Why is the national security community treating the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010," introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration's choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity.
Keep in mind that it is the president who can determine what "terrorist" will be meaning this week:
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.
So what do we have in the way of legislation this year? The "death panels" put in place last February, total control of the nation's food supply including backyard gardens, control of all water - even water not in rivers or lakes or seas, land grabs under the guise of protecting species of animal and plants on the basis that they MIGHT someday become endangered MAYBE, and now this. Coulda seen this one coming, of course. Janet Napolitano has been making noises about constitutionalists, veterans, gun owners and those opposed to abortion being "terrorists" these last several months. It was just a matter of time before legislation was introduced to sharpen the teeth Homeland Security already has.
What a mess, huh?
Leave it to McCain to think of such a thing. Maybe he was upset that an important psrt of his campaign finance law was ruled unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteGeeze, maybe Matt!
ReplyDeleteOr maybe he is just an old crooked fart who doesn't care about the Constitution.
Hey, I just read that the 1998 Farm Bill had something hidden in it: Social Security checks can now be snarfed by the govt for the collection of old debts.
Surprise!
Not.
Medicare went officially bankrupt last year (hence the rush to make it look UNbankrupt by passing "health care" legislation, and IIRC Social Security goes backwards later THIS year. So the govt covers its losses and pays for SS by taking some people checks - et voila! We are back in the black.
With poor seniors starving.
But hey - they've had their lives, right? :O&