Are You an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant"?

Seems Bush may be going after the power to designate civilians as unlawful enemy combatants. What is a terrorist? What is an unlawful enemy combatant? Seems the Decider" wants to be able to make that call based on his brilliant deductive deciding abilities.

Republican lawmakers and the White House agreed over the weekend to alter new legislation on military commissions to allow the United States to detain and try a wider range of foreign nationals than an earlier version of the bill permitted, according to government sources.

Lawmakers and administration officials announced last week that they had reached accord on the plan for the detention and military trials of suspected terrorists, and it is scheduled for a vote this week. But in recent days the Bush administration and its House allies successfully pressed for a less restrictive description of how the government could designate civilians as "unlawful enemy combatants," the sources said yesterday. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of negotiations over the bill.
...
But the bill's new definition "would give the administration a stronger basis on which to argue that Congress has recognized that the battlefield is wherever the terrorist is, and they can seize people far from the area of combat, label them as unlawful enemy combatants and detain them indefinitely," said Suzanne Spaulding, an assistant general counsel at the CIA from 1989 to 1995.

Washington Post

But what does that mean to us? How will US citizens, safe in the bosom of our protected country be affected? Who exactly will be labeled a 'terrorist'? Who will decide? "The Decider"?

The question of just who is or can be an "unlawful combatant" – and therefore, according to the Bush administration, may be seized and jailed without trial or even an acknowledgment from the authorities – is the issue at hand, and the authoritarian "conservatives" of the Bizarro persuasion are pushing hard to breach the inner battlements of the Constitution, as the Post piece makes all too clear:

"Human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, 'has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States' or its military allies. The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant."

The ultimate expansion of the "unlawful combatant" definition to include any and all opposition to the War Party, whether military or political, is only a matter of time, and not much time at that. This administration and its allies have long maintained that their critics are "objectively" aiding the terrorist enemy. If Iraq is the main theater of our war on terrorism, then criticism of the war effort, such as organizing an antiwar demonstration, amounts to "material support" for "hostilities against the United States." And if we include in this legal interdict all criticism of our "military allies," then participating in a demonstration against Israeli aggression in Lebanon could also get one designated an "unlawful combatant."

Source

How long will it be before we, those who discuss anti-war ideas and support anti-war efforts are considered "Unlawful Enemy Combatants", to be quietly arrested and jailed without trial or oversight?

Let's all watch as this human right swirls down the drain, shall we?

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Which is basically saying if an Al Queda operative has somehow become a US citizen they can still be detained.

You should have underlined this part of your quote too.

new legislation on military commissions to allow the United States to detain and try

US citizens are detained and tried on charges ranging from drug use to murder all the time. What's the big deal?

Did you check out the sources?

"The big deal" is that is that if Bush and company are successful and get what they want, there is nothing to stop them from arresting WITHOUT CHARGE and detaining WITHOUT TRIAL a US citizen who is protesting against the war or doing anything that the president DECIDES is in opposition to this war. That's the big deal.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

You've got 2 years og the Bush administration and then Hillary gets in.

If you are concerned about Americans being held as terrorists .. then remember that Hillary called all pro-lifers domestic terrorists. (I'll see if I can dig up the quote - it was made when Clinton was president I believe)

So .. to pray a rosary outside an abortuary will make you a terrorist in the Hillary administration. Moms pushing baby carriages and praying ... be ready for jail!

Seriously.. I understand your concern because I have the same concerns about Hillary. But I think we have a checks and balances in this country that works (at least most of the time).

FF, please don't make the mistake of assuming that because I don't want this provision to pass (and that I am against this administration) that I want Hillary in office. Nothing could be further from the truth. IMO, that would be just as bad. With this provision, she could also designate anyone she pleased as an enemy combatant. Not a good thing in the hands of any one person.

It's the provision for 'political enemy combatant' and resultant treatment of that person or persons that I'm against.

Not saying you're making that assumption, just clarifying.

Edit: Can't type and think at the same time.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

I would not trust even an honorable person or administration with this kind of "decider" discretion, let alone the current set.

The water is getting warmer and the frog still thinks everything is fine.

