A Detention Bill You Ought to Read More Carefully

reply to post by wx4caster


While I agree with everything you said can I respectfully request we stick to the topic of discussing the bill?

No offense intended to anyone here.

The dread double post!

[edit on 8-3-2010 by Shark_Feeder]

reply to post by CanadianDream420


Just because the system in systematically is slow doesn't mean it's not already happening.

I got pulled over recently for having the wires from my satellite radio hanging in a way they didn't like. They tore apart my car looking for something to get me with. I'm not joking. I knew there was nothing there and they had no reason to search it but I let them waste their time. I was coming home from work, dressed in a Lefty's pizza shirt and dirty as all hell from making pies. There was no reason to pull me over in the first place and no reason to search my car. I am allowed to drive home from work, aren't I?

I won't even mention the things said that would make ATS go into a storm. Trust me, I'll keep those remarks to myself and avoid that. The assumptions they made about me and the, well, it was bad. Outside, I was laughing at them for pulling me over(bloody fools can't find the real criminals when they are right there in their offices at the city, state and federal level and their boardrooms). Inside, I was seething. Tring to arrest me for anything they could find, looking for reasons, making them up to pull me over in the first place.

Oh, and they were harassing criminal pedestrians not thirty seconds before they pulled me over. I am not making this up. No arrests were made as they couldn't find anything to pin on the criminal pedestrians and guy driving home. Let's just frak their lives up, if we can, because we can.

Massive amounts of helicopters in the sky. Cops pulling people over left and right, no joke. The area I got pulled over I now avoid as it is a trap. I have seen four separate people pulled over at one intersection. They are out looking at everyone as suspects nowadays and bills like this do not help, they make them more likely to look at us as suspects. I hear the sirens constantly as people are pulled over right in my own house. Not a day goes by that it doesn't happen.

It was not always like this. A SWAT team recently raided a house where a ex coworker lived. They found two grams of pot and a couple of pills, which is really not a lot of pills nor a lot of pot but whatever. Took a SWAT team to do this? Really? Are you frakking kidding me?

People are living in fear of everyone else down here. Maybe not up there in Canada but down here the media has really screwed people up. Seriously, there are 600,000 + laws to keep us in line. I guess that's not enough, so they make more. We just cannot be let alone to think for ourselves or make our own decisions. Only the nanny state can do that for us and if they decide we need less rights to keep us in line, well, by all means, they will do it.

Go Team America. We got to get those Enemy Belligerents?.....

It looks like we might get meet each other at a military base fellow belligernets, that is if we survive the interrogation.

Here's a link to the Bill for those who would like to read it.
assets.theatlantic.com...

The big issue is that it never states a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, so legally it could be used for anyone.

We can be detained by the military without Miranda right ie a trail., for a list of offenses, interrogated (tortured) by High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team who then reportss to the Sec. of Defense and Attorny General. (pres. not involed)

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.

reply to post by wylee


America has officially been flushed, just a matter of time until we hit the septic tank.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


That doesn't make him better man that my grandfather that die during world war II, neither better one than one uncle that also died in Korea while serving with my father, neither better than a younger brother that my father had that died in Vietnam war.

No, McCain is not better than them, my family knows what a hero is . . . we had three.

McCain does what the private interest behind his campaign money tells him to do, he has to pay the Piper.

Just like any other politicrap in America today, they are all for themselves and those master they serve they are no longer for the people, they are screwing us with their bills and they know it.



[edit on 8-3-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by endisnighe


If you want my boss is an attorney. I can have him take a look at it if you want and come back with his expert legal opinion. I'm sure he will be interested in this anyway.

I'll come back after he has time, which might be a couple days lol!

We beat that ridiculous supplement bill by the Maverick, but this one has apac behind it with Lieberman.

This is a power grab by the Pentagon.

The excrement has splashed down sharky, hopefully the drone army will not be as powerful as their computers have projected.

reply to post by wylee


We can only hope somewhere out there are men and women with some common sense and ethics.

Because things are getting out of hand on Capital Hill.

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by endisnighe

 

If you want my boss is an attorney. I can have him take a look at it if you want and come back with his expert legal opinion. I'm sure he will be interested in this anyway.

I'll come back after he has time, which might be a couple days lol!

Let us know what a legal professional thinks of this horrible mess...

I hope they try to use this on civilians that wont cause people to be angry...

Thanks McCain...Country first, right?

This guy is losing his mind as of late...from wanting the internet clamped down on, restrictions off of drug testing, and now this nonsense.

Its like...he didn't win, so now he wants to burn the house down out of vengence.

