Communist
21st March 2010, 02:07
.
McCain and Lieberman's "Enemy Belligerent" Act Could
Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship (http://www.alternet.org/story/146081/)
(http://www.alternet.org/story/146081/)
By Liliana Segura
AlterNet
March 19, 2010
On March 4th, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman
introduced a bill called the "Enemy Belligerent
Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010"
that, if passed, would set this country on a course to
become a military dictatorship.
The bill is only 12 pages long, but that is plenty of
room to grant the president the power to order the
arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment of anyone --
including a U.S. citizen -- indefinitely, on the sole
suspicion that he or she is affiliated with terrorism,
and on the president's sole authority as commander in
chief.
The Act begins with the following (convoluted)
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.
In other words, if at any point, anywhere in the world,
a person is caught who might have done something to
suggest that he or she is a terrorist or somehow
supporting a terrorist organization against the U.S. or
its allies, that person must be imprisoned by the
military.
For how long?
As long as U.S. officials want. A subsequent section,
titled "Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy
Belligerents," states that suspects "may be detained
without criminal charges and without trial for the
duration of hostilities against the United States or
its coalition partners." In a press conference
introducing the bill earlier this month, Sen. Joe
Lieberman said, "I know that will be -- that may be --
a long time, but that's the nature of this war."
As constitutional expert Glenn Greenwald has pointed
out, "It's basically a bill designed to formally
authorize what the Bush administration did to American
citizen Jose Padilla -- arrest him on U.S. soil and
imprison him for years in military custody with no
charges." What happened to Padilla, a notorious
perversion of justice in a country that claims to be a
democratic standard-bearer, would thus go from being an
exception to the rule itself.
As "war on terror"-era legislation goes, Greenwald
calls the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention,
and Prosecution Act "probably the single most
extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in
the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the
horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act."
This is a sobering statement, especially given the
intense controversy the MCA generated at the time of
its passage, in the heady weeks preceding the 2006
midterm elections. Then-Senator Obama was one of only
34 senators who voted against it, calling it "sloppy,"
and expressing his wish that "cooler heads . prevail
after the silly season of politics is over."
Now, however, as president, Obama has helped pave the
way for such radical legislative efforts as the one
introduced by McCain and Lieberman, by embracing -- and
re-branding -- the military commissions he once
opposed.
"Belligerents" are the new "Combatants"
Three years after Obama eloquently opposed the Military
Commissions Act, the now-president signed a Military
Commissions Act of his own, as part of the 2010 Defense
Authorization Bill. The law, which sought to overhaul
the discredited Bush-era military commissions for
"alien enemy combatants," introduced what is apparently
turning out to be an important new term to the
counterterror lexicon: Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent,
defined as "an individual who: 1) has engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its coalition
partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States or its
coalition partners."
Months before, in March of 2009, the Obama
administration announced that it was phasing out the
term "alien enemy combatant," even as it held on to the
authority to hold terror suspects indefinitely.
"Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent," then, was its
replacement.
As Human Rights Watch attorney Joanne Mariner wrote
last fall, "this is a cosmetic change, not a real
improvement, which mirrors the administration's
decision to drop the enemy combatant formula in habeas
litigation at Guantanamo Bay."
What overshadows all of these differences is,
however, a key similarity with the Bush-era
definition. Just as, in the Guantanamo habeas
litigation, the Obama administration has adopted
the Bush-era position of claiming that persons who
provide support to hostilities can be treated just
like persons who engaged in hostilities, the new
law's "unprivileged enemy belligerent" definition
takes the same tack."
In other words, it is as expansive a definition of
"terrorism" as possible.
In Obama's defense bill, the word "alien" preceded the
term "unprivileged belligerents," in defining who can
be held before a military commission. For McCain and
Lieberman's purposes, omitting the word "alien"
apparently means the label can apply to U.S. citizens,
while, politically, the word "unpriviliged" provides a
useful connotation: terror suspects will not be coddled
like common criminals!
This now-familiar line is the one Senators McCain and
Lieberman have taken in pushing their legislation.
