Bill Would Deny Civilian Trials for "Enemy Belligerents"

[CulpeperMM]

McCain-Lieberman Bill Would Deny Civilian Trials for "Enemy Belligerents"

a couple of snippets:

The stated purpose of the bill is to ban civilian trials for those designated by the federal government as “enemy belligerents.” The bill would bar such individuals from receiving the legal rights usually afforded those accused of crimes in the United States. “Enemy belligerents” would be taken into military custody for the purposes of interrogation and determination of their status. Some, after interrogation and determination of status, may become "high-level detainees."

...

It has been increasingly clear that the power elites are very, very worried about the Tea Party Movement (TPM) — and this doubtless includes worries that the insiders’ attempt to hijack the movement for the neocons will be thwarted. They fear as much as they despise Ron Paul and his supporters; they worry about an upsurge of libertarian-type sentiment that opposes the use of taxpayer dollars to bail out bloated corporations that clearly could not survive in a truly free market.

i suggest you read the whole article over at JBS.

So how many of you have been out waving your Gadsden Flag in front of the court house or city hall in the last couple years? My wife and I have. Does that make us enemy belligerents? Does that make us subject to detainment without trial? If this bill passes, quite possibly.

Liberty -or- Death

 

[Ogre]

Hmmm,McCain and Leiberman.... If this is the garbage that douchebag would have pushed had he won the POTUS, I'm glad he lost. In retrospect, my 3rd party vote looks better and better every day. How could a "conservative", or Republican ever support McCain in good conscience again???

 

[E5RANGER375]

yep, i say screw the dems and the reps.

beligerant leaves it WIDE OPEN. basicly you would have freedom of speech based on what the polices determination of it is. if i wanna call a politician a Terrorist, then thats my right by the constitution, but under that new bill the army could haul me away in flex cuffs and i may never see the light of day again.

we must fight this bill!!! start calling all of your senators today and lets get this squashed. i think the g forces have finaly went to mccain's head. hes going insain! leibermans been there a long time so id expect it from him.

 

[E5RANGER375]

well i just got off the phone after a 10 minute discusion with a young lady in mccains washington office. long story short. she claims that this bill is backed by the U.S. Supreme Court because of a previous court ruling. of coarse i argued that and said that this bill ITSELF has not been ruled on by the supreme court so therefore thats a untrue statement by her. also she told me that the bill does not say anywhere that a U.S. citizen is not permitted to have a fair trial in civilian court. i told her i would expect it from lieberman but im discusted and appauled at this from mccain. she responded by saying that "a number of other republicans support this bill" WELL THEN NEVER MIND, sorry for my ignorance.... i humbly appologize. if the republican party supports it then by all means it must be legal and constitutional, because the republicans would never do anything to jeopardize our rights as citizens.

LMFAO YEAH RIGHT!!! this woman is retarded. PLEASE CALL AND TELL SENATOR MCCAIN THAT THIS BILL WILL BE THE END OF HIS POLITICAL FUTURE IF HE DOESNT STOP IT!!!

Main Washington D.C. NUMBER : (202) 224-2235

DONT LEAVE A MESSAGE!!!! select option 2 i believe to talk to a real person!!! lets flood their office with calls!!!!

UPDATE: i have now called, Lugar, Bayh, Mccain, Lieberman and expressed my anger for this bill. i will call every member of the senate and house and personaly protest this bill in washington D.C. if need be for it to be thrown out. this is a sad day in America for this bill to even see the floor of the U.S. Senate.

let me ad, that for all of my voting life i have been a loyal republican, but for the last couple years i have been a non partisan LOYAL AMERICAN. im tired of the BS from both major parties. a tea party political party is sounding better and better

 

[Mokkie]

This bill should not see the light of day.

 

[E5RANGER375]

thursday i will be calling the minority and majority leaders of the senate as well. also i will see who else is sponsoring this bill because i will find out when i call the minority's office and then i will call all those gutless senators too.

 

[CarmelHP]

thursday i will be calling the minority and majority leaders of the senate as well. also i will see who else is sponsoring this bill because i will find out when i call the minority's office and then i will call all those gutless senators too.

S.3081
Title: 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.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 3/4/2010) Cosponsors (9)
Latest Major Action: 3/4/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. COSPONSORS(9), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

• 
  Sen Brown, Scott P. [MA] - 3/4/2010
  Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 3/4/2010
  Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 3/4/2010
  Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL] - 3/4/2010
  Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 3/4/2010
  Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] - 3/4/2010
  Sen Thune, John [SD] - 3/5/2010
  Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 3/4/2010
  Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] - 3/4/2010

 

[CulpeperMM]

UPDATE

Check out the good ole Republicans... voting to jail "belligerents" without defining them. Never mind the 1st, 4th or the 5th amendments.
Not much different from the Democrats. Two headed monster.

An update from JBS:

Enemy Congress Written by Becky Akers
Wednesday, 17 March 2010 11:30
As America travels the well-worn and brutal path earlier empires paved, it increasingly disdains the pretense of ruling “of, by and for the people.” And so the führer in the White House threatens to ram his impractical and deeply offensive plans for nationalizing medical insurance down our throats, regardless of how loudly we shriek “No!” Meanwhile, Congress prepares to imprison indefinitely any “enemy belligerents” who object to the government’s whims. You might suppose that dictators controlling almost 309,000,000 subjects would be too busy to fuss with legal niceties. But no. A preoccupation with legislative permission characterizes tyrannies, perhaps because it protects those responsible from prosecution should justice resurrect one day. The Nazis are notorious for legalizing their plunder, kidnapping en masse, and murder. No wonder, then, that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and nine co-sponsors have introduced legislation they might have cribbed from the Third Reich. “S.3081: Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” supposedly “provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States” — and, as the bill’s text repeatedly adds, its “coalition partners.” Note that a new and ungrammatical cluster of nouns, “enemy belligerents,” has not only replaced but enlarged the numbers of the old, equally ungrammatical “enemy combatants” — and yes, combining this with the Feds’ penchant for smearing even their mildest critics as terrorists means they have us firmly in their sights. Note further that the bill’s “persons” and “individuals” now specifically includes citizens of the US [Sec. 5], and that the US military, known to have tortured Iraqis, Afghanis, and others, may “detain” and “interrogate” these victims indefinitely.

