Truthers, Birthers, Tea-Baggers, Patriots..to be detained indefinitely?

[Thunder]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/a-detention-bill-you-ought-to-read-more-carefully/37116

Oh my God!!! Senators Lieberman and McCain have sponsored a bill to make all dissenters enemy combatants, and detain them forever!!!

Oh....wait...where in this bill does it say that someone can be detained indefinitely....for simply speaking their mind?

Where does it say that non-threatening posts on the internet, or participating in a peaceful march, will get you arrested for life?

Where does it say non-violent speech will get you stripped of your civil rights?

No where. That's where.

[Liszt]

It says this...

CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVID11
UALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES.—The regulations
12 required by this subsection shall include criteria for
13 designating an individual as a high-value detainee
14 based on the following:

...

(E) Such other matters as the President
8 considers appropriate.

(8 is the line number)

Not very clear at all.

[gnome]

I don't like it. Unless the meat of the article misstates it badly, I don't see it holding up in court though.

[Thunder]

still...you gotta be a paranoid moron to think that this law will give the Feds the right to put peaceful protestors in prison forever with no Miranda rights.

now, does that mean you can peacefully call for the murder of a Congressman, a Senator, or a CEO? no..you cannot.

freedom of speech is not the freedom to call for murder or terrorism.

[gnome]

The devil is not in the intent of the law, but in its lack of checks and balances.

CAN the goverment use this law to detain someone who does not fit the qualifications, and if not, what stops them?

[Sunsneezer]

CAN the goverment use this law to detain someone who does not fit the qualifications, and if not, what stops them?
Public opinion. And attorneys.

[LightinDarkness]

It says this...

CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVID11
UALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES.—The regulations
12 required by this subsection shall include criteria for
13 designating an individual as a high-value detainee
14 based on the following:

...

(E) Such other matters as the President
8 considers appropriate.

(8 is the line number)

Not very clear at all.

The "other matters as appropriate" is boiler-plate standard for federal regulation. It never comes up as an issue because the government is not, contrary to CT belief, out to get us all and the clause is rarely used.

Interestingly, this is the same "logic" was applied to the "OMG FEMA camps are gonna kill us all" legislation, which simply enabled FEMA to set up emergency shelter camps for people in a natural disaster area ... "and for other matters as appropriate."

[defaultdotxbe]

the bill appears to only apply to "enemy belligerents" defined as such:

(8) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term
17 ‘‘privileged belligerent’’ means an individual belong
18 ing to one of the eight categories enumerated in Ar
19 ticle 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the
20 Treatment of Prisoners of War.

21 (9) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—
22 The term ‘‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’’ means an
23 individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—

24 (A) has engaged in hostilities against the
25 United States or its coalition partners;

1 (B) has purposely and materially sup
2 ported hostilities against the United States or
3 its coalition partners; or

4 (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of
5 capture.

[Kevin_Lowe]

The "other matters as appropriate" is boiler-plate standard for federal regulation. It never comes up as an issue because the government is not, contrary to CT belief, out to get us all and the clause is rarely used.

The only example I can think of in recent years was Bush having Jose Padilla, a citizen of the USA, seized from civilian custody by the military and held for years without charges or evidence by Presidential fiat.

Eventually the legal system caught up with that move and forced the Bush regime to actually charge him with something, but it took literally years while Padilla was held in a military prison and tortured.

Such laws are a reason for significant concern. Basically you are arguing that it's okay to give the President the power to lock people up indefinitely with no evidence, because the President would never abuse that power. Bush showed that this was not always the case.

[gnome]

Public opinion. And attorneys.

Public opinion is not so reliable if the targeted citizen has the right look or if spurious connections to known terrorists can be announced. Seems like the news today tends to announce sensational details like that with very little research--maybe letting someone voice skepticism, who will immediately be ridiculed as a terrorist-lover on the political talk shows.

And attorneys may eventually sort out the problem--but the right person at the right time can be out of commission for a good long time before attorneys manage to free them, and by then the public is used to thinking of them as a terrorist. Thorn-in-your-side neutralized.

