone -- including a U.S. citizen -- indefinitely, on the sole suspicion that he or she is affiliated with terrorism, and on the president's sole authority as commander in chief.

he Act begins with the following (convoluted) requirement:

Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States who is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war, or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities, and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

In other words, if at any point, anywhere in the world, a person is caught who might have done something to suggest that he or she is a terrorist or somehow supporting a terrorist organization against the U.S. or its allies, that person must be imprisoned by the military.

For how long?

As long as U.S. officials want. A subsequent section, titled "Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents," states that suspects "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." In a press conference introducing the bill earlier this month, Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I know that will be -- that may be -- a long time, but that's the nature of this war."

As constitutional expert Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, "It's basically a bill designed to formally authorize what the Bush administration did to American citizen Jose Padilla -- arrest him on U.S. soil and imprison him for years in military custody with no charges." What happened to Padilla, a notorious perversion of justice in a country that claims to be a democratic standard-bearer, would thus go from being an exception to the rule itself.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/146081/mccain_and_lieberman%27s_%22enemy_belligerent%22_act_could_set%20_u.s._on_path_to_military_dictatorship

The bill is co-sponsored by 8 Republicans and Lieberman. The right's assault on our civil liberties continue. This is one of the scariest bills introduced that I can remember.

It's even more scary when you consider Obama's MEAC report that basically labeled all dissenters as terrorists.

eersandbeers wrote: On March 4th, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bill called the "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010" that, if passed, would set this country on a course to become a military dictatorship.

The bill is only 12 pages long, but that is plenty of room to grant the president the power to order the arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment of anyone -- including a U.S. citizen -- indefinitely, on the sole suspicion that he or she is affiliated with terrorism, and on the president's sole authority as commander in chief.

he Act begins with the following (convoluted) requirement:

Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States who is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war, or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities, and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

In other words, if at any point, anywhere in the world, a person is caught who might have done something to suggest that he or she is a terrorist or somehow supporting a terrorist organization against the U.S. or its allies, that person must be imprisoned by the military.

For how long?

As long as U.S. officials want. A subsequent section, titled "Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents," states that suspects "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." In a press conference introducing the bill earlier this month, Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I know that will be -- that may be -- a long time, but that's the nature of this war."

As constitutional expert Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, "It's basically a bill designed to formally authorize what the Bush administration did to American citizen Jose Padilla -- arrest him on U.S. soil and imprison him for years in military custody with no charges." What happened to Padilla, a notorious perversion of justice in a country that claims to be a democratic standard-bearer, would thus go from being an exception to the rule itself.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/146081/mccain_and_lieberman%27s_%22enemy_belligerent%22_act_could_set%20_u.s._on_path_to_military_dictatorship

The bill is co-sponsored by 8 Republicans and Lieberman. The right's assault on our civil liberties continue. This is one of the scariest bills introduced that I can remember.

It's even more scary when you consider Obama's MEAC report that basically labeled all dissenters as terrorists.

And I thought the Anti-liberty errrrrrrrrrrrrr I mean Patriot act was terrible.

This is the Republicans and Democrats working together to put an end to this country. When they have this in place, the next step is to label the Tea Parties and other peaceful protests as 'terrorist groups' and lock them up. The Ds will spend us into ruin and the Rs will come put us away for voicing our displeasure.

Sounds like they are trying to say any act of domestic terrorism is not handled through the civilian court, but the military, an obvious reaction to the Christmas day attack. But, they did leave the door open on the definition of terrorism, which is used by DHS. (Which isn't a great definition)

I'm against, as I'm sure many in the Senate and members of the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate are going to be against.

On another note, anyone else think there are simply too many committees when it comes to terrorism/ foreign policy/ homeland security. Consolidation was one of the 9/11 Committee's recommendations, but no movement so far.

It's pathetic that Obama and McCain were the 2 main canidates people had to vote for. I voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitutionalist Party. I couldn't waste a vote on Obama or McCain, I'd rather have casted for someone my beliefs were more in line with even though they had no shot at winning.

This has no more chance of passing than Obama care.........

God damn it.

dwccrew wrote:I couldn't waste a vote on Obama or McCain, I'd rather have casted for someone my beliefs were more in line with even though they had no shot at winning.

Believe me when I say I struggled with the two major party candidates, but I had the exact opposite way of looking at it.

I could have cast a vote for - say - Ron Paul and joined millions of others like yourself who are fed up with the status quo. The problem is I wanted to make sure my vote went to the major party candidate most likely NOT to want the Feds to take over 1/6th of the private economy, who was less likely to push bogus ideas like cap & tax, etc.

McCain is a liberal Republican and I was loathe to pull the lever for him, but I'm reasonably confident that we wouldn't be debating nationalized health care, the wisdom or lack thereof behind an $800 billion Porkulus Package, etc. had McCain been victorious. We'd just have to put up with McCain's dumb ass thinking like this proposed bill.

I can admire the convictions of people like yourself, but thanks to millions like you, we're all stuck with the Arrogant Socialist in the White House.

