Dissenters To Be Detained As "Enemy Belligerents"?

page: 1
88
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+22 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Dissenters To Be Detained As "Enemy Belligerents"?


www.infowars.com

Since the establishment media is convinced that tea party members, 9/11 truthers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and basically anyone with a dissenting political opinion is a likely domestic terrorist, they should be celebrating the fact that a new bill would allow the government to detain such people as “enemy belligerents” indefinitely and without trial based on their “suspected activity”.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I tried searching for this article on ATS but it came empty so if it has been posted before I apologize, and if it has been posted before then please move it to the "General Conspiracies" forum.

Senators from both parties, Democrat, and Republican, were the ones to introduce a new bill called: “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,”

The Republican Senator is John McCain (who should be ashamed of himself), and the Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman(who should also be ashamed of himself).

The problem with this bill is that, and I quote:

“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,”


Excerpted from original link.

There is no distinction between U.S. citizen, and non-U.S. citizen.

The bill also gives such a broad definition of who could be an "enemy belligerent", that basically anyone they want can be one.

Here are the definition of what this new bill considers an "enemy belligerent":


(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.


So whoever the President considers appropiate will be an "enemy belligerent"....

President Obama has already gone on television and stated that he wanted to make legal the ability of the government to detain anyone, even if they haven't committed any crime, but rather to the "possibility" that such person "could commit a crime", and such detention could be done for years, and such a person would have no rights whatsoever.

We even have had threads showing a video of Rachel Maddow comment on "President Obama indefinite detention wish".

Now it seems that President Obama got his wish with this new bill.

I tried looking for one of the threads that has the video using the "search" function of ATS, but for some reason it came out with nothing.

I had to use google to find the video.
www.in.com...

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 9-3-2010 by ElectricUniverse]


+10 more 
posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
3 cheers for dictatorships!!

Hip hip......

ummmmmmm.......

What a bunch of horse crap Obama. To think we elected you hoping you would bring and end to tyranny, then you turn around and betray us later to become the biggest tyrant in American history. I think it is you sir who are an enemy belligerent!

How can you sleep at night?

----------------------

Secondary question. How the hell is the US supreme court going to justify this as constitutional? I mean really!

I hope they take a dump on this bill!

----------------

P.S. If there are any disinfo searchers here employed by the federal govt. do me a favor... Have your boss (Obama) take a look at this....

Obama, you need to read this bub.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by DaMod]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I want to know what the bill means by hostilities against the U.S. government. Is that just talking about people who have committed violence against the U.S. government? If so that would be fine- or- does the bill have much broader implications like making protests illegal? That's what I want to know.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


I would be fine if this was against "real terrorists", but it does give a broad definition of who could be one, even to the point of stating "such other matters as the President considers appropriate."

If you put this together to what President Obama talked about last year, which i gave a video to, you will see that this would allow ANYONE, even if they haven't committed a crime to be "indefinetely detained", a wish that President Obama has made in the past and which now seems to have come true.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Might check the actual bill for clarification.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
You know, people tend to think of America as " advanced", ... when in fact we are one of the newer nations, if not the newest.

Perhaps Irag, Iran and other third world country's were once as we are today.

.... and perhaps they are the future of america, when the money runs out, poverty runs rampant, corruption takes hold they will need bills like this to keep order.


Think about it.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
A few points....

1. This hasn't even been introduced to the Senate floor yet.

2. This hasn't hit a committee or subcommittee yet.

Nowhere did I see anything about dissenting citizen's being categorized within the proposed bill. I will admit though that the language in the bill is semi-vague and could possibly be used for nefarious reasons, but what bill in the past 50 years couldn't?

The proposed language from what I can see is a direct response to the Crotch Bomber, or whatever that guy is called nowadays.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
perhaps to scare truthers?......lol

is someone gonna come in the night and sneak ATS members out one by one.....who? the NSA.....DOHLS?

are they just building files upon files of people on-line.....profiling each (..trying to light the fires of dissent......only to pounce...(perhaps after a false flag event blamed on truthers)

perhaps they will take those who are of "less use" to society than others.....the unemployed or retired or whatever.....and then assume this will scare the rest..of us...or the forum owners that host us



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
Might check the actual bill for clarification.