[LightinDarkness]

The only example I can think of in recent years was Bush having Jose Padilla, a citizen of the USA, seized from civilian custody by the military and held for years without charges or evidence by Presidential fiat.

Evidence that George Bush specifically used the "other purposes" clause of any law to imprison Padilla? By the way, that is QUITE the spin job on Padilla - but its off topic for the thread.


Such laws are a reason for significant concern. Basically you are arguing that it's okay to give the President the power to lock people up indefinitely with no evidence, because the President would never abuse that power. Bush showed that this was not always the case.

A nice a strawman argument that has no actual no relationship to what I actually said. You built up that straw man, and knocked it down good. Do that again and it will be noted that you have no idea what you are talking about and will be ignored before I waste my time further.

What I said was that it is standard boilerplate to insert "and for other purposes" in federal law. This is done for administrative purposes - the federal government has found that by not doing so every small administrative tweak to how a law or program is run that has no material impact on congressional intent can become a legal challenge. Such legal challenges of course fail, but are often used as a delaying tactic for politically divisive bills.

In the end and in reality, legislation that contains clauses that expands government using such language are of no concern. Its there to enable government function without rewriting bills every time some administrative problem comes up. It isn't there and cannot be used as some giant "free for all" that allows the government do whatever it wants, as conspiracy theorists like you believe.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Evidence that George Bush specifically used the "other purposes" clause of any law to imprison Padilla? By the way, that is QUITE the spin job on Padilla - but its off topic for the thread.

That is neither here nor there. The point is that if the President has the legal power to, as one example, detain a US citizen indefinitely without evidence, then Bush is proof that some Presidents will do so.


A nice a strawman argument that has no actual no relationship to what I actually said. You built up that straw man, and knocked it down good. Do that again and it will be noted that you have no idea what you are talking about and will be ignored before I waste my time further.

Threatening me with the ignore function assumes that I would be worse off in some way if you did not reply to my posts. I think you should demonstrate that before making such threats, if you want them to have any weight.


What I said was that it is standard boilerplate to insert "and for other purposes" in federal law. This is done for administrative purposes - the federal government has found that by not doing so every small administrative tweak to how a law or program is run that has no material impact on congressional intent can become a legal challenge. Such legal challenges of course fail, but are often used as a delaying tactic for politically divisive bills.

In the end and in reality, legislation that contains clauses that expands government using such language are of no concern. Its there to enable government function without rewriting bills every time some administrative problem comes up. It isn't there and cannot be used as some giant "free for all" that allows the government do whatever it wants, as conspiracy theorists like you believe.

I don't find your assertion of that point, on its own, very compelling. However that bit of "boilerplate" isn't really the crux of the matter anyway, since as I said earlier the Padilla incident showed that there is no need to invoke that bit of "boilerplate".

The government just has to say "Padilla is a high-value detainee because we reckon he poses a threat to us" and hey presto, he can be detained indefinitely by the military and interrogated regardless of whether or not he is a US citizen. All his usual rights and protections under the law as a US citizen and a civilian evaporate.

[LightinDarkness]

That is neither here nor there. The point is that if the President has the legal power to, as one example, detain a US citizen indefinitely without evidence, then Bush is proof that some Presidents will do so.

WRONG!

That is exactly the whole point - that "and for other purposes language" is a standard addition to federal legislation and is harmless and has never been used to the extremes the woos like you think it will.

If you cannot provide any evidence that George Bush relied on such language to imprison Padilla (even though he was found guilty of conspiracy to kill American citizens), then that IS the entire point as it was the ENTIRE point of my post, which you replied to.

Read what you wrote again, you even quoted it in your response:

Posted by LightinDarkness
The "other matters as appropriate" is boiler-plate standard for federal regulation. It never comes up as an issue because the government is not, contrary to CT belief, out to get us all and the clause is rarely used.


To which you responded:

The only example I can think of in recent years was Bush having Jose Padilla, a citizen of the USA, seized from civilian custody by the military and held for years without charges or evidence by Presidential fiat.