Gotts love the chickenhawk neocon Joe Lieberman.

I imagine there would have been a pork bill called stimulus too under the McCain administration because of the outcry of looking like he wasn't doing anything. While I do respect McCain for his stand on earmarks, they are a drop in the bucket to the real problem, many of those programs he has went along with. May I also remind my friends still left in the right wing of the Republicrat bird that Medicare Part D was passed under the Bush administration. So I'm sure we would see more health care BS.

Ultimately, both wings of the Republicrat bird have us on the same path. The right wing isn't flying quite as fast as the left one but it is nonetheless in agreement with the direction, and that is the downfall of this country as a great industrial state into a state that is weak due to dependency for many of the goods we need, including more and more of our defense capability.

I voted for a third party as well and imagine I'll do so again in 2012.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and I will vote for him again in 2012. I'm on disability and Obamacare is going to help me a lot. I'm glad we have a president like him. He will keep the right-wingers in line.

He can't keep his own party members in line, what makes you think he'll keep republicans in line?!

^^^Don't argue logic with Fairwood. He's just glad Big Government has enlarged it tit so people can latch on a little more easily.

believer wrote: ^^^Don't argue logic with Fairwood. He's just glad Big Government has enlarged it tit so people can latch on a little more easily.

I like to latch on to enlarged tits.....

Devils Advocate wrote: like to latch on to enlarged tits.....

lol Come to think of it...So do I!

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Sounds like they are trying to say any act of domestic terrorism is not handled through the civilian court, but the military, an obvious reaction to the Christmas day attack. But, they did leave the door open on the definition of terrorism, which is used by DHS. (Which isn't a great definition)

I was never in favor of the creation of the DHS. The federal government already had ample agencies, bureaus, departments, etc. outside of the military to protect its citizen's security here at home. I knew that once things simmered down with the foreign terrorist threat, this newly created department would have to find new and useful means to keep its federal funding flowing. That definition of terrorism to me indicates that this department could evolve into something that could threaten individual liberties.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm against, as I'm sure many in the Senate and members of the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate are going to be against.

This bill stinks to high heaven. Barring some major act or attempted act of terrorism, I see this as going nowhere. Then again I have been amazed at some of the things that get passed in congress.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: On another note, anyone else think there are simply too many committees when it comes to terrorism/ foreign policy/ homeland security. Consolidation was one of the 9/11 Committee's recommendations, but no movement so far.

There is too much of everything in Washington. Its no wonder they can be so inefficient at times. As for the committees, many times they end up competing against each other to see who has the biggest set of balls. Those federal entities that depend on congress's funding end up competing against one another because the want to show themselves the most valuable to receive federal dollars.

majorspark wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Sounds like they are trying to say any act of domestic terrorism is not handled through the civilian court, but the military, an obvious reaction to the Christmas day attack. But, they did leave the door open on the definition of terrorism, which is used by DHS. (Which isn't a great definition)

I was never in favor of the creation of the DHS. The federal government already had ample agencies, bureaus, departments, etc. outside of the military to protect its citizen's security here at home. I knew that once things simmered down with the foreign terrorist threat, this newly created department would have to find new and useful means to keep its federal funding flowing. That definition of terrorism to me indicates that this department could evolve into something that could threaten individual liberties.

I was not in favor of its creation, then saw it has a place in linking local, state, and federal officials with actionable intelligence and coordination. The problem is they still haven't really figured out how to do it. I have two friends that work at DHS, one in immigration and one as a contractor, and both see the mission and role DHS plays in preventing and managing threats.

majorspark wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'm against, as I'm sure many in the Senate and members of the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate are going to be against.

This bill stinks to high heaven. Barring some major act or attempted act of terrorism, I see this as going nowhere. Then again I have been amazed at some of the things that get passed in congress.

Same. I doubt it moves.

majorspark wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: On another note, anyone else think there are simply too many committees when it comes to terrorism/ foreign policy/ homeland security. Consolidation was one of the 9/11 Committee's recommendations, but no movement so far.

There is too much of everything in Washington. Its no wonder they can be so inefficient at times. As for the committees, many times they end up competing against each other to see who has the biggest set of balls. Those federal entities that depend on congress's funding end up competing against one another because the want to show themselves the most valuable to receive federal dollars.

Agreed. Power and not wanting to cede any influence plays a huge role in why there is no restructuring.

Who proposed the original Patriot Act?

Devils Advocate wrote:

believer wrote: ^^^Don't argue logic with Fairwood. He's just glad Big Government has enlarged it tit so people can latch on a little more easily.

I like to latch on to enlarged tits.....

now we're talking...


I don't like anything about this bill.

FairwoodKing wrote: I voted for Obama in 2008 and I will vote for him again in 2012. I'm on disability and Obamacare is going to help me a lot. I'm glad we have a president like him. He will keep the right-wingers in line.

Just come out and say it "I drank the Kool Aid"

I think you're missing the point. This bill blows.