As of March 14 11pm, NO "news" agencies have reported on this bill... Read and track this bill at OpenCongress.org. See also, H.R.4648 - Keep Terrorists at Bay Act of 2010 (seriously...) introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith and 7 cosponsors... Oh, and no mention of ending the occupation of other people's sovereign nations as a possible remedy, in case you were wondering... " />
Monday, March 15 2010 - Civil Liberties-Police State
A Detention Bill You Ought to Read More Carefully - S.3081, Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010
"...introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman..." 'Nuff said? Reminiscent of the Violent Extremist and Homegrown Terrorist Act, passed nearly unanimously in the House but shut down in Senate committee by the outcry of citizens?
As of March 14 11pm, NO "news" agencies have reported on this bill... Read and track this bill at OpenCongress.org. See also, H.R.4648 - Keep Terrorists at Bay Act of 2010 (seriously...) introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith and 7 cosponsors... Oh, and no mention of ending the occupation of other people's sovereign nations as a possible remedy, in case you were wondering...
by Marc Ambinder
Why is the national security community treating the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010," introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration's choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity. Read the bill here, and then read the summarized points after the jump.According to the summary, the bill 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.
(There is no distinction between U.S. persons--visa holders or citizens--and non-U.S. persons.)
It would require these "belligerents" to be coded as "high-value detainee[s]" to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team established by the president. (The H.I.G., of course, was established to bring a sophisticated interrogation capacity to the federal justice system.)
Any suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents considered a "high-value detainee" shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.
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.
Note that the president himself doesn't get to make the call.
Marc Ambinder - Marc Ambinder is the politics editor of The Atlantic. He has covered Washington for ABC News and the Hotline, and he is chief political consultant to CBS News. He has 11,171 followers on Twitter. Wait, 11,172.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.