And now we have you flailing about admitting that this is in fact NOT an example of a government official relying on such language to abuse power, whereas one post ago you attempted to cite a specific example you now show you lied about in an attempt to troll the thread. Until you provide such evidence, you stand debunked.


Threatening me with the ignore function assumes that I would be worse off in some way if you did not reply to my posts. I think you should demonstrate that before making such threats, if you want them to have any weight.

Its endearing that you think I care what your opinions on being put on ignore are. Really, its sweet. You have been informed that your trolling would result in being ignored - and so it will. You just demonstrated that your reply here was to troll as you have no idea what you are talking about and when asked for evidence you admitted you had none - revealing your lies. Go troll someone else - might be a challenge for you - from your post history it appears half the board has you on ignore. Your posts are valueless.


I don't find your assertion of that point, on its own, very compelling. However that bit of "boilerplate" isn't really the crux of the matter anyway, since as I said earlier the Padilla incident showed that there is no need to invoke that bit of "boilerplate".

That you think I care about your views on the facts is also amusing. Your views on it really don't matter - its how the law works and I work with it every day. You have shown you have no idea what you are talking about, as you just debunked yourself by showing the "Padilla incident" had zero relationship to any government official using "and for other purposes" languages in federal legislation.

Debunked, dismissed, and ignored.

[LightinDarkness]

the bill appears to only apply to "enemy belligerents" defined as such:

Which, of course, would not apply to any conspiracy theorist or other assorted nutbar that tried to make money off them (aka Alex Jones). Which is why its fascinating that I see ATS already acting hysterical over this as proof the NWO is out to get them.

[Kevin_Lowe]

WRONG!

That is exactly the whole point - that "and for other purposes language" is a standard addition to federal legislation and is harmless and has never been used to the extremes the woos like you think it will.

If you cannot provide any evidence that George Bush relied on such language to imprison Padilla (even though he was found guilty of conspiracy to kill American citizens), then that IS the entire point as it was the ENTIRE point of my post, which you replied to.

Interesting. I've never seen such a fast shift-the-goalposts-and-run manoeuvre. Further you claim to be familiar with my posting history yet I've got no idea who you are, under this username at least. One might speculate that one of the handful of posters who already has me on ignore is also missing a sock.

The issue of whether the legislation under discussion is cause for concern in and of itself, regardless of the significance or otherwise of the boilerplate at the end of it, seems to me to be far more interesting than arguing over that bit of boilerplate. Yet that bit of boilerplate is the only thing you are willing to talk about, and you swiftly stick your fingers in your ears if someone starts talking about the legislation as a whole.

[LightinDarkness]

Interesting. I've never seen such a fast shift-the-goalposts-and-run manoeuvre. Further you claim to be familiar with my posting history yet I've got no idea who you are, under this username at least. One might speculate that one of the handful of posters who already has me on ignore is also missing a sock.

The issue of whether the legislation under discussion is cause for concern in and of itself, regardless of the significance or otherwise of the boilerplate at the end of it, seems to me to be far more interesting than arguing over that bit of boilerplate. Yet that bit of boilerplate is the only thing you are willing to talk about, and you swiftly stick your fingers in your ears if someone starts talking about the legislation as a whole.

You seem to be having delusions again, but you got this one in before I could hit the ignore button.

I have never seen someone debunked so quickly flail about like this. My only posts in this thread have been about a particular part of the legislation and I have made no statements about the legislation as a whole.

Then:
(1) You begin having delusional arguments with me that never happened where you think I somehow am an ardent defender of the legislation as a whole.
(2) Reply to a post I made addressing a portion of the legislation with an example that you claimed showed abuse of "other purposes" clauses.
(3) When asked for evidence of your claim, you admitted you lied and began moving the goal post back to this mythical argument you had where I expressed my wholesome support of the legislation as a whole.
(4) When I point out the series of lies, you began obfuscating and showed you are on the run by implicitly stating I was a sock puppet of one of the significant portion of the board that ignores you for the troll you are.