The original link gives that link you just gave.

But I would like to know exactly what you mean by "clarification"?

What did I write that is not true?



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Sorry for the ambiguity. I was posting in reply to this post. Thought it might help to have a readily accessible link to the bill to facilitate the discussion about what the bill actually says rather than what someone thinks it might say.

My bad on not hitting the Reply To button.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Thanks for posting. This needs the attention. We have been discussing this bill on ATS here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is some very vague language in this bill and it should concern all citizens. Check out the criteria for designation of individuals as high value detainees. The last line pretty much gives the President the power to lock people up for any reason he deems appropriate.


CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES.—The regulations required by this subsection shall include criteria for designating an individual as a high-value detainee
based on the following:

A) The potential threat the individual poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the United States or upon United States citizens or United States civilian facilities abroad at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

B) The potential threat the individual poses to United States military personnel or United States military facilities at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

C) The potential intelligence value of the individual.

D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.

E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.
assets.theatlantic.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Let's excerpt from the bill and see whether or not what I wrote is right.

First.


(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT
6 AND RIGHTS.—A individual who is suspected of
7 being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not,
8 during interrogation under this subsection, be pro
vided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona
10 (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of
11 any rights that the individual may or may not have
12 to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Mi13
randa v. Arizona.


Who shall determine who is an unpriviledged enemy belligerent?


DETERMINATIONS OF STATUS.—
15 (1) PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION BY HIGH16
VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP.—The
17 high-value detainee interrogation group responsible
18 for interrogating a high-value detainee under sub19
section (b) shall make a preliminary determination
20 whether or not the detainee is an unprivileged enemy
21 belligerent. The interrogation group shall make such
22 determination based on the result of its interroga23
tion of the individual and on all intelligence informa24
tion available to the interrogation group.
....



(2) FINAL DETERMINATION.—As soon as pos7
sible after receipt of a preliminary determination of
8 status with respect to a high-value detainee under
9 paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense and the At10
torney General shall jointly submit to the President
11 and to the appropriate committees of Congress a
12 final determination whether or not the detainee is an
13 unprivileged enemy belligerent for purposes of this
14 Act. In the event of a disagreement between the Sec15
retary of Defense and the Attorney General, the
16 President shall make the final determination.


And finally the reasons why such a person shall be determined as an "enemy belligerent"?


(2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVID11
UALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES.—The regulations
12 required by this subsection shall include criteria for
13 designating an individual as a high-value detainee
14 based on the following:
15 (A) The potential threat the individual
16 poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facili17
ties within the United States or upon United
18 States citizens or United States civilian facili19
ties abroad at the time of capture or when com20
ing under the custody or control of the United
21 States.
22 (B) The potential threat the individual
23 poses to United States military personnel or
24 United States military facilities at the time of
March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)
8
ARM10090 S.L.C.
1 capture or when coming under the custody or
2 control of the United States.
3 (C) The potential intelligence value of the
4 individual.
5 (D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a ter6
rorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.
7 (E) Such other matters as the President
8 considers appropriate.

assets.theatlantic.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Ah, I see. I took your statement about clarification to mean that I was wrong in what I wrote.

My bad.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Who shall determine who is an unpriviledged enemy belligerent?


Wait, you completely left out the following- Was it purposeful that you did or by mistake? I only ask because there are people here that will push their agenda and neglect areas, not to attack you.



(8) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘‘privileged belligerent’’ means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

(9) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—
The term ‘‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’’ means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) 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.


Now, since the draft language references Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Geneva Convention - Article 4 Synopsis



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
Thanks for posting. This needs the attention. We have been discussing this bill on ATS here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
.................


