S.3081 - SECTalk Boards

Jump to content

Welcome to SECTalk.com

Welcome to SECTalk.com -- The Home of 6 Straight National Titles!

You are currently accessing our site as a guest which means you can't access all of our features such as social groups, sports betting, and many more. By joining our free community you will have access to all of these great features as well as to participating in our forums, contacting other members, and much more. Registration only takes a minute and SECTalk.com is absolutely free thanks to Pro Dunk Hoops which specializes in premium adjustable basketball goals, so please join today!

If you have any problems registering or signing in, please contact us.

Latest Topics

Latest News


Top High Fived

Top Bettors


S.3081

- - - - -

4 replies to this topic

#1
76

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    5,892
  • Age:
    36
  • Joined:
    Dec 2009
  • Cash:
    1,300
  • High Fives:
    707

Quote

Co-Sponsors


o Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
o Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA]
o Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK]
o Sen. George LeMieux [R, FL]
o Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT]
o Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL]
o Sen. John Thune [R, SD]
o Sen. David Vitter [R, LA]
o Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS]


CALL YOUR SENATORS AND DEMAND THEY TAKE A POSITION ON THIS BILL

S.3081: Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

The “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” introduced by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday with little fanfare, “sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning,”

The bill does not distinguish between U.S. citizens and non-citizens, and states that “suspected belligerents” who are “considered a “high-value detainee” shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.”

A person is considered a “high value detainee” if they fulfill one of the following criteria.

(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.

Now that the Southern Poverty Law Center and the federal government, via the MIAC report and innumerable other leaked documents, now consider virtually anyone with a dissenting opinion against the state as “posing a threat,” millions of peaceful American citizens could be swept up by this frightening dragnet of tyranny.

However, according to the bill, an individual doesn’t even have to pose a threat to be snatched, detained and interrogated – they can merely be deemed to be of “potential intelligence value” or come under the vague and sweeping mandate of “such other matters as the President considers appropriate”.

This last designation hands Obama dictator powers to have any American citizen kidnapped, detained, and interrogated on a whim.

The only proviso that even hints at some form of check or balance is the measure that states, “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.”

“The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination,” states the bill.

The ACLU has expressed its vigorous opposition to the legislation, labeling it nothing less than a “direct attack on the Constitution”.

“Indefinite detention flies in the face of American values and violates this country’s commitment to the rule of law,” states Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Of course, such positions from the ACLU as well as Amnesty International will only be used as grist for the neo-con propaganda mill about how the bill ought to be passed in order to avoid being “soft on terrorists,” a piece of spin still being swallowed whole by millions of conservatives who are blissfully unaware of the fact that the apparatus of the war on terror is now being aimed squarely at politically active American citizens.

“Torture, indefinite imprisonment, secret trials and limited staged hearings are the stuff of cheap dictatorships,” writes Ian McColgin. “They are the sort of idiocy we scorned in the Soviets, the Koreans and the Vietnamese. It is astonishing that we have senators and citizens even discussing this bill which is not a capitulation to terrorism – it’s the triumph of terrorism.”


Text of the Bill: http://assets.theatlantic.com/static...s/ARM10090.pdf

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

An individual, including a citizen of the United
13 States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent
14 under section 3©(2) in a manner which satisfies Article
15 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
16 Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal
17 charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities
18 against the United States or its coalition partners in which
19 the individual has engaged, or which the individual has
20 purposely and materially supported, consistent with the
21 law of war and any authorization for the use of military
22 force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities

Geneva Art. 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Geneva Art. 4
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

I am gone guys. If you want to get in touch with me my email is AUTigersFan1976@gmail.com. I enjoyed getting to know you all!


#2
Robzilla

  • Do you feel like we do?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    11,549
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Jun 2009
  • Cash:
    3,200
  • High Fives:
    1,492
I am utterly appalled that Sessions has added his name to this bill.

Piece of advice for conservatives in congress; if McCain or Leiberman have their names on something, chances are you want nothing to do with it.

#3
Robzilla

  • Do you feel like we do?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    11,549
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Jun 2009
  • Cash:
    3,200
  • High Fives:
    1,492
I've already typed up and sent in my letter to Senator Sessions on this.

Quote

Senator Sessions,

I was recently made aware of a bill proposed to the U.S. Senate on March 4th, 2010 of which you are a co-sponsor; S.3081.

I am disappointed to see that a conservative leader as influential as yourself from my home state would attach his name to such a bill. I, sir, am a conservative and a voter. I've voted for you and have been pleased with the results overall I've seen from you, but this bill represents a gross violation of Constitutional rights and provides the President with authority which he shouldn't possess in determining who to "detain." The bill also does not dictate between the rights of U.S. citizens vs the rights of non-citizens.

Non-citizens should not be provided with any Miranda Rights when it comes to interrogation, but U.S. citizens are entitled to such rights. I understand the reason you're supporting this bill. I understand the need for determining how to handle enemy combatants and terrorists whom we've captured. But that needs to be more clearly defined in this bill. As written, this bill could be applied to ANYONE for any reason the President deems appropriate. It does not limit itself to mere terrorism. By supporting this bill you support taking the rights of protest away from the citizens of our great nation and giving the President essentially a tyrannical level of power. Again, I understand the intent is focused on enemies of our state and terrorists, but at what point is that line drawn? The way the bill is written, the President could deem anyone an enemy belligerent for whatever reason the state dictates. This is a dangerous bill that compromises the rights of the people to such a degree that has been unprecedented in our nation's great history. Please, for the sake of our country's future, do not support this bill as it is written. It goes against the very principles our nation was founded upon.


#4
jacobp

  • Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    16,771
  • Age:
    31
  • Joined:
    Jul 2007
  • Cash:
    1,870
  • High Fives:
    2,245
They'll probably see that you ended your last sentence with a preposition and disregard the entire thing.
Original Image: <a href='http://i.imgur.com/Y0Zvs.jpg' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://i.imgur.com/Y0Zvs.jpg</a>

#5
Robzilla

  • Do you feel like we do?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Posts:
    11,549
  • Age:
    32
  • Joined:
    Jun 2009
  • Cash:
    3,200
  • High Fives:
    1,492

jacobp said:

They'll probably see that you ended your last sentence with a preposition and disregard the entire thing.


They'll probably send me a form letter typed up by some staffer whether I wrote it error free, ended it with a preposition, or wrote it in crayon for that matter.

Also, ending a sentence with a preposition is not a firm rule of grammar and is up for debate anyway.

Edited by Robzilla, 10 March 2010 - 10:22 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users