This hysteria is not healthy, and I encourage you to seek help. Ignored. Now you get to get your last post in to make you feel good about getting the "last word" - immature trolls need that. Enjoy it!

My apologies to the thread for falling for the troll. Hopefully it won't disrupt the thread by a significant amount...as when you let the trolls do that, they win. Back on TOPIC:

[LightinDarkness]

EDIT: Sorry for double post, computer lagged when I hit post and I walked away from the computer..and hit post again when I came back. Post is below.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You seem to be having delusions again, but you got this one in before I could hit the ignore button.

Another tip: Threatening to ignore someone also works better if they think you will actually carry through with it.


I have never seen someone debunked so quickly flail about like this. My only posts in this thread have been about a particular part of the legislation and I have made no statements about the legislation as a whole.

Then:
(1) You begin having delusional arguments with me that never happened where you think I somehow am an ardent defender of the legislation as a whole.

I was addressing your claim that there was no reason to worry because "It never comes up as an issue because the government is not, contrary to CT belief, out to get us all". The Padilla case is evidence that despite your confidence in the goodwill of the US government it has on at least one recent occasion transferred a civilian prisoner and US citizen into indefinite detention in a military prison, and it required years of pro bono lawyering to get him out.

This new legislation appears to be an attempt to give the government the power to do exactly what it did to Padilla to other US citizens.

But sure, if you'd rather talk about whether or not the tiny, boilerplate coda on the very end of that legislation is scary or not you're welcome to discuss that bit of trivia to your heart's content.

If you're not interested in participating in a more substantial discussion of this legislation then a lack of further replies from you is no hardship for me or anyone else.

[LightinDarkness]

The language makes it pretty clear that the full definition of who can be considered an "enemy belligerent" must consider ALL of the factors weighted together. The absence of using "based on ANY of the following" is key, since when the intent of the legislation is for factors to be weighted separate the language always uses those sorts of phrases:


(2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES.—The regulations 12 required by this subsection shall include criteria for designating an individual as a high-value detainee based on the following:

So other factors for determination must be considered with both (1) the threat of a civilian attack, (2) the threat of a attack on the military, (3) intelligence value, (4) terrorist group membership, and (5) other factors the President wishes to consider.

Given that all factors have to be considered, there is no conceivable case in which the woos have to worry...Obama can't go to item (5) and declare that their talking about his Birth Certificate is a factor when none of the other qualifying crtierion are materially relevant.

As usual, woo hysteria over nothing.

[Sunsneezer]

Public opinion is not so reliable if the targeted citizen has the right look or if spurious connections to known terrorists can be announced. Seems like the news today tends to announce sensational details like that with very little research--maybe letting someone voice skepticism, who will immediately be ridiculed as a terrorist-lover on the political talk shows.

And attorneys may eventually sort out the problem--but the right person at the right time can be out of commission for a good long time before attorneys manage to free them, and by then the public is used to thinking of them as a terrorist. Thorn-in-your-side neutralized.
Public opinion is not reliable, but you can't ignore it. You can't take actions without taking it into consideration. Of course injustice already happens regardless of that, but every presidency has opponents. Politic and public ones, who are all quite motivated in revealing every single bit of power abuse they can find. Even criminals can count on the fact some journalist will go far to get another day out of the story, and that persons in position of authority are also eager to expose their political opponent's abuse.
Of course being backed by a group of nutters that range from the gullible skeptic to the paranoid weapon stocker is a handicap in this situation, so I can see why people are freaking out on ATS.
Also, I'm speaking from another country. A country where it is possible for the public opinion to be shades of gray (http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/article/689740)when asked how we should defend Canadian born Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr.

[tsig]

The language makes it pretty clear that the full definition of who can be considered an "enemy belligerent" must consider ALL of the factors weighted together. The absence of using "based on ANY of the following" is key, since when the intent of the legislation is for factors to be weighted separate the language always uses those sorts of phrases:



So other factors for determination must be considered with both (1) the threat of a civilian attack, (2) the threat of a attack on the military, (3) intelligence value, (4) terrorist group membership, and (5) other factors the President wishes to consider.

