Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1 American Citizens May Be Held Without Charge During Hostilities,PoliGazette 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    New McCain Bill: American Citizens May Be Held Without Charge During Hostilities,PoliGazette

    So, I thought for sure that this had to be misinterpretation by liberals at best, or a downright lie at worst. They lied about the removal of the writ of habeus corpus for detainees, after all, claiming that it applied to all Americans. So, before even reading the bill, I knew that the reports of McCain writing a bill that would call for the indefinite detention of American citizens who are labeled unlawful enemy combatants were incorrect. It was just the liberals hyperventilating yet again.

    Right?

    Well, now I’m not sure. While it still may be nothing to blink at in the end, I find one provision in this bill – to paraphrase Chief Justice John Roberts – very troubling.

    The passage in question from the bill (emph. mine):

    An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

    Uhh, a quick reading of the fifth and sixth amendments shows that the provision about holding Americans (civilians, anyway) in this manner is clearly unconstitutional. I had a difficult time at first understanding why McCain would even write this. The man may not be a young and charming constitutional law professor, but I would guess he knows the document well enough. He knows this bill doesn’t have a chance of passing, at least not with the indefinite detention provision as written. So I wondered, “why even waste time writing that part?”

    Then I remembered that McCain is being challenged by former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth. A Republican, Hayworth has used his campaign website to take McCain to task over his terrorism cred:

    But John McCain wants Guantanamo Bay shut down and terrorists moved to the U.S. for trial. J.D. Hayworth supports the mission at Guantanamo Bay and thinks it would be both a mistake and an abomination to award enemy combatants and other terrorists the rights enjoyed by American citizens.

    John McCain also wants to tie the hands of our military interrogators by banning enhanced interrogation techniques. J.D. Hayworth recognizes the importance of giving our professionals the tools they need to get the job done. At least four major 9-11 style terror attacks were prevented thanks to information gathered using these techniques, and countless lives were saved.

    http://www.poligazette.com/2010/03/1...g-hostilities/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Must. Defend. Freedom. At. Any. Cost.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Super Moderator BadCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    15,616
    Hey John boy...I'm keeping my AZ voter registration long enough to VOTE AGAINST YOU in the primary.

    After that, I'll switch it to my new state.

    rm -rf obama*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Must. Defend. Freedom. At. Any. Cost.
    We make exceptions for liberal prick like you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,458
    There's always the chance that the bill might not ever see the inside of the capitol. Or that a presidential veto could override it if the house and senate did pass it.

    Or that McCain isn't even writing such a bill. I couldn't get to the article with the link posted, so all I see is the snippets posted above, which don't include a bill number or a date that it might be presented to congress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    There's always the chance that the bill might not ever see the inside of the capitol. Or that a presidential veto could override it if the house and senate did pass it.

    Or that McCain isn't even writing such a bill. I couldn't get to the article with the link posted, so all I see is the snippets posted above, which don't include a bill number or a date that it might be presented to congress.
    Here you go :)

    http://assets.theatlantic.com/static...s/ARM10090.pdf

    quote:

    SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

    An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.
    some definitions:

    (5) 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 support to the United States in connection with such hostilities.

    [...]

    (7) HOSTILITIES.—The term ‘‘hostilities’’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war, and includes a deliberate attack upon civilians and civilian targets protected by the laws of war.

    [...]

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

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

    (B) has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;

    or (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post

    So there is a definition of exactly what would circumstances lead to an american citizen being detained. They would have to fit the three criteria to be declared an unprivileged enemy belligerent.


    It sounds to me like John Lindh would have met the criteria, under this bill. It could only be applied to american citizens if they are either a member of al Queda, or have supported enemies of the US and the coalition, or to have attacked US or Coalition troops.

    I don't support the bill, but I also don't support a number of provisions of the Patriot Act. I can see where it infringes on constitutional rights, regardless of who the president is that might be asked to sign it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    um....somehow this doesn't surprise me...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •