Tag(s): ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 3/26/10:     Permalink
View Article Stats      (9 comments)

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act

Add this Page to Facebook!
Submit to Twitter
Submit to Reddit
Submit to Stumble Upon

Tell A Friend

Become a Fan
Get Embed HTML Code
By (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan  (163 fans)   -- Page 3 of 4 page(s)

opednews.com

(1) for an attack against America, its citizens, US military personnel or facilities;

(2) their potential intelligence value;

(3) membership in or affiliation with Al Qaeda; and

(4) "such other matters as the President considers appropriate."

Pending final determination, detainees "shall be treated as unprivileged enemy belligerent(s)," defined as:

"An individual, including a citizen of the United States (to) 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."

An "unprivileged enemy belligerent" means anyone (with or without evidence) suspected of "engag(ing) in (or materially supporting) hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," including alleged Al Qaeda members.

Raised Concerns

Designating individuals "unlawful enemy combatants" or "unprivileged enemy belligerents" places them in legal limbo, contrary to international law, the Constitution, and three recent Supreme Court decisions:

-- Rasul v. Bush (2004) establishing US court system jurisdiction to decide if Guantanamo-held non-US citizens were wrongfully imprisoned;

-- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) granting US citizen Yaser Hamdi and other Guantanamo detainees habeas rights to challenge their detentions in federal courts; and

-- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) denying Guantanamo military commissions "the power to proceed because (their) structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."

Obama-ordered preventive detentions (against uncharged persons) and S. 3081 violate international law, the Constitution, and the above Supreme Court decisions.

Writing for the Jurist Legal News & Research, University of Utah Law Professor, Amos Guiora, calls the proposed bill "the latest example of panic-based legislation" in the wake of the (false flag) December airplane bombing and whether alleged 9/11 suspects will be tried in federal or military courts - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others falsely charged based on tortured-extracted confessions.

Holding detainees through "end of hostilities in the terrorism paradigm is a euphemism for indefinite detention....subject(ing) an extraordinarily broad group of persons" to cruel and inhumane treatment based on unsubstantiated charges, and denying them due process and judicial fairness.

Guiora calls the proposed law:

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

I was born in 1934, am a retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

 

Share this page: (what's this?)                   Tell a Friend: Tell A Friend

Add this Page to Facebook!      Submit to Stumble Upon      Submit to Reddit      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Blink List     (More...)

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
9 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Those are Stalin's 1934 special regulations by Mark Sashine on Friday, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:16:16 AM
This is another nail in the coffin! by marko polo on Friday, Mar 26, 2010 at 9:47:04 AM
thanks Stephen by julia cresswell on Friday, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:43:15 AM
I am just wondering, by karmacounselor on Friday, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:03:59 AM
Once again..... by bluesky on Friday, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:06:55 AM
We need to defeat this legislation just as we did S-1959 by William Cormier on Friday, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:50:23 PM
This article points out exactly by Nick van Nes on Friday, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:22:43 PM
Extremely well said! by William Cormier on Friday, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:50:52 PM
Kudos to you, too, and your many thoughtful comments. by Nick van Nes on Saturday, Mar 27, 2010 at 8:30:57 AM