Good post, BH

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
With this provision, she could also designate anyone she pleased as an enemy combatant. Not a good thing in the hands of any one person.

I understand.

That's why I said that I understand you being nervous having Bush 43 with it. I am just as nervous with the thoughts of Hillary getting it in 2008 (which I believe she will win).

The thing is .. it's not really in the hands of one person. We have a checks and balances and I do think that, most of the time, it works. That gives me comfort.

It's healthy to keep a nervous eye towards those we put in charge of things. We have to trust to a certain degree .. but we also have to keep an eye on them. ALL of them.

Hmm you talking BS about the goverment ....get over here life for you!!!!!!

Thank god I live in europe.
This is a serios obstruction of freedom of speach.
I once respected United States with it's institutions whith everything, it was the beacon for freedom, but that is long gone, and it is going to get worse i guess.
How did it get this far, how did people there let it hapen, I just don't understand, don't you people care about your freedoms anymore?
If this would hapen here people would hit the streets for sure.

i wouldn't be so sure about any country. surveillance is already going on in the EU, by the both govt's and organized crime - see: www.abovetopsecret.com...

remember you will only notice restrictions of speech if you say the *wrong* things...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

The thing is .. it's not really in the hands of one person. We have a checks and balances and I do think that, most of the time, it works. That gives me comfort.

It's healthy to keep a nervous eye towards those we put in charge of things. We have to trust to a certain degree .. but we also have to keep an eye on them. ALL of them.

FF, understand i'm not being argumentative here, but exactly what set of checks and balances would that be? To my knowledge there has never been a provision like this EVER attempted, nevermind approved.

That being said, which set of checks and balances are already in place for a provision that doesn't even exist yet?

AB1

I am a lawful energy combatant, pleased to meet ya.

If that's what i will be, then, i have to deal with it. I love America, and would be willing to fight for my country should it be necessary. Its too bad we are now labeled such names. The decider has managed to lump people in certain groupings and divide this country to the max. I believe in freedom of speech and expression, and just like i loved JFK and Reagan, and spoke well of them, i speak ill of this present administration, because that is how i feel. Its freedom to be able to speak your mind, its what made this country so great.

Now, we have labels. This is very sad. This is no longer the America people dreamed of. Throughout other wars, we managed to stick together, helping friends and neighbors and even if we were against war, there was never such division as there is now, or labeling of people.

Its very sad.

I may be off base here, but I don't think it's that we should be so scared as to WHO can be labeled a terrorist, it's what they consider hostilites. I agree that terrorists should be arrested and tried. And I think the government should have all the help they can get in arresting people that commit hostilites towards the government. It's what they would consider hostilities that concerns me. Do you know what I mean?

Exactly, closettrekkie. We don't even have a definition for the word 'terrorist'. Much less, hostilities. This is my concern. A peaceful protest could be considered a 'hostility' in that it 'supports' the morale of the 'enemy'... I've seen that 'take' here on ATS a lot and I'm thinking the pres would love to shut up the protestors.

Off topic: Did anyone notice that they're airing a TV show about the Iran Hostage Crisis soon, maybe tonight? A 20 year old event about Iran is getting televised to boil the blood of the Americans against Iran. How obvious can they be??? :shk:

Originally posted by closettrekkie
I may be off base here, but I don't think it's that we should be so scared as to WHO can be labeled a terrorist, it's what they consider hostilites. I agree that terrorists should be arrested and tried. And I think the government should have all the help they can get in arresting people that commit hostilites towards the government. It's what they would consider hostilities that concerns me. Do you know what I mean?

I agree with you, only as long as there is a trial with a jury and as long as there is a warant.
With out those factors democracy is just not a democracy anymore.
And the thing with labels should be very clear, Bush simply wants to scielence evey one, something like if your're not with us you're with them, you speak out against the sistem you get busted, this is similar to comunism, china, north corea, etc.
Some of you don't know the other side, you don't know what is like with out freedom, I would prefer to live in terror than have my freedom taken away from me, terrorists or no terrorists, the price of freedom is above all and should not be waved away, with out freedom your become a shadow, because you cant speak your mind, if you cant speak your mind you become a sheep.



