S.3081 - Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010

A bill to provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for other purposes. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill to provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 44 total comments.

fatamericanbastard 03/09/2011 12:56pm
in reply to fatamericanbastard Mar 09, 2011 12:55pm

Seriously if you read in the synopsis of the bill it says, "Allows the detention and interrogation of such individuals for a reasonable time after capture or coming into custody. Defines “unprivileged enemy belligerent” as an individual who:
(1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
(2) has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(3) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture."

At least if this bill passes we will have reigned in some of the broad reaching power that the Patriot Act has. I know it sucks but I have only spoke the truth.

fatamericanbastard 03/09/2011 12:55pm

In case people forgot, the Patriot Act is still in effect. All this bill does is set LIMITS and DEFINITIONS that were omitted from the Patriot Act. Like it or not but any cop or government official that decides that joe schmoe might be a threat to “The Homeland” can have said joe schmoe pulled from public and placed in military custody, interrogated, and held indefinitely no matter what his background or personal beliefs happen to be, period.Please re-read both this bill and the Patriot Act and then re-think if you oppose this bill.

x083 10/04/2010 6:27am

This bill is fascist, communist, and completely 100% unamerican. John McCain is a traitor to the american people, for even having the gall to introduce this legislation.

lovepirate 05/28/2010 2:18pm
How could McCain even CONSIDER such legislation, let alone co-author/sponsor and put his name on it after having spent ALL that time at the “Hanoi Hilton” being tortured as a P.O.W.?? And, after the Nazi holocaust of World War II, how can ANY JEW, especially U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman co-sponsor such an egregious violation of the most basic of constitutionally protected human rights? I DON’T GET IT?!! Where’s the fucking useless “mainstream media” on this, and WHY AREN’T THEY SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER along with the patriotic people that have posted to this page?? I’m just wondering what kind of “false flag”, CIA cooked up ‘terrorist act’ they have cooked up for us this summer. Or should I say Zbigniew Brzezinski has cooked up(‘cause he ’runs’ BHO for the CFR/Tri-Laterals/Bilderbergers/Illuminati)? Whatever it is, WE KNOW IT’LL BE PHONY. As phony as Al Gore and his ‘glo-