I didn't know there was a thread about this in that forum. I searched using the "search function" but nothing came out. The name of that other thread is different and that might be why but I thought the search would encompass any threads which have the words "Dissenters To Be Detained As Enemy Belligerent".

Anyway, you are right, the language is very vague, and broad, and in general it gives complete power to the president to decide who is an "enemy belligerent"...

We also have the fact that Janet Napolitano, and the Homeland security have named anyone who oposes any regulations, or laws, or bills passed by the Obama administration, anyone who is afraid of Communism (which i still wonder why they used that specific form of dictatorship and not others), anyone who fears or is against the One World Government, any returning veterans, and in general most Americans as "possible terrorists"...

Then we have the speech made by President Obama where he mentions his desire to make legal the ability of the government to indefinitely detain anyone who "might" pose a threat, even if they haven't committed any crime ever, but just "might"...

Not to mention the fact that they even want to take away the citizenship of any American who is labeled as a "possible terrorist", and the statement of Emmanuel Rahm that any "possible terrorist" and whoever is in the no fly list has no right to posses any weapons.

Puting all this together it presents a clear sign of danger to the rights of all Americans.

Yes, there are real terrorists, but the language being used by the administration, and even others in government would make ANY American as an "enemy belligerent" or a "possible terrorist"....

This is not the United States that I came to love.

BTW, just t make it clear to any Obama troll/shill, and or government troll/shill that is reading all of this, I hate violence, and I am not inciting violence.

However this needs to change, and the CHANGE needs to be possitive, and good for the American people, and not being used by those in power to intimidate anyone who DARES to question what the government is doing.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
3 cheers for dictatorships!!

Hip hip......

ummmmmmm.......

What a bunch of horse crap Obama. To think we elected you hoping you would bring and end to tyranny, then you turn around and betray us later to become the biggest tyrant in American history. I think it is you sir who are an enemy belligerent!

How can you sleep at night?

----------------------

Secondary question. How the hell is the US supreme court going to justify this as constitutional? I mean really!

I hope they take a dump on this bill!

----------------

P.S. If there are any disinfo searchers here employed by the federal govt. do me a favor... Have your boss (Obama) take a look at this....

Obama, you need to read this bub.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by DaMod]


Do you even know who authored the bill?


The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010, introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)


Source: www.democraticunderground.org...

Next time, make sure you got your facts straight before you go bashing.




posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
You know there is something interestsing about having a mod force a move of your thread from Breaking alternative news because the news is "too old" only to have it replaced the next day with a copy...

ATS is funny sometimes.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Do you even know who authored the bill?


The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010, introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)


Source: www.democraticunderground.org...

Next time, make sure you got your facts straight before you go bashing.



Do you even know that Obama talked about wanting something like this months ago?....

Yes, I said at the beginning of the thread who authored the bill, but this bill is similar to what Pesident Obama talked about, and wished for....

I even gave a link to the video made by Rachel Maddow, who is a Liberal, and spoke about President's Obama wish for something like this to be made legal....

However, that member which you responded to should know that President Obama wished, and wanted for a bill like this one to be made into law, so I doubt he would do anything against it.



[edit on 9-3-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Do you even know who authored the bill?


The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010, introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)


Source: www.democraticunderground.org...

Next time, make sure you got your facts straight before you go bashing.



Do you even know that Obama talked about wanting something like this months ago?....

Yes, I said at the beginning of the thread who authored the bill, but this bill is similar to what Pesident Obama talked about, and wished for....

I even gave a link to the video made by Rachel Maddow, who is a Liberal, and spoke about President's Obama wish for something like this to be made legal....

However, that member which you responded to should know that President Obama wished, and wanted for a bill like this one to be made into law.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by ElectricUniverse]


I won't go check your statement for accuracy...I will give you the benefit of the doubt. So, with that, it appears that this is a bipartisan bill; thus, bashing should be directed towards all politicians in favor of it...not just Obama.






top topics
 
88
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join