WOW this is scary..its unconstitutional! Your right to be free and have free will directly being violated. new world order in effect. Sounds like something the nazis would have done, or moreso, under communism. A guy i used to work with, was from czekeslovakia. When he was a kid, in the 50's, grwoing up he'd tell me about the shops, limited controlled governemnt controlled businesses, and the KGB. They were all over. It wass illegal, to talk about politics out in public. IF so, KGB would simply nab you, remove you off the street for likely interrogation, and in many cases, that person was never ever seen again.
Thats what comes to my mind if this ever gets passed here.

Honestly I don't know who anyone with half a brain can't figure out what is going on here. I don't know how anyone can not see all these things from the patriot act onward have nothing to do with guys from the middle east, but everything to do with suppressing the citizens of this country.

[edit on 8-3-2010 by crusaderiam]

Time for denying some ignorance.
Let us turn to the last few pages of this draft of the bill, (remember that words can change the direction of a bill 180 degrees quickly). We need to keep in mind some of the definitions of what we're talking about before we go any farther:

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)).
ALIEN.—The term ‘‘alien’’ means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.
APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS.—The term ‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’ means— 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; and the Committee on Armed Services, the
Committee on Homeland Security, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives.
ARTICLE III COURT.—The term ‘‘Article III court’’ means a court of the United States established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
COALITION PARTNER.—The term ‘‘coalition partner’’, with respect to hostilities engaged in by the United States, means any State or armed force directly engaged along with the United States in such hostilities or providing direct operational sup4
port to the United States in connection with such hostilities.
GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.—The term ‘‘Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War’’ means the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316).
HOSTILITIES.—The term ‘‘hostilities’’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war, and includes a deliberate attack upon civilians and civil15
ian targets protected by the laws of war.
PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘‘privileged belligerent’’ means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.— The term ‘‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’’ means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or
its coalition partners; or was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture.

By looking into the definitions we can better understand the bill itself and what it is talking about overall. Through gaining an understanding of how things are defined and how they work we can minimize unneeded paranoia which is what causes so much alarm by morons and otherwise ignorant people on ATS and likewise websites.

Another illegal and unconstitutional bill. I am really not surprised anymore.

I was reading the bill and it seems be very vague as to what might make someone an "unprivileged enemy beligerent". Notice the last line (E) that pretty much gives the President the power to lock you up just because he feels like it.

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.

Such other matters as the President considers appropriate?
I think they need to be a bit more specific. This is one scary bill.

assets.theatlantic.com...

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe

I'm not a moron.

Define this please... as stated in the bill
"Such other matters as the President
considers appropriate."

Quite a broad stroke.... is it not?

reply to post by slitterpig


That is the problem with bills like this. They sell it to the people as just another law to help fight terrorism but then they slip in a line like "Such other matters as the President considers appropriate" and suddenly they can detain just about anyone for any reason.

If this law passes with this language in it there will be nothing stopping them from locking up American citizens without trial simply because the President might consider it appropriate.

Originally posted by slitterpig
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe

 

I'm not a moron.

Define this please... as stated in the bill
"Such other matters as the President
considers appropriate."

Quite a broad stroke.... is it not?

Yes exactly, the only moron is the one who don't want to admit an obvious attack on our rights.

So basically that line means anyone the President wants to declare an enemy he can, no trial, no jury, no nothing, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Time for examining the bill: Well, it's full text is not available on THOMAS yet, only the header. The senate bill # is S.3081 so you can see how they might re-draft it before letting us have a look. It seems the Atlantic got hold of a "trial balloon", but I will respect the source for now. That's how things are done these days: present some seemingly righteous rhetoric, along with outrageous powers given to the executive branch. Then see how everyone reacts. BTW the congress things usually don't read the bill, they are ready to make it happen, after some obfuscation. That's what they're paid to do. They don't work for "the people" anymore.

For instance, these jewels from the PDF presented by the Atlantic:

(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT AND RIGHTS.—
A individual who is suspected of being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not, during interrogation under this subsection, be provided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona.

the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General shall jointly submit to the President and to the appropriate committees of Congress a final determination whether or not the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent for purposes of this Act. In the event of a disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the
President shall make the final determination.

Other choice jewels, (E) is the most frightening of all:

(2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES.
....
(C) The potential intelligence value of the individual. (edit to add question, what does this mean? Subjective much?)
(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate. (edit to add, what could this encompass based on the executive decision only???)

This thing, this bill, if it is true according to source, provides for something akin to the Enabling Act of 1933. Not that the current administration is necessarily like the 3rd Reich, but that legislation is being (or attempted) to be passed that will destroy the balance of powers provided for in the United States Constituiton.

This bill is saying that if someone is accused of (terrorism), even US citizens, they have no rights to counsel or even to hear the charges brought against them before a US judge. They can sit in detention until they rot, because one individual says they should.

Given the MSM and politician attacks on anti-war, pro-homeless, pro 9/11 re-investigation, pro-constitution and other groups....is this not ominous in it's own right?