[edit on 27-9-2006 by pepsi78]

Flyers Fan, don't get too comforted yet. This law would put that very important decision about who is an enemy combatant into the hands of one person, the President. The other very scary thing about it, is that it takes away basically, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, in other words we wouldn't ahve the right to a timely trial or even any kind of trial at all. We wouldn't even need to be charged with anything and we could be kept forever in jail. For what reason other than to intimidate the People? The WRit of Habeas Corpus was created way back in 1215 in the English Magna Carta. This means we are being brought back to pre-1215 law. If you don't believe me, ask those 14,000 "enemy combatants" that are being held without charges, without trial and without knowing if they will ever get out. Most of them are innocent.
Our system is set up to have checks and balances, yes. But the current admin especially have eroded those checks and balances. THey have made many laws that are downright unConstitutional and fascist.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

And if you start from the point that the Bush administration did or let happen 9/11, it much more clear of what their intentions were and are, taking away rights of the people, maintaint an eternal war against something you can't win and that the CIA, armed, trained and funded for years, terrorism, even if the threat doesn't exist or not here, unless those made by the secrets services.

Hilary Clinton was at the Bilderberg conference this year, she's one of them, she's against the constitution, her actions will demonstrate that. And the problem of all this, is that those law will be very hard to fight against, unless a revolution, because anyone who would try to kill this law will be designed as a enemy combattant to help the terrorists.

Want to impeach Bush? Enemy combattant.
Want to delete the Patriot Act? Enemy combattant.
Want to stop illegal spying? Enemy combattant.
Want to oppose the war against *name the terrorist country*? Enemy combattant.
Want to oppose the leader? Enemy combattant.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Vitchilo]

This will go nicly with that series of TV ads that said, If you buy marijuana you are aiding terrorists. So now some poor sap gets cauight with a bit of pot they disapear! I think this administrations job in the scheme of things is to set up the tools for the next administration to use them.

You think WACO was bad, just wait. When the next adminastration gets in there will not be anything to hold them back. We are screwed.

i found this in relation to a thread on ID today and thought it was relivant, the white house considders people indulging in conspiracy theory as being part of the terrorist problem. i've quoted a part of a page from the white house website.
i posted in the oridginal thread here www.ignorancedenied.com...
and the link to the white house is www.whitehouse.gov...

The terrorism we confront today springs from:
*snip*
Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.

*snip*

# Communications, which allow terrorists the ability to receive, store, manipulate, and exchange information. The methods by which terrorists communicate are numerous and varied.

*snip*

They [terrorists] also use today’s technologies with increasing acumen and sophistication. This is especially true with the Internet, which they exploit to create and disseminate propaganda

*snip*

We and our partners will continue to target the communication nodes of our enemy.

# Propaganda operations, which are used by terrorists to justify violent action as well as inspire individuals to support or join the movement. The ability of terrorists to exploit the Internet and 24/7 worldwide media coverage allows them to bolster their prominence as well as feed a steady diet of radical ideology, twisted images, and conspiracy theories to potential recruits in all corners of the globe. Besides a global reach, these technologies allow terrorists to propagate their message quickly, often before an effective counter to terrorist messages can be coordinated and distributed. These are force multipliers for our enemy.

mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 1-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Great point, Pieman. I wonder if they really believe this stuff themselves... If this were true, it seems we'd have heard something by now... I have yet to hear about 'terrorists' recruiting here on ATS, the largest conspiracy site on the Internet.

But I'll sure keep my eyes open.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
"The big deal" is that is that if Bush and company are successful and get what they want, there is nothing to stop them from arresting WITHOUT CHARGE and detaining WITHOUT TRIAL a US citizen who is protesting against the war or doing anything that the president DECIDES is in opposition to this war. That's the big deal.

BH, it's already been happening in this country.
In my city, there is a statute for interfering with police.
Basically, it covers just about anything you do or don't do, say or don't say. They can decide. Based on many non-legal criteria.

Now, this is a smaller scale and much less serious, but it's the same downward spiral of our rights being trampled.

And, I wouldn't go looking for relief by any future democratic administration either. Lots of folks in this country like to feel they are being "protected".