McCain Proposes Indefinite Detention Without Trial for Citizens

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/crime/3344-mccain-proposes-indefinite-detention-without-trial-for-citizens

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, The JBS.

[TeyshaBlue]

The 5th and 6th Amendment just called. They say he's lost his fucking mind.

[MannyIsGod]

Fucking McCain is an idiot. I hate that stupid son of a bitch. Can you imagine if this fuck was president? Obama is bad enough.

[Winehole23]

It's a slippery slope once you allow a multi-tiered system of justice.

[LnGrrrR]

Where's WC to support this travesty of justice?

[ElNono]

That bill is criminal.

[symple19]

wow

outrageous

Glad my two Sens aren't co-sponsors, although I'm guessing McConnell would vote for it. Rand Paul on the other hand probably won't

Fucking neocons

[Doe]

It's shocking that this guy was a POW and he's advocating things like this. I'm not the least bit surprised that Lieberman has his fingerprints all over this though.

[Jacob1983]

Why haven't McCain and Lieberman traveled up to Vermont and gotten married?

[Winehole23]

Fucking McCain is an idiot.Maybe he's trying to counter the swooning and hand-wringing his meticulously hedged talking point that he believes torture was not responsible for uncovering the info that led to the op on OBL, caused the GOP faithful.

[Wild Cobra]

Where's WC to support this travesty of justice?
What makes you think I support it?

You sure can be biased.

[LnGrrrR]

What makes you think I support it?

You sure can be biased.

So you don't support it then?

[Wild Cobra]

So you don't support it then?
Most likely not, but I haven't yet read the details. My impression from what little I know, no.

[LnGrrrR]

The bill, which has eight cosponsors, explicitly names U.S. citizens as among those who can be detained indefinitely without trial:

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent ... 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.

[ChumpDumper]

Most likely not, but I haven't yet read the details. My impression from what little I know, no.What details would make you be for such a law?

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I read the first part and can say NO without hesitation.

Why are you guys worrying about a bill proposed last year (3/4/10) and made it no where?

[Wild Cobra]

What details would make you be for such a law?
Will you ever stop trolling?

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3081


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.

So every terrorist now will be handled by the military, I guess.


(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.

I'm sure THAT line won't be abused.


(a) Limitation- No funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Justice may be used to prosecute in an Article III court in the United States, or in any territory or possession of the United States, any alien who has been determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2).

This will pretty much make it illegal to try them in the normal court system. Create a kangaroo court, then force them to go through it.


(b) Applicability Pending Final Determination of Status- While a final determination on the status of an alien high-value detainee is pending under section 3(c)(2), the alien shall be treated as an unprivileged enemy belligerent for purposes of subsection (a).

Remember, when in doubt, interrogate!

[LnGrrrR]

OK, I read the first part and can say NO without hesitation.

Glad to hear it.


Why are you guys worrying about a bill proposed last year (3/4/10) and made it no where?

I could never vote for anyone that put their name to such a disgusting bill. I think it's relevant, no matter whether or not it passes. It illuminates the anti-American mindset of the people sponsoring/writing it.

[ChumpDumper]

Will you ever stop trolling?It's a serious question. I can understand why you would want to dodge it.

[Wild Cobra]

It's a serious question. I can understand why you would want to dodge it.
A serious question from you?

Come on now. People here think I'm dumb, but nobody thinks I'm that dumb.

You are just a troll. Trolling for something you can feed your pathetic ego with.

[Wild Cobra]

I could never vote for anyone that put their name to such a disgusting bill. I think it's relevant, no matter whether or not it passes. It illuminates the anti-American mindset of the people sponsoring/writing it.
Can you think of a time I have spoke well of McCain?

[ChumpDumper]

A serious question from you?

Come on now. People here think I'm dumb, but nobody thinks I'm that dumb.

You are just a troll. Trolling for something you can feed your pathetic ego with.Look, you said, given your knowledge of the bill from the outset, that there was a chance you could support such a law if you knew the details. I simply would like to know what details would sway you to support it. Your refusal to answer such a simple question is making you come off like a whiny bitch and is doing more to make you look foolish than any troll job.

I personally would not support any such law, no matter the details. You said you might.

[Wild Cobra]

Look, you said, given your knowledge of the bill from the outset, that there was a chance you could support such a law if you knew the details. I simply would like to know what details would sway you to support it. Your refusal to answer such a simple question is making you come off like a whiny bitch and is doing more to make you look foolish than any troll job.

I personally would not support any such law, no matter the details. You said you might.
That chance would have only had consideration if the OP on the topic was completely out of context. The person would have to clearly be guilty. Not suspected.

Now go away troll.

[ChumpDumper]

That chance would have only had consideration if the OP on the topic was completely out of context. The person would have to clearly be guilty. Not suspected.

Now go away troll.So you simply didn't understand the phrase "without trial"?

I believe you.

[LnGrrrR]

Can you think of a time I have spoke well of McCain?

No, but others reading the thread might think otherwise.

[Wild Cobra]

No, but others reading the thread might think otherwise.
Only those who place their hatred of me above the truth.

[LnGrrrR]

Only those who place their hatred of me above the truth.

I mean that others might think good of McCain and the other cosponsors.

[Wild Cobra]

I mean that others might think good of McCain and the other cosponsors.
Well, you know how authoritarians can be.

[greyforest]

Why are you guys worrying about a bill proposed last year (3/4/10) and made it no where?

Because it strongly argues that McCain and whoever proposed the bill are so corrupt AND retarded that they literally forgot (or probably never knew) that the power they were trying to grab was expressly prevented by the Bill of Rights.

[Wild Cobra]

Because it strongly argues that McCain and whoever proposed the bill are so corrupt AND retarded that they literally forgot (or probably never knew) that the power they were trying to grab was expressly prevented by the Bill of Rights.
But you're late to the dinner, and the dinners over.