The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, detention and prosecution Act of 2010

[Glamour Puss]

Did you miss the memo March 4th?

Ok... I'll break is down for you... This is an expansion of what the Bush administration put into place. "Unlawful Enemy Belligerent" is any person who does not meet the 8 criteria of Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions. This was used by the Bush administration extensively as a loophole and decried by both the right and more notably the left. This leaves the detainee in a limbo, not under any guidelines of the Geneva Conventions.



The results of this ultimately leaves the detainee with no Miranda rights (which this bill endorses), which is still the same as the loophole which was exploited by GWB.

The bill clearly defines who can be targeted using the Patriot Act of 2002


Nowhere in the bill does it make any mention of "coercive interrogation i.e waterboarding, raping you and your children in front of you, raping you w/ battery acid, hanging you for weeks and breaking your bones." That is a lie I am sure you are happy to pass along as fact.

This bill is steeped in the loopholes the Bush administration exploited and seeks to solidify it into American law to make detaining and interrogation of individuals no longer an ambiguous issue.

If you don't believe me, read it for yourself http://www.legitgov.org/enemy_belligerent_act_2010.pdf, it's only 12 pages and big print (sorry, no pictures though).

Its implied. And its been defined by the Bush administration already. All they did was change the name from "torture" to "coercive interrogation".

Detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and black sites all over the world have already gotten the treatment.

It sounds as if the purpose of this bill is to extend their well wishes to the American "homeland".

And give every person in the U.S the same legal designation it had for Jose Padilla.

Who was held for almost 10 years without being charged.

Where he was held is still a hot issue, if you know what I mean.

[squealpiggy]

Its implied.

Raping children is "implied" in this bill?

[AKATheMack]

Raping children is "implied" in this bill?

Much easier to imply it than figuring out a politically correct way to phrase it.

[TheJoker]

Its implied. And its been defined by the Bush administration already. All they did was change the name from "torture" to "coercive interrogation".

Detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and black sites all over the world have already gotten the treatment.

It sounds as if the purpose of this bill is to extend their well wishes to the American "homeland".

And give every person in the U.S the same legal designation it had for Jose Padilla.

Who was held for almost 10 years without being charged.

Where he was held is still a hot issue, if you know what I mean.

You can "interpret" the bill this way, but the reality is the bill in no way supports any of your allegations other than holding an individual without Miranda Rights, which I am vehemently opposed to.

Who you decide the bill targets is your choice, but it is not stated in the bill so passing it off as "targeting Americans" is errant.

I'll be the first to admit the loophole exploited by Bush needs to be closed. This bill is probably in the wrong direction in my view. I don't agree with it, but your assessment is incorrect because none of the hyperbole you posted actually shows up in the text. You are simply implying it does.

I believe this is where everyone is told to contact their congressman to kill the bill, but at least kill it on it's merits.

[Glamour Puss]

You can "interpret" the bill this way, but the reality is the bill in no way supports any of your allegations other than holding an individual without Miranda Rights, which I am vehemently opposed to.

As well you should.

Who you decide the bill targets is your choice, but it is not stated in the bill so passing it off as "targeting Americans" is errant.

It says they can hold you indefinitely for the duration of the "hostilites".

It also defines "enemy belligerents" on page 9, line 11 and it includes Americans. Its an American bill that includes Americans in it. That should be enough.

I'll be the first to admit the loophole exploited by Bush needs to be closed. This bill is probably in the wrong direction in my view. I don't agree with it, but your assessment is incorrect because none of the hyperbole you posted actually shows up in the text. You are simply implying it does.

You are being naive. The bill talks at length about interagency interrogation squads and from everything I've seen from those people in Abu Ghraib, Afhanistan, Guantanamo and the black sites, they're not there to play patty cake.

And don't forget about John Yoo. I'm not trying to use hyperbole here. Its already been done.

[TheJoker]

As well you should.

I believe the count on things we agree on is now up to two... cheers

It says they can hold you indefinitely for the duration of the "hostilites".

Which is as long as the "war on terror" (which is a misnomer since fighting an ideology with weapons appears cyclical) perpetuates. If Obama will scale back the wars over his 4 years that will be a large step away from what you fear this bill will enforce.

It also defines "enemy belligerents" on page 9, line 11 and it includes Americans. Its an American bill that includes Americans in it. That should be enough.

As well it should. American citizens should be equally punishable to terrorist acts defined by the laws your elected officials put into place as any foreign "terrorist". Including Americans does not target or imply that Americans are the target the individuals who commit terrorist acts under American law.

You are being naive. The bill talks at length about interagency interrogation squads and from everything I've seen from those people in Abu Ghraib, Afhanistan, Guantanamo and the black sites, they're not there to play patty cake.

It talks about who would oversee the interrogation as well as the body which would govern the interrogation. It does not speak of techniques to be used or tactics employed. That is where your hyperbolic statements begin to stray from the text of the bill.

And don't forget about John Yoo. I'm not trying to use hyperbole here. Its already been done.

It has been done and I would hope that America has learned not to allow this kind of power to a corrupt government looking to exploit those tactics. Like I said, contact your congressman and kill the bill if you don't agree with it, but it's not advocating the rape of your family or use of battery acid in interrogation... That was my point.

[Glamour Puss]

Which is as long as the "war on terror" (which is a misnomer since fighting an ideology with weapons appears cyclical) perpetuates. If Obama will scale back the wars over his 4 years that will be a large step away from what you fear this bill will enforce.

If Obama had proven to be a man of peace, this observation would soothe me.

He's a warmonger like Bush. The Afghan escalation is proof enough. But the Iraq war is a raging mess still, only they've replaced the soldiers w/ private contractors.

Nice PR work, but its still a war. And w/ well paid blackwater mercs.

As well it should. American citizens should be equally punishable to terrorist acts defined by the laws your elected officials put into place as any foreign "terrorist". Including Americans does not target or imply that Americans are the target the individuals who commit terrorist acts under American law.

My point was that Americans are open season. Which we agree the bill makes them.

It talks about who would oversee the interrogation as well as the body which would govern the interrogation. It does not speak of techniques to be used or tactics employed. That is where your hyperbolic statements begin to stray from the text of the bill.

They are not hyperbolic if we use barely recent history. It is a matter of public record that the U.S has tortured people. The problem w/ the bill omitting techniques or tactics is part of the problem. Its going off a standard that has already been set by the homeland security act and the patriot act, and probably the military commissions act.

Those acts left torture as very nebulous, aside from changing the semantics. So to assume that these tactics won't be used simply because they are not implicitly mentioned in the bill is an egregious oversight.

They have been used before, and will be used again. Especially given the climate for war in society today.

It has been done and I would hope that America has learned not to allow this kind of power to a corrupt government looking to exploit those tactics. Like I said, contact your congressman and kill the bill if you don't agree with it, but it's not advocating the rape of your family or use of battery acid in interrogation... That was my point.

So we agree its a crap bill, you just object to my presentation.


Got it!

[squealpiggy]

If Obama had proven to be a man of peace, this observation would soothe me.

Brokering the biggest reduction in nuclear arms stockpiles in 20 years? Standing up to Israel on settlement building?