McCain and Lieberman Propose Bill to Strip U.S. Citizens Suspected of Terrorism of All Rights

Via Eric Martin, Marc Ambinder says:

A close reading of the [Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010] suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity

He's wrong. The bill does not "allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely". It requires it. It's not optional.

Section 2(a) of the bill (pdf):

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.

(Emphasis supplied.)

This means that anyone, U.S. citizen or not, who is simply suspected of engaging in terrorism or "of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities" must be turned over to the military.

I know I am using italics a lot. I think this warrants it.

Section 3(b)(3):

A individual who is suspected of being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not, during interrogation under this subsection, be provided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona.

I'm disappointed. Every self-respecting enemy belligerent, even unprivileged ones, know the Miranda warnings. This section should have read:

A individual who is suspected of being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall be provided with the following statement:

"We can do anything we want to you, and no one can stop us. We can rape you, we can burn you, we can kill you. And we're going to enjoy it."

At least that would have the virtue of honesty, if no other.

After the initial detention:

The bill asks the President to determine criteria for designating an individual as a "high-value detainee" if he/she: (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. The President must submit the regulations and guidance to the appropriate committees of Congress no later than 60 days after enactment.

To the extent possible, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.

The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.  The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress.  In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination. 

An "unprivileged enemy combatant" is anyone who is not a "privileged combatant"; i.e., anyone not in uniform. In other words, any civilian labeled "enemy combatant" is automatically an "unprivileged enemy combatant". 

How long may such person be held? Section 5:

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 15 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.

Forever.

Comments

[Will]

I don't see this being misused at all, no sir nothing wrong can happen with this.

[MiHi]

The fact that a decrepit old coot and a rabidly pro-Israel stooge cooked up this sack of lunacy shows in itself just how likely it will reach Obama's desk for signature. Any larger bill it gets duct-taped to will kill the whole package by default.

[Flori-DUH]

I wholeheartedly agree that this bill should never receive more than 2 votes in Congress, McCain's and Lieberman. However, we all know the repukes and the Blue Dogs will salivate over the possibility to show their toughness against terrorists (even if they are only "suspected", not even accused).

But can people please stop the Israel bashing? Just because Lieberman proclaims his love and affinity for another nation, being the homeland to his co-religionists, does not make this bill a "zionist" scheme, nor justify rants of anti-semitism (vis-a-vis members of the jewish faith, as anti-semitism runs against all semitic people, jews and arabs alike).

[JCtx]

Pass this bill and start arresting Republican'ts for not approving nominees to the DHS and other high-value agencies, for calling the President a traitor and a terrorist, for all the other thousands upon thousands of things the tea baggers (heh, heh, he said "tea bagger") do that "embolden the enemy" and see how long it takes for supporters of this bill to do a 180.

[John Harvey]

This is a clear violation of the Constitution. Normally one would expect the Supreme Court to rule the law unconstitutional if passed an used. However, with this court one can never be sure. One must hope the President would veto the bill if it reaches his desk.