Given that all factors have to be considered, there is no conceivable case in which the woos have to worry...Obama can't go to item (5) and declare that their talking about his Birth Certificate is a factor when none of the other qualifying crtierion are materially relevant.

As usual, woo hysteria over nothing.

It seems to violate the sixth amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[LightinDarkness]

It seems to violate the sixth amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

How, exactly? In the same way that murder trials, which goes on for years in the United States, are speedy? In the same way that controversial trials result in gag orders where nothing about them is public?

[gnome]

The language makes it pretty clear that the full definition of who can be considered an "enemy belligerent" must consider ALL of the factors weighted together. The absence of using "based on ANY of the following" is key, since when the intent of the legislation is for factors to be weighted separate the language always uses those sorts of phrases:



So other factors for determination must be considered with both (1) the threat of a civilian attack, (2) the threat of a attack on the military, (3) intelligence value, (4) terrorist group membership, and (5) other factors the President wishes to consider.

Given that all factors have to be considered, there is no conceivable case in which the woos have to worry...Obama can't go to item (5) and declare that their talking about his Birth Certificate is a factor when none of the other qualifying crtierion are materially relevant.

As usual, woo hysteria over nothing.

I believe the language in the document uses "OR" in place of what I have bolded in your summary. That makes a huge difference. "Any" to me does not suggest "every", either. IANAL, though.

[Thunder]

Im very dissapointed that the bill does not specifically name Truthers and Birthers as enemies of the state.

:)

[BazBear]

After reading through the bill I'm not too alarmed by it on it's face, but I'm lost what purpose it really serves? I certainly can understand the concerns of it being misused, as some sections seem a little murky. It seems to me Senators McCain and Lieberman are grandstanding with a "we're tough on terrorists" bill. It seems they are trying to codify powers the executive already effectively has in regard to enemy belligerents. Why two members of congress are doing this right now, what with the executive branch wielding more power than ever, leaves me scratching my head and wondering what the motivation is.

[sadhatter]

Public opinion. And attorneys.

Guns, bombs, inventive traps, malaise, hunger, lack of oxygen, i mean the list is actually pretty big.

[DavidJames]

After reading through the bill I'm not too alarmed by it on it's face, but I'm lost what purpose it really serves? I certainly can understand the concerns of it being misused, as some sections seem a little murky. It seems to me Senators McCain and Lieberman are grandstanding with a "we're tough on terrorists" bill. It seems they are trying to codify powers the executive already effectively has in regard to enemy belligerents. Why two members of congress are doing this right now, what with the executive branch wielding more power than ever, leaves me scratching my head and wondering what the motivation is.I don't think I'm going out on a limb by suggesting they are sponsoring a bill just to use it latter to show those who oppose it are soft on terror.

[INRM]

Liszt,

It says this...

CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVID11
UALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES.—The regulations
12 required by this subsection shall include criteria for
13 designating an individual as a high-value detainee
14 based on the following:

...

(E) Such other matters as the President
8 considers appropriate.

(8 is the line number)

Not very clear at all.

Agreed... too open for interpretation, particularly (E)


gnome,

The devil is not in the intent of the law, but in its lack of checks and balances.

CAN the goverment use this law to detain someone who does not fit the qualifications, and if not, what stops them?

Agreed

Public opinion is not so reliable if the targeted citizen has the right look or if spurious connections to known terrorists can be announced. Seems like the news today tends to announce sensational details like that with very little research--maybe letting someone voice skepticism, who will immediately be ridiculed as a terrorist-lover on the political talk shows.

Which is extremely dangerous


Kevin Lowe,

That is neither here nor there. The point is that if the President has the legal power to, as one example, detain a US citizen indefinitely without evidence, then Bush is proof that some Presidents will do so.

