Yes, I’m writing this on St. Patty’s day. No, I’m not drunk (yet) and I don’t have any green on. The thing I’m green with is not envy, but disgust.
I guess we can start a new task force around here and call it “McCain Watch 2010″; it’s almost what is needed to keep an eye over the so-called conservative candidate of 2008. What’s he up to this time? Is it telling Americans that they MUST accept globalization? No. Is it requiring that all dietary supplements be registered with the FDA? No, that bill got killed a little over a week ago. So then what’s the news that’s got me all green with disgust? Take a look at his new piece of legislation, the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. What is the main point of this bill? Whoever is captured or “otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States”, and is suspected of a plot to commit an act of terrorism or any other act that violates the laws of war will be placed in military custody and will receive a military tribunal. If you’re not familiar with how those work, familiarize yourselves with them, (sorry I couldn’t find a truly reputable source, but that’s the concept anyway) and familiarize yourself with why I’m opposed to this. My main concerns are the stripping of those rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and the fact that you’re guilty until proven innocent.
Now, you may be thinking, “Yeah nice one. Your relaxed attitude about terrorism is why you should never become a politician Mr. Backlin!” Not gonna work buddy (besides, I don’t want to be a politician anyway; too many lies and hand-washing)! While reading the bill, I noticed that the language used to define a “belligerent” is extremely vague. Whether it was intentional or not (I’m gambling on was) is a good point, but it’s vague; meaning a belligerent could be of any race or belief system. Also note that these belligerents can be anywhere in the world, as defined by this quote from Section 2:
Military Custody Requirement- Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States…
Quite convenient, no? As I noted before (in our first blog post to be exact), psychics used the same trick to make themselves seem right all of the time. To coincide, the bill uses vague language to target everyone out there; including but not limited to, libertarians, conservatives, republicans, African Americans, Native Americans, Japanese, Chinese, Muslims, Arabs, Europeans, Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Scientologists, etc. Hey, we’re all equal right? Now, in their defense, everybody has their extremists. Need I remind you of the Aryan Nations, especially Timothy McVeigh? Anyway, on past the vague description of belligerents, and on to Section 3 of the bill. The following is a block quote of subsection D:
(d) Regulations-
(1) IN GENERAL- The operations and activities of high-value detainee interrogation groups under this section shall be governed by such regulations and guidance as the President shall establish for purposes of implementing this section. The regulations shall specify the officer or officers of the Executive Branch responsible for determining whether an individual placed in military custody under section 2 meets the criteria for treatment as a high-value detainee for purposes of interrogation and determination of status by a high-value interrogation group under this section.
(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.
(3) PARAMOUNT PURPOSE OF INTERROGATIONS- The regulations required by this subsection shall provide that the paramount purpose of the interrogation of high-value detainees under this Act shall be the protection of United States civilians and United States civilian facilities through thorough and professional interrogation for intelligence purposes.
(4) SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS- 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.
The bolded parts have me most concerned. Apparently, the President can single-handedly determine what and how extreme acts of terrorism are and hire a committee that goes along with that. So, flag burning can become an act of terrorism that can be punishable by a military tribunal. Remember guys, the First Amendment protects what you don’t want to see or hear instead of what you do. I hate to see someone burning our flag as well, but I can’t just go in there and arrest somebody because they are burning one. That would be unconstitutional.
Ah, I feel much better now. Remember, if you’re disgusted, take two internetz in the morning and call your doc if anything goes wrong! Whateva.
[...] little concerned about the constitutionality of The Patriot Act and flat out not convinced that the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 is constitutional. And for impartiality, I can’t say as to whether or not the Healthcare Laws [...]