"These are not common criminals. They are war
criminals," Lieberman told reporters at his press
conference with McCain. The bill now has eight
Republican co-sponsors: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (GA), Sen.
James Inhofe (OK), Sen. George LeMieux (FL), Sen. Jeff
Sessions (AL), Sen. John Thune (SD), Sen. David Vitter
(LA), Sen. Roger Wicker (MS), and the newly-elected
Sen. Scott Brown (MA).
In case there was any doubt that terror suspects will
have no rights under this law, the Right's cynical
attack on Miranda rights has been conveniently
inscribed into the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation,
Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010:
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 . 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.
But what is perhaps most dangerous is the tremendous
amount of power it gives to a U.S. president to
determine who is and who is not a terrorist. Under the
bill, the president would establish a 'high-value
detainee interrogation group," comprised of Executive
Branch experts "in matters relating to national
security, terrorism, intelligence, interrogation, or
law enforcement as the President considers
appropriate." This group would be in charge of making a
"preliminary determination whether or not the detainee
is an unprivileged enemy belligerent . based on the
result of its interrogation of the individual and on
all intelligence information available to the
interrogation group." Its findings would go to the
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, who
would "jointly submit to the President and to the
appropriate committees of Congress a final
determination whether or not the detainee is an
unprivileged enemy belligerent."
"In the event of a disagreement between the Secretary
of Defense and the Attorney General, the President
shall make the final determination."
Also, all of this has to happen no more than 48 hours
after the detainee is brought into military custody.
Where's the Controversy?
The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and
Prosecution Act has yet to go anywhere -- it has been
referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee -- which
might account for the lack of discussion about it. But,
especially coming from two politicians as influential
as McCain and Lieberman -- "Serious Centrists" as
Greenwald calls them, regularly "feted on Sunday shows"
-- such a radical stab at authoritarian rule must be
swiftly and loudly condemned.
"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 ... as a standard proposal,
as a simple response to the administration's choices in
the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt?"
asked The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder this month, "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."
This is a defining characteristic of a military
dictatorship. Where's the outrage? And will it come
before it's too late?
_______________
McCain and Lieberman's "Enemy Belligerent" Act Could
Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship (http://www.alternet.org/story/146081/)
(http://www.alternet.org/story/146081/)
By Liliana Segura
AlterNet
March 19, 2010
On March 4th, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman
introduced a bill called the "Enemy Belligerent
Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010"
that, if passed, would set this country on a course to
become a military dictatorship.
The bill is only 12 pages long, but that is plenty of
room to grant the president the power to order the
arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment of anyone --
including a U.S. citizen -- indefinitely, on the sole
suspicion that he or she is affiliated with terrorism,
and on the president's sole authority as commander in
chief.
The Act begins with the following (convoluted)
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.
In other words, if at any point, anywhere in the world,
a person is caught who might have done something to
suggest that he or she is a terrorist or somehow
supporting a terrorist organization against the U.S. or
its allies, that person must be imprisoned by the
military.
For how long?
As long as U.S. officials want. A subsequent section,
titled "Detention Without Trial of Unprivileged Enemy
Belligerents," states that suspects "may be detained
without criminal charges and without trial for the
duration of hostilities against the United States or
its coalition partners." In a press conference
introducing the bill earlier this month, Sen. Joe
Lieberman said, "I know that will be -- that may be --
a long time, but that's the nature of this war."
As constitutional expert Glenn Greenwald has pointed
out, "It's basically a bill designed to formally
authorize what the Bush administration did to American
citizen Jose Padilla -- arrest him on U.S. soil and
imprison him for years in military custody with no
charges." What happened to Padilla, a notorious
perversion of justice in a country that claims to be a
democratic standard-bearer, would thus go from being an
exception to the rule itself.
As "war on terror"-era legislation goes, Greenwald
calls the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention,
and Prosecution Act "probably the single most
extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in
the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the
horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act."
This is a sobering statement, especially given the
intense controversy the MCA generated at the time of
its passage, in the heady weeks preceding the 2006
midterm elections. Then-Senator Obama was one of only
34 senators who voted against it, calling it "sloppy,"
and expressing his wish that "cooler heads . prevail
after the silly season of politics is over."