Agreed

The government just has to say "Padilla is a high-value detainee because we reckon he poses a threat to us" and hey presto, he can be detained indefinitely by the military and interrogated regardless of whether or not he is a US citizen. All his usual rights and protections under the law as a US citizen and a civilian evaporate.

Correct, and if it can be done to him, it can be done to anybody including you.


BazBear,

I certainly can understand the concerns of it being misused, as some sections seem a little murky.

That's enough reason to be concerned. The abuses that can be carried out by this bill can be catastrophically bad.


INRM

[zaphod2016]

The "other matters as appropriate" is boiler-plate standard for federal regulation. It never comes up as an issue because the government is not, contrary to CT belief, out to get us all and the clause is rarely used.

Are you actually suggesting the Executive branch should have some authority over law enforcement?

What sort of NWO pawn are you?

[zaphod2016]

Im very dissapointed that the bill does not specifically name Truthers and Birthers as enemies of the state.

:)

Outlawing stupid. A tempting thought.

Be careful what you wish for, Parky. ;)

[INRM]

I don't think it's a good idea to outlaw stupidity

[Travis]

I don't think it's a good idea to outlaw stupidity

You're right. It's a much better idea to just outlaw "thinking wrongly."

[JoeyDonuts]

I would say that if this regulation passes, the only time you would find yourself running afoul of it is if you fit criteria of "unpriveleged enemy belligerent." The definition of exactly what that entails is very well defined if you actually READ the bill in question.

A law-abiding citizen who is not actively plotting terrorism, not contributing material or finances to terrorist efforts, and is not a member of Al-Qaeda will not fit into this category.

But let's not let factual details get in the way of working ourselves up into a good shiver.

[Foolmewunz]

Does anyone know if this thing has any support? Lieberman and McCain aren't exactly in the majority at present.

As to why they'd do it, I have no clue. Running for re-election against tough guys, rhetoric-wise? The bill makes no sense - it's not necessary based on the current powers that the executive holds. Ergo, I qualify it as some form of grandstanding. (Buying back favors from Barack would seem logical, but then that would assume that Barack wants such a codification of already existing powers,... something I just don't see.)

[gnome]

I would say that if this regulation passes, the only time you would find yourself running afoul of it is if you fit criteria of "unpriveleged enemy belligerent." The definition of exactly what that entails is very well defined if you actually READ the bill in question.

A law-abiding citizen who is not actively plotting terrorism, not contributing material or finances to terrorist efforts, and is not a member of Al-Qaeda will not fit into this category.

But let's not let factual details get in the way of working ourselves up into a good shiver.

The problem is not the criteria, the problem is who gets to rule that the criteria has been met. If it's the same group, or controllable by the same group, that's allowed to order your detention, the criteria might as well be "if we want to."

[INRM]

Travis,

You're right. It's a much better idea to just outlaw "thinking wrongly."

False dichotomy: I don't think either are acceptable...


Gnome,

The problem is not the criteria, the problem is who gets to rule that the criteria has been met. If it's the same group, or controllable by the same group, that's allowed to order your detention, the criteria might as well be "if we want to."

Unfortunately, Provision 5 pretty much gives the President just the leeway you described. "Such other matters as the President considers appropriate" is extremely broad and could basically amount to "Any reason the President feels like using to justify declaring you an unprivileged (i.e. without rights) enemy belligerent".


INRM

[Kevin_Lowe]

I would say that if this regulation passes, the only time you would find yourself running afoul of it is if you fit criteria of "unpriveleged enemy belligerent." The definition of exactly what that entails is very well defined if you actually READ the bill in question.

A law-abiding citizen who is not actively plotting terrorism, not contributing material or finances to terrorist efforts, and is not a member of Al-Qaeda will not fit into this category.

But let's not let factual details get in the way of working ourselves up into a good shiver.

I think there are good reasons to be concerned about any legislation that strips any US citizen of their protections under the law, regardless of whether they are terrorists, or murderers, or pedophiles, or whatever other Monster of the Week.

