reply to post by K J Gunderson
Bam! No offense to anyone else, but you're most likely the more logically rational thinker that's posted so far.
I don't want to go on a tangent here, but I have to say that the bill has been misquoted.
First, let's take a look at what they are saying initially can be done from this bill.
SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS IN MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) Military Custody 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.
If you're not familiar with war, this isn't a vague condition. This is point blank if you are engaging in a hostile action or are working with the
insurgents who are engaging in the act then you are guilty. Don't let that word "terrorism" impare your thought. You have to look at the next part
where it says "in violation of the laws of war". If you're not understanding where I'm coming from, please ask me to break it down Barney style
for you. Not trying to insult anyone's intelligence.
Okay, so I'm going on a tangent, but I'm kind of feeling a fire in my belly when everything that comes through congress gets blown up and
misunderstood. Let's take a look at what the unprivledged and high-value detainees.
(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.
A refers to a hostile act against us or our allies. Shouldn't need to explain that. B refers to supply munitions, supplies or intel to the enemy. C
is self explaining.
(2) 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.
A refers to a high potential for engaging in hostility against us or our allies. "Potential threat" is a term that can be misunderstood easily, but
it actually is refering to the fact that the high-value prisoner is going to or planning to make an attack in the near future. B refers to the same
thing as A. C is self explaining as is D. E...I'll admit that it's a load of BS, but that's a whole different thing I don't want to get in to at
Forgot about privledged.
(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.
Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
Prisoners of War
All of this explains what a privledged prisoner is.
There are clear differences between them all. They are defined clearly. In no way does this say anything about truthers. The only reason a truther
would be in a mud hole is if by whatever means you're handing over military operational intelligence to the enemy.
Last thing before I end this.
SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.
An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which
satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without
trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged
, or which the
individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by
Congress pertaining to such hostilities.
Yes, this says what it says. You can be taken in to custody without criminal charges and trial, but you will be interrogated AND under article 5 of
the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War your fate AFTER the hostilities against us or our allies has ended, if they feel
you are not a part of any category of art. 4 but engaged in a belligerant act, you are protected by the Geneva Convention from being wronged until
your status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
Honestly, if you don't trust anything that on paper that's beneficial, why would you trust something that you think will be harmful? Understanding
is essential, but most times misunderstanding happens.
Please, I want to hear what y'all think. I tried to put this in words as best I can from the understanding I have from the civilian and military
world. Kinda helps to think on both sides.