Community | March 19, 2010 | 15 comments

McCain and Lieberman's "Enemy Belligerent" Act Could Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship | | AlterNet

Image
Monkey_Films
Glenn Greenwald calls the bill "probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades."
March 19, 2010 |

Senator John McCain (L) of Arizona listens as Senator Joe Lieberman (R) of Connecticut speaks during a press conference in Washington, DC. The two senators unveiled legislation Thursday aimed at requiring that suspected "high-value" terrorists face interrogation and trial by the US military, not civilian questioners and courts.
Photo Credit: AFP/File - Saul Loeb


LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.


Advertisement


On March 4th, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bill called the "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010" that, if passed, would set this country on a course to become a military dictatorship.

The bill is only 12 pages long, but that is plenty of room to grant the president the power to order the arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment of anyone -- including a U.S. citizen -- indefinitely, on the sole suspicion that he or she is affiliated with terrorism, and on the president's sole authority as commander in chief.

The Act begins with the following (convoluted) requirement:

Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States who is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war, or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities, and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

In other words, if at any point, anywhere in the world, a person is caught who might have done something to suggest that he or she is a terrorist or somehow supporting a terrorist organization against the U.S. or its allies, that person must be imprisoned by the military.

For how long?

As long as U.S. officials want. A subsequent section, titled "Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents," states that suspects "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." In a press conference introducing the bill earlier this month, Sen. Joe Lieberman said, "I know that will be -- that may be -- a long time, but that's the nature of this war."

As constitutional expert Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, "It's basically a bill designed to formally authorize what the Bush administration did to American citizen Jose Padilla -- arrest him on U.S. soil and imprison him for years in military custody with no charges." What happened to Padilla, a notorious perversion of justice in a country that claims to be a democratic standard-bearer, would thus go from being an exception to the rule itself.

As "war on terror"-era legislation goes, Greenwald calls the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act "probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act." This is a sobering statement, especially given the intense controversy the MCA generated at the time of its passage, in the heady weeks preceding the 2006 midterm elections. Then-Senator Obama was one of only 34 senators who voted against it, calling it "sloppy," and expressing his wish that "cooler heads … prevail after the silly season of politics is over."

Now, however, as president, Obama has helped pave the way for such radical legislative efforts as the one introduced by McCain and Lieberman, by embracing -- and re-branding -- the military commissions he once opposed.

"Belligerents" are the new "Combatants"

Three years after Obama eloquently opposed the Military Commissions Act, the now-president signed a Military Commissions Act of his own, as part of the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. The law, which sought to overhaul the discredited Bush-era military commissions for "alien enemy combatants," introduced what is apparently turning out to be an important new term to the counterterror lexicon: Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent, defined as "an individual who: 1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

Months before, in March of 2009, the Obama administration announced that it was phasing out the term "alien enemy combatant," even as it held on to the authority to hold terror suspects indefinitely. "Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent," then, was its replacement.

As Human Rights Watch attorney Joanne Mariner wrote last fall, "this is a cosmetic change, not a real improvement, which mirrors the administration's decision to drop the enemy combatant formula in habeas litigation at Guantanamo Bay."
  1. groups:
    Community,   WTF,   Random,   Current Tonight,   13 more
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

15 comments // McCain and Lieberman's "Enemy Belligerent" Act Could Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship | | AlterNet

  • common_sense_please
    • 0
      common_sense_please  
    • I am only being slightly sarcastic when I say I would like to see Glenn Beck and the FOX News gang cover this story and actually start waiving around the swastika and scaring people a little bit so they realize that the problem is he and the fringe radical Republicans would like to convince the "sheeple" that watch Fox news that the real problem is President Obama and progressives, who are in Glenn Beck's twisted understanding of history and reality, secretly pretending to be Hitler and the Nazi's.

      But the real problem is its John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Dick Cheney who ACTUALLY are Hitler and the Nazi's--and who are not being secretive about it at all. Because when I read history my understanding is that Hitler was not the President of Germany until he basically kicked every other candidate for the position to the curb via propaganda and attack ads and rigged the election to make it look like he was officially elected by bribing the parliament or the courts to "vote" him into office--and the platform he ran on was a promise to rid Germany of anybody who wasn't Ayrian enough to suit him-or who seemed like a threat to his absolute rule/authority. And he essentially got the German government to pass a law that allowed him to round up Jews and anybody who was not blond haired and blue eyed and heterosexual and put them first in ghettos and then into concentration camps and finally into prisons where they were arbitrarily killed and their deaths were covered up by the camp officials and the government--and he made it so that he started the ethnic cleansing in Germany but was allowed to expand it to whatever territories Germany held--hence the invasion of Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic, and Holland, and France and the attempt to take England and Russia as well.

      Seriously Glenn and FOX the real headline you need to run is:

      Dick Cheney = Hitler
      Guantanamo Bay = Auschwitz
      Hitler's SS Guards = Blackwater

      Those who like the freedom the U.S. Constitution offers to vote for/choose whichever candidate (regardless of party) is not bought by or beholden to special interests and/or corporations and/or having the freedom to vote against whichever candidates actually openly advocate for a law that allows the government to arbitrarily throw ANYBODY in prison or round them up and kill them for being the wrong gender or having the wrong hair color or not being heterosexual enough = the true Progressives and Libertarians.