[Horatius]

After reading through the bill I'm not too alarmed by it on it's face, but I'm lost what purpose it really serves? I certainly can understand the concerns of it being misused, as some sections seem a little murky. It seems to me Senators McCain and Lieberman are grandstanding with a "we're tough on terrorists" bill. It seems they are trying to codify powers the executive already effectively has in regard to enemy belligerents. Why two members of congress are doing this right now, what with the executive branch wielding more power than ever, leaves me scratching my head and wondering what the motivation is.



Something that seems to have been missed in this discussion is this passage from page 2:

1 SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY
2 BELLIGERENTS IN MILITARY CUSTODY.
3 (a) MILITARY CUSTODY REQUIREMENT.—Whenever
4 within the United States, its territories, and possessions,
5 or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an
6 individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody
7 or under the effective control of the United States who
8 is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United
9 States or its coalition partners through an act of ter-
10 rorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war,
11 or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities,
12 and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the
13 individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes
14 of initial interrogation and determination of status in ac-
15 cordance with the provisions of this Act.


All of this applies only to people who have already been captured. There's no provision for going out to look for more people to arrest. It looks to me like this bill is only designed to clarify that there is a process for determining the status of the people they have captured, so as to distinguish between grunts and generals. There's no point in keeping every trigger-puller in Special Reserve Prison, but at the same time, you don't want someone putting a top-ranked guy in a regular cell. This bill seems to establish some rules for how they go about making the distinction.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Something that seems to have been missed in this discussion is this passage from page 2:

All of this applies only to people who have already been captured. There's no provision for going out to look for more people to arrest. It looks to me like this bill is only designed to clarify that there is a process for determining the status of the people they have captured, so as to distinguish between grunts and generals. There's no point in keeping every trigger-puller in Special Reserve Prison, but at the same time, you don't want someone putting a top-ranked guy in a regular cell. This bill seems to establish some rules for how they go about making the distinction.

I think the important bit is that it "clarifies" that the military gets to detain and interrogate anyone accused of being a terrorist, not civilian authorities, even if the accused terrorist is a US citizen on US soil.

[Travis]

Travis,



False dichotomy: I don't think either are acceptable...


I didn't say you did. My point is that both are pretty much the same thing from the perspective of someone who would support such measures.

[BazBear]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb by suggesting they are sponsoring a bill just to use it latter to show those who oppose it are soft on terror.
I think you are probably right; and for all the words these two men have spoken in speeches on the floor, and on the Sunday morning political Q&A shows, we now see their true colors even clearer.

[JoeyDonuts]

I think there are good reasons to be concerned about any legislation that strips any US citizen of their protections under the law, regardless of whether they are terrorists, or murderers, or pedophiles, or whatever other Monster of the Week.

Agreed, and I think discussion needs to be had on what rights an 'unpriveleged enemy belligerent' would have. The bill makes a huge difference between those covered by the Geneva Conventions and those that are not. This is a Senate bill, not an Executive Order or signing statement, so it would carry on to a subsequent administration.

Still, I have to echo what some others have said. The FBI doesn't seem to need this law to disrupt and apprehend those who plot terror inside the US - they've done a good job of that here recently. Why is this bill even necessary? Political tap-dancing methinks.

What would be the harm in Mirandizing a terror suspect anyway?

[Travis]

Agreed, and I think discussion needs to be had on what rights an 'unpriveleged enemy belligerent' would have. The bill makes a huge difference between those covered by the Geneva Conventions and those that are not. This is a Senate bill, not an Executive Order or signing statement, so it would carry on to a subsequent administration.

Still, I have to echo what some others have said. The FBI doesn't seem to need this law to disrupt and apprehend those who plot terror inside the US - they've done a good job of that here recently. Why is this bill even necessary? Political tap-dancing methinks.

What would be the harm in Mirandizing a terror suspect anyway?

Well, if you start doing that then you might have people claiming they are actually "humans" and not just "barbarian enemies of thy true Christian God."

[INRM]

Joey Donuts,

I don't think the FBI needs this law as it is, and I personally believe this bill is unnecessary and dangerous.