More at the source:
- Enemy Congress

 

[snapping turtle]

Might have to paint the american flag back on the motorcycle helmet and get out the 1970's flag jacket and matching pants.

At least as a fashion statement I would be belligerent. Might be time for us older people. You know the one you can trust that are over 30 to spend some time with the 18 year olds and start the movement over correctly.

 

[WeAreNotAlone]

Those that died in the name of freedom that created and have fought for this country, will have died for nothing if these kinds of things are made law.

.

 

[rambone]

Bump... So can anybody tell if this passed?

 

[dross]

For one moment, let's put aside the potential for abuse. I get that, though most laws have potential for abuse.

Aside from that, what about this do you guys disagree with? Combatants get military trials when they commit war crimes. This is well-established in law throughout our history, and was an established principle before our country came into being.

There are very good reasons why we treat enemy combatants differently. Is it that principle you disagree with, or is it the potential for abuse?

 

[machete]

For one moment, let's put aside the potential for abuse. I get that, though most laws have potential for abuse.

Aside from that, what about this do you guys disagree with? Combatants get military trials when they commit war crimes. This is well-established in law throughout our history, and was an established principle before our country came into being.

There are very good reasons why we treat enemy combatants differently. Is it that principle you disagree with, or is it the potential for abuse?

belligerent,,,not combatant... the proposed law,,,itself,,,is abuse...and destroys what America is... belligerence is criticism---same thing...

being belligerent to the country,,,that is---being critical of the country---especially in times of socalled --war--- is the duty of every American...otherwise,,,we get stuck into perpetual war...

 

[88GT]

belligerent,,,not combatant... the proposed law,,,itself,,,is abuse...and destroys what America is... belligerence is criticism---same thing...

being belligerent to the country,,,that is---being critical of the country---especially in times of socalled --war--- is the duty of every American...otherwise,,,we get stuck into perpetual war...

Um, no. Belligerence is not criticism. Words have meaning (and the English language has grammar rules!) and I recognize the importance of using the correct ones to convey the exact meaning. In that sense, belligerent is a poor choice.

However, since some of you are unhappy with labeling enemies of the state (in the strictest sense, let's not drag this into a discussion on whether or not that's equivalent to being an enemy of the status quo) as enemy combatants (not without reason), it leaves a large middle ground open for bad people to do bad things to the country because they belong in none of our previously established categories. Terrorists who actually commit violent acts don't fall under enemy combatant standards either. Just how do we deal with them?

Again, I concede the risk of creating categories for the sake of pigeon-holing every last individual that poses a threat to the ruling class in Washington. But, as dross said, the potential for abuse is not unique to this particular piece of legislation. If that were standard by which legislation were judged, we shouldn't have any at all.

Frankly, with the exception of the complete disregard for the citizenship status of one who might be prosecuted under this law, I don't have much problem with it on its face. I have no doubt the devil is in the details and there is likely much in those details I would oppose.

That said, I don't have much regard for the individual who strikes at the U.S. with any malicious intent. And I don't believe we're under any obligation to grant such individual one iota of protection more than called for under the Geneva Convention. Which means if he's not a uniformed member of a sanctioned standing army of a signatory nation engaged in declared war against the U.S., he can face a firing squad for all I care. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[John Galt]

Given the behavior of our elected officials the past few years, I have absolutely ZERO trust in our government. They have allowed the bankers and Wall Street to absolutely rape the middle class and have made our children debt slaves. There have been no meaningful investigations/prosecutions, the TBTF banks are even bigger than they were two years ago, we are monetizing our debt secretively and openly, and are piling on even more debt with no end in sight.
So to answer the floating question, it is my distrust of government and the potential for abuse that concerns me.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Definitions of Belligerent.
define:belligerent - Google Search

I'll use it in a sentence:
"The United States of America behaves belligerently in several nations across the globe."

I don't have a problem with labeling people as "Enemy Belligerents" or as "Enemy Combatants". The only problem is when there is almost no evidence against them, yet they are detained without trial for many years.

I believe that every human being deserves liberty unless they are an opposing force in the midst of armed conflict (not in a jail weeks later) or until they're convicted of unjustly depriving others of their liberties.

I'd rather err on the side of preserving individual liberties than to err on the side of security at the cost of liberty.

 

[88GT]

Definitions of Belligerent.
define:belligerent - Google Search

I'll use it in a sentence:
"The United States of America behaves belligerently in several nations across the globe."

That's an adverb. People aren't adverbs.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

That's an adverb. People aren't adverbs.

It's the same root meaning. I was trying to show that someone who is "belligerent" isn't someone who wants to argue or protest, but it is someone who is actually taking forceful action against another...in essence. Most people have been equating this argument to what they think a belligerent drunk is.

 

[machete]

That's an adverb. People aren't adverbs.

so people cant act humanely????

 

[mrjarrell]

Bump... So can anybody tell if this passed?

I took a look at govtrack and it looks like it was DOA. Got sent to committee and died there, or at least it's never got out of committee. Who says dems get everything wrong?