      So.... be afraid. Its the super radical Republicans who are using the tea bag as the 21st century version of a swastika.

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
    • 0
      artemis6  
    • This is FEAKING EVIL . It will be used and abused . That is what it is designed for . I never imagined the country I love would come to this . Even if they don't get it soon , if this is what they are shooting for , they are traitors to the Constitution and the nation .

    • 1 year ago
  • MindsiMedia
    • 0
      MindsiMedia  
    • It seems like we have been down the rabbit hole since the Viet Nam war. Once that fraud was perpetrated with no one held accountable are rights have been on a slippery slope downhill ever since. First the four decade war on drugs was used to undermine our freedoms. It sure hasn't done much to stop people from abusing drugs. And now the war on terror is being used to further erode our freedoms. The next step will be to merge the two wars. First the drug cartels will become the terrorists we must fight and then of course the drug users are most certainly providing material support so they to will well you know where this is going.
      When will people on the right stop fearing socialists or progressives and start worrying about the fascists that are the real threat to our freedoms no matter the party. And those on the left need to see the Democrats that control the party aren't racing to defend our freedoms either.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DFQhUDDwMQ

    • 1 year ago
  • Sw3rv
    • +1
      Sw3rv  
    • I dont even have to read it to know whats going on and it seems like the more we wake up the faster they are trying 2 implement OPERATION:LOCKDOWN on our asses

      I am "career Military" as well however it is not permanently attached to my Nervous system....unfortunatly...i fear in the near future i wont have the same choices....OVER

    • 1 year ago
  • bking74
    • 0
      bking74  
    • Sw3rv:

      Your always so cryptic and I am still trying to decide if you have anything truly illuminating to say or simply trying to appear some digital Proust. I do read you loud and clear on not having your "Career Military/permanently attached to your Nervous system". Nice one

    • 1 year ago
  • Sw3rv
    • +1
      Sw3rv  
    • bking74:

      Truth is Light!! thats what i call true illumination my Brother THE TRUTH. Im searching for it ....i want others to search as well...and yet it seems They Hiding it from us...just like when we were kids ...then u find out later like damn why did yall lie? and they say some sh!t like we were tryna protect you......its fukked up they got us fighting over there losing brothers and sisters left and right...and all we do is justify it ...with..........BREAK

    • 1 year ago
  • bking74
    • +3
      bking74  
    • I know many of my views are far to extreme and right wing compared to most on Current. I actually see the value of the Patriot Act and have no problem with many of the inhumane acts committed by the CIA. I am career military and Catholic which pretty much makes me the devil but if this scares the shit out of me. Regardless of that many of our allied countries already engage in this practice. This goes against so much of what this country was built on and what so many of us are fighting to maintain today.

    • 1 year ago
  • carmalite
  • bking74
    • +1
      bking74  
    • carmalite:

      I'm not surprised in the least the JAG consulted with outside counsel on Gitmo and the status of the detaines. Were they enemy combatants? Do the laws of war apply? Who has jurisdiction? Should they be granted POW status? The Supreme Court of the Geneva Convention 4th ruled all detainees in the War on Terror are "enemy combatants". Who decided who is an enemy combatant fighting the "War on Terror'? Then to confuse the issue even further Washington federal judge Joyce Hens Green ruled that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) held to confirm the status of the prisoners in Guantánamo as "enemy combatants" was "unconstitutional", and that they were entitled to the rights granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. I can't even begin to untangle or make sense of the various conflicting international rulings. The United Nations Human Rights Council reported the United States violated international law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The United States could not try such prisoners as enemy combatants in a military tribunal and could not deny them access to the evidence used against them. Then the stated International Committee of the Red Cross that, "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the law." Many of our International Allies have argued for the summary execution of all unlawful combatants, us EX PARTE QUIRIN. Which basically means if you engaged in acts of war or sabotage and captured with an international recognized military uniform your are not entitled to POW protections and will be executed?..........WHAT?..I can't make sense of it, and it seems neither can the international community. I know what is morally right, but war is not moral.

    • 1 year ago
  • IngloriousBitch
  • good_stuff
    • +1
      good_stuff  
    • Also, why not just say "anywhere" instead of:

      "Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States"

    • 1 year ago
  • good_stuff
  • Bushido
    • +3
      Bushido  
    • I am beginning to think that our politicians are being issued "Constitution toilet paper" when they swear in. It preps them for the days like this when they have to wipe their asses with the real thing.

      Oh, I even have a sales pitch if someone wants to finance me...

      "Constitution brand toilet paper. Flush the Constitution after your daily constitutional."

    • 1 year ago
  • common_sense_please
    • +1
      common_sense_please  
    • WooHoo finally Dick Cheney can go to jail -- along with most lobbyists and the 5 Supreme Court Justices that ruled corporations are people and said that George W. was appointed (I mean "elected" ) President even after he lost the overall popular vote by a large margin.

      The city of Dubai already does this on a regular basis and people still flock there and give them their money -- and China is essentially a military dictatorship and the rest of the world gives them their money on a regular basis.

      so its hard not to just be cynical about the whole thing--but if there ever was a reason to register to vote and kick this current mix of incumbent assholes to the curb come November--this is it.

    • 1 year ago
  • zeevik03
more from Community:

top videos