This bill is not about giving the government the ability to enforce the law; this bill is about power, the power to just round up anybody the government feels like and deny them any rights (see provision 5).

Unfortunately not everybody in power likes the Constitution; but it isn't really expected that they would -- it's not really for their benefit, it's for ours.


INRM

[Kevin_Lowe]

Now I think about it, a side benefit of this legislation if it passed would be to whitewash the sorry Padilla business, which still causes some cognitive dissonance for a percentage of Republican followers.

It's relatively easy to cheerlead for detaining and torturing nasty Arabs (they're all Arabs right?) as long as the military is doing it a long way away and you can at least pretend that everyone detained and tortured was captured fair and square for pointing a gun at an American soldier.

It gets a bit more awkward when a US citizen and civilian, who is already being held by civilian authorities, gets handed over to the military by Presidential fiat to be tortured and held without trial or evidence indefinitely. It's a bit harder to say with a straight face "We didn't lose any freedoms under Bush!" when that's brought up.

However if this becomes law then they can say "Obama does it too, it's perfectly normal, it's clearly necessary for defence of the glorious Homeland, why shouldn't the military get to detain US citizens accused of terrorism-related offences? Bush may have cut a corner or two but everyone agrees that the indefinite detention and torture of a US citizens on US soil by the US military is a great idea, so why complain about the details? You're just picking on Bush because you are a partisan meanie".

[JoeyDonuts]

This bill is not about giving the government the ability to enforce the law; this bill is about power, the power to just round up anybody the government feels like and deny them any rights (see provision 5).

There are times when I start to think you're making progress.

And then you faceplant like this, as if someone tied your shoelaces together when you weren't looking.

[INRM]

JoeyDonuts,

You're telling me this bill couldn't be seriously abused?

[JoeyDonuts]

You know, Imaginationland is fun place to visit but it's not exactly the best place to build a worldview.

[INRM]

JoeyDonuts,

So you are saying that the potential for this bill to be seriously abused has no basis in reality?

[Thunder]

hopefully this bill will be used to put all Truthers, Birthers, and Tea-Baggers, in prison for a looong time.

[Nosi]

There are times when I start to think you're making progress.

And then you faceplant like this, as if someone tied your shoelaces together when you weren't looking.

:cool: FACEPLANT?:D

[ktesibios]

:cool: FACEPLANT?:D

To fall, protecting the rest of your body by striking the ground with your face.

Spectators may feel the need to facepalm.

[defaultdotxbe]

to illustrate:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/defaultdotxbe/face_plant_dave.jpg

[INRM]

Bump

[JoeyDonuts]

I hope you're not waiting on me. I'm looking around everywhere and I don't seem to be carrying a burden of proof.

[Myron Proudfoot]

simply put a WALMART sign over the camp entrance and they'll round themselves up...

[JoeyDonuts]

Well, great.

So much for the cloak of secrecy that's supposed to surround operational planning.

It was going to be brilliant. Get them right in the back of the store and have a sign that says "Teflon-Coated Rifle Rounds 50% Off!" or "Sarah Palin Booksigning Today!"...the sign leads to the loading dock where they're tagged and bagged for shipment to the FEMA Fun Camp.

Looks like we're gonna have to go to plan B.

Giant trapdoor in the middle of Bass Pro Shop.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, great.

So much for the cloak of secrecy that's supposed to surround operational planning.

It was going to be brilliant. Get them right in the back of the store and have a sign that says "Teflon-Coated Rifle Rounds 50% Off!" or "Sarah Palin Booksigning Today!"...the sign leads to the loading dock where they're tagged and bagged for shipment to the FEMA Fun Camp.

Looks like we're gonna have to go to plan B.

Giant trapdoor in the middle of Bass Pro Shop.
my uncle says the PTB in central arkansas wont let them build a bass pro out there, he was quite excited when he visited me in chicago and i took him to the one in portage

guess its time for plan c....

[Nosi]

simply put a WALMART sign over the camp entrance and they'll round themselves up...

Watch the little bags of tea fly!

:p father forgive me...