McCain, Lieberman's "Enemy Belligerent" Act Could Set U.S. On Path To Military Dictatorship

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/146081/mccain_and_lieberman%27s_%22enemy_belligerent%22_act_could_set_u.s._on_path_to_military_dictatorship

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

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 |

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.

MORE

[Rhiannon12866]

1. Yikes! Sounds like what they were already doing during the previous administration...

So now they want to make it legal? Hmmmmm. :eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. now that is truly scary

And it doesn't even serve any purpose that existing laws don't already cover. Even if - God forbid - the worse of the worse were to happen and the United States found itself in a state of total chaos and upheaval - the legal basis already exist to declare martial law. So, why this law? and why now?

[mikehiggins]

3. ask not for whom the bell tolls

it tolls for us (and the US)

[Political Heretic]

4. After everything I've seen so far, it will probably pass and Obama will sign it.

:eyes:

[athenasatanjesus]

5. Maybe a military dictatorship would be better

At least then the problems with this country would be obvious and thus easier to explain to people.

[troubledamerican]

19. Utterly corrupt statement

Watch any documentary about the East German STASI or Chile's DINA or Operation Condor

With any military dictatorship, there is open murder in the streets, your family members "disappear", your Republican neighbors report you to the Secret Police, and nobody needs it "explained to them" even with FOX telling everybody things are perfect.

Then watch any documentary about Tianenmen Square and see how easy and successful it will be to have an uprising.

[annabanana]

6. How is this classification different from "enemy combatant"

which can also be applied to anyone at the President's directive.

[DemoTex]

15. " .. unprivileged enemy belligerent .."

When you mouth off at a cop who has stopped you for speeding, you are said to be "belligerent." At that point you appear to be eager to fight. He readies his taser.

When you actually swing at the cop, you become a "combatant." That is when the cop justifies tasing you.

:shrug:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Hopefully this will die a horrible painful death in the Senate

This is about as scary as it gets and makes the Patriot Act look benign by comparison and I can't say that I am surprised whom is behind it. :eyes:

[zbdent]

8. would it include seizing the assets of U.S. corporations, because they

are now getting the rights of U.S. citizens, via the SCOTUS?

[w4rma]

14. Of course not. They are the Untouchables. (nt)

[mmonk]

9. Recommended.

[Kirbster]

10. It seems that Geoge Orwell's "1984" has ceased to be a cautionary tale

and now serves as the blueprint and handbook for the Republican Party. (Unsurprisingly, all the co-sponsors of this piece of crap are Republicans.) I've read the text of the bill. It is pretty horrifying. The terms and definitions in the bill are so vague as to be meaningless and broad escape clauses grant sweeping unchecked power to the executive branch.

[athenasatanjesus]

17. It's still a cautionary tale....

often used by the right to warn of liberals who try to use the government for evils like social justice.

[Richard Steele]

20. TOO SUBTLE! Enjoy your stay.

nm

[Echo In Light]

11. We're already well down that 'path,' sorry to say

[Solly Mack]

12. k/r

[w4rma]

13. At this point. I fully expect Obama (the "Constitutional Scholar") to fully back this. (nt)

[Fumesucker]

16. Well, it's all "bipartisany" and stuff. n/t

[Hissyspit]

18. kick nt

[AnnieBW]

21. WTF?

What evil have Mr. Burns and Smithers brought us now?

:wow:

[Hissyspit]

22. .

[Kaleva]

23. Didn't Lincoln do this kind of stuff during the Civil War?

[KonaKane]

24. Sort of. The Proclamation of 1862

basically gave Lincoln all powers not written into the constitution and notably the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Not a cool thing, but then again the country was in a civil war, and the proclamation only pertained to Maryland and a few midwest states.