On March 4 Senators John McCain (R-Ariz) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced a bill entitled “The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010.” If you thought some of the legislation introduced and passed by Congress under Bush II was scary, then in the immortal words of Bachman and Turner you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

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."

Who could be designated “enemy belligerents” and thereby denied the right to a civilian trial? Would the designation be limited to combatants captured on a battlefield, or could it be extended to others — including, potentially, even law-abiding U.S. citizens who dissent from an official point of view or policy?

The bill's definition of  “enemy belligerent” could be interpreted to mean a number of things. The bill tells us (Sec. 6, paragraph 9): “The term 'unprivileged enemy belligerent' means an individual … 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.” Note the or in that sentence (italics added). It is very important. That one word logically implies that an individual does not have to be a member of al-Qaeda to be swept up in this. Anyone who fits those other provisions, whatever they mean, could be detained under this Act. The level of potential for abuse here depends on how far it is possible to stretch the meanings of words and phrases such as engaged in hostilities or purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.

A person may become a “high-value detainee” if he or she “meets the criteria for treatment as such established in the regulations required by subsection (d).” These regulations are:

• The “potential threat” the person poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facilities. Questions: What is meant by a potential threat? How much potential is required? Does potential  involve actions, or just speech within an assembly of dissenting voices which someone in government has interpreted as a threat?

• The “potential threat” the person poses to U.S. military personnel or facilities. The same questions apply.

• The “potential intelligence” value of the individual. See below.

• “Membership in al Qaeda or in a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.”

• “Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.”

This last, of course, could mean anything any President wants it to mean, whether it is Obama or someone else sitting  in the Oval Office in the future. This makes the meaning high-value detainee completely open-ended!

Moreover, according to this Act, individuals need only be “suspected” of commission of “hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

“Suspected”? Consider Jose Padilla, who was held for between three and a half and four years in solitary confinement in a military institution without explicit charges. He wasn't a saint, but he was a U.S. citizen whose rights under the Constitution became meaningless once President Bush declared him an "enemy combatant." His is just the most visible case. It isn't exactly as if the federal government lacks a precedent for trashing the Constitution and habeas corpus.

Finally, “The President shall submit the regulations and guidance required by this subsection to the appropriate committees of Congress not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.” In other words, this bill can become law prior to the actual “regulations and guidance” being worked out and put into place. Again, those dotting the i's and crossing the t's will have essentially free rein.

This bill provides the potential for a wholesale assault on any dissenting group’s once-Constitutionally protected freedoms in America, should Obama or a future chief executive decide that this group’s exercise of these freedoms does too much to challenge unbridled power. We should note that the problem is not that there is a specific plan in motion to deprive law-abiding U.S. citizens from exercising their rights to free speech, assembly, and so on; bills such as this one open the door for such plans to be put in motion.

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. 

Those in the TPM are not merely complaining that taxes are too high. They are concerned about out-of-control spending and debt and about the international banking cartel and the Federal Reserve monopoly power to create money out of thin air. They are educating themselves about our money system, where money comes from, and how the "banksters" (a term I see more and more) have been ripping off our civilization through their control of the money supply and interest rates. Last year, for the first the first time in almost 80 years last year, the Federal Reserve System came under severe scrutiny from within Rome on the Potomac itself — led, of course, by Ron Paul whose book End the Fed had become a New York Times bestseller!

The TPM collectively is furious about how the Federal Government bailed out the big Wall Street banks and surrounding corporations back in the fall of 2008 while Main Street businesses were closing, unemployment was soaring, foreclosures were reaching all-time highs, stock portfolios and 401Ks were being decimated, and evidence was mounting that the middle class in this country is being destroyed little by little.

Should tea partiers be concerned about The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010? It is interesting that the legislation (which as of this writing does not have a bill number yet) speaks of "enemy belligerents” instead of “enemy combatants.” This suggests, at least to my ears, that critics of official policy don’t have to be engaging in or threatening violence. All they have to be is “belligerent” in their demands to be heard. This bill’s machinery makes the distinction between U.S. citizens and noncitizens irrelevant if one is a “suspect.”

But tea partiers? Last year the Missouri Information and Analysis Center, a branch of the Missouri Highway Patrol, issued a report for law-enforcement officials warning against a  terrorist threat that "subscribes to an antigovernment and NWO [New World Order] mind set" and that views "the military, National Guard, and law enforcement as a force that will confiscate their firearms and place them in FEMA concentration camps." Public outrage forced the withdrawal of the report. But the very fact that the report was released in the first place shows that Americans who oppose government policies have reason to be concerned about whether they will some day be branded not just "extremist" but dangerous extremists who pose a threat to the very country they love.

Photo: John McCain

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (11)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Bonnie said:

Maybe we can use this to OUR benefit! ...individuals need only be "suspected" of commission of "hostilities" against the United States... So, if this bill were to be passed, all we would have to do is "suspect" some member of Congress (or the bureaucracies plaguing us) of complicity in hostile acts, such as unlawful searches or wiretaps, or any in a long list of constitutional infringements upon our liberties, and we can have them tried by military tribunals? Hmmmm. Works for me. Too bad it's not constitutional!