Now, however, as president, Obama has helped pave the
way for such radical legislative efforts as the one
introduced by McCain and Lieberman, by embracing -- and
re-branding -- the military commissions he once
opposed.
"Belligerents" are the new "Combatants"
Three years after Obama eloquently opposed the Military
Commissions Act, the now-president signed a Military
Commissions Act of his own, as part of the 2010 Defense
Authorization Bill. The law, which sought to overhaul
the discredited Bush-era military commissions for
"alien enemy combatants," introduced what is apparently
turning out to be an important new term to the
counterterror lexicon: Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent,
defined as "an individual who: 1) has engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its coalition
partners; or 2) has purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States or its
coalition partners."
Months before, in March of 2009, the Obama
administration announced that it was phasing out the
term "alien enemy combatant," even as it held on to the
authority to hold terror suspects indefinitely.
"Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent," then, was its
replacement.
As Human Rights Watch attorney Joanne Mariner wrote
last fall, "this is a cosmetic change, not a real
improvement, which mirrors the administration's
decision to drop the enemy combatant formula in habeas
litigation at Guantanamo Bay."
What overshadows all of these differences is,
however, a key similarity with the Bush-era
definition. Just as, in the Guantanamo habeas
litigation, the Obama administration has adopted
the Bush-era position of claiming that persons who
provide support to hostilities can be treated just
like persons who engaged in hostilities, the new
law's "unprivileged enemy belligerent" definition
takes the same tack."
In other words, it is as expansive a definition of
"terrorism" as possible.
In Obama's defense bill, the word "alien" preceded the
term "unprivileged belligerents," in defining who can
be held before a military commission. For McCain and
Lieberman's purposes, omitting the word "alien"
apparently means the label can apply to U.S. citizens,
while, politically, the word "unpriviliged" provides a
useful connotation: terror suspects will not be coddled
like common criminals!
This now-familiar line is the one Senators McCain and
Lieberman have taken in pushing their legislation.
"These are not common criminals. They are war
criminals," Lieberman told reporters at his press
conference with McCain. The bill now has eight
Republican co-sponsors: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (GA), Sen.
James Inhofe (OK), Sen. George LeMieux (FL), Sen. Jeff
Sessions (AL), Sen. John Thune (SD), Sen. David Vitter
(LA), Sen. Roger Wicker (MS), and the newly-elected
Sen. Scott Brown (MA).
In case there was any doubt that terror suspects will
have no rights under this law, the Right's cynical
attack on Miranda rights has been conveniently
inscribed into the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation,
Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010:
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 . 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.
But what is perhaps most dangerous is the tremendous
amount of power it gives to a U.S. president to
determine who is and who is not a terrorist. Under the
bill, the president would establish a 'high-value
detainee interrogation group," comprised of Executive
Branch experts "in matters relating to national
security, terrorism, intelligence, interrogation, or
law enforcement as the President considers
appropriate." This group would be in charge of making a
"preliminary determination whether or not the detainee
is an unprivileged enemy belligerent . based on the
result of its interrogation of the individual and on
all intelligence information available to the
interrogation group." Its findings would go to the
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, who
would "jointly submit to the President and to the
appropriate committees of Congress a final
determination whether or not the detainee is an
unprivileged enemy belligerent."
"In the event of a disagreement between the Secretary
of Defense and the Attorney General, the President
shall make the final determination."
Also, all of this has to happen no more than 48 hours
after the detainee is brought into military custody.
Where's the Controversy?
The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and
Prosecution Act has yet to go anywhere -- it has been
referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee -- which
might account for the lack of discussion about it. But,
especially coming from two politicians as influential
as McCain and Lieberman -- "Serious Centrists" as
Greenwald calls them, regularly "feted on Sunday shows"
-- such a radical stab at authoritarian rule must be
swiftly and loudly condemned.
"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 ... as a standard proposal,
as a simple response to the administration's choices in
the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt?"
asked The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder this month, "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."
This is a defining characteristic of a military
dictatorship. Where's the outrage? And will it come
before it's too late?
_______________