March 08, 2010

JR said:

... I used to think McCain was just misguided, now he is clearly anti American (Anti Constitution = Anti American because the Constitution Constitutes the USA). He has disgraced himself, and lost any and all honor he may have earned wile serving in the military, and has a patriotic loyalty only to the establishment. He is willing to turn on his own country for the sake of the establishment.

March 09, 2010

xEODGuy said:

Wow! It just keeps getting scarier, doesn't it? To my eyes, the way that this reads is, "No matter who you are or where your loyalties lie, if you're against the status quo, the Constitution doesn't apply to you." More of Bush II's If-you-aren't-with-us-your-against-us hokum. How can anyone in a position of such great responsibility be so completely blind? As a former military man myself, I used to like some of the things that McCain said. Ever since the "War on Terror" false flag op, he's been beating the drum awfully loud to do to others what was supposedly done to him. It would appear that his years in the Hanoi Hilton either had no effect on his judgement (or quite the opposite, even), or their bulls**t lies used to garner sympathy from the voters. Needless to say, NOW I really believe he and most of the others in the government are traitorous and despotic.

March 09, 2010

Thomas Paine said:

Stronger Response needed by JBS I trust this will be an action item on the JBS Website. Also, our response should be to advise our Congressman and Senators that we think passing this act is considered Treason, IE: against the law, as it clearly violates the Constitution. NO EXCEPTION.

March 09, 2010

Anti-Federalist said:

Feds should Charge Padilla I concur that this new law can be mis-applied very easily. The perfect example is already highlighted; belligerent vs combatant. However to use Jose Padilla, the most likely candidate for the OKC Bombing John Doe #2, as an example is sketchy at best. He has obviously been involved in 'anti-government' activities for more than just a few years. I would like to see federal charges brought up on him, I'm not sure why they haven't yet.

March 09, 2010

Flugendorf said:

... Yes. It's designed to be able to rope in anyone deemed necessary or advisable - and to exclude quibbling questions about particular applications - and ideally to exclude grounds for anything ever being wrong at all. The world would look very tidy if this were the regime. No embarrassing mistakes or abuses would come to light, or it would be rare that they would. No one has to get a look. Even review by military courts or commissions isn't mentioned, and appears to be barred by this. It's just done. As a parallel I was looking at this story about the Supreme Court case looking at applications for the "material support for terrorism" law: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24scotus.html As written, and in the interpretation presently being supported by the Department of Justice: even, say, giving an organization that the Executive Branch has designated "a terrorist organization" legal advice on how to complain to the United Nations about human rights abuses would make you guilty of material support for terrorism. Which is to say, even helping anyone so designated with an entirely legal activity! - even by only speech - even if you did not in effect assist terrorism activity even indirectly, or "free up" organization resources for possible terrorism, or anything. It's hard to simply in fact be innocent of "having materially supported terrorism", if the government has a reason it wants to charge you. A law like that is a law written so that they Can Get Anyone They Think They Should Get. And that is the point. The same with this. That McCain, with his prison memories, would put this out in front of everyone to score political points... Astounding.

March 09, 2010

Flugendorf said:

... Could it be applied domestically? Sure. It's a blank check for a President. More terrifiedness-worshipping than anti-terrorist in motivation. Or, no, actually it's intended to make the Democrats look reluctant to gut the whole idea of rights compared to McCain and the GOP, in order for this to reflect well on McCain and the GOP, which is the sickest sentence I guess I'll be writing all week.

March 09, 2010

Flugendorf said:

... One question I have is, in case this thing ever got into law - I had seen this equally worried account of it over on the left: http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.c...n-and.html and it contained a couple of sentences which I remembered when I came here: "There is no mention even of trial by military commission. In fact, the process outlined effectively forecloses the possibility of a military trial." Is that right? This post here discusses barring of civilian trials, which the bill would definitely do, but is it more than that - would it even effectively mean no military trials either?

March 10, 2010

Still Free said:

Clearly he took too many blows to the head. And to think his name starts with "Mc" -- I knew I never liked this guy. And now he is really coming into clear focus. Thomas Paine: I agree wholeheartedly.

March 17, 2010

BoatByTheRiver said:

... There are so many laws on the books already as open-ended as this, its hard to get worked up about (yet) another one. Probable cause, RICO, vagrancy, etc etc. The gov already has more than ample weapons to do the type of thing the writer is fearing. And sadly the day will come, hopefully not in my lifetime or my daughter's, where a leader will be in place that encourages the use of those mechanisms. And thats when you'll need a boat by the river.

March 24, 2010

Tomas Estrada-Palma said:

What is government hiding The reason civilian trials of so-call terrorist suspects can't go forward is ALL of the people this government has said had a hand in 9/11 are completely innocent. I trial would show this. Plus, just for insurance, the scum at the top has tortured these defendants so should they have their day in court the evidence will be thrown out. Then the top government scum will cry foul over that darn Constitution for stopping them from going after the terrorists. The terrorist are in offices in Washington, DC.

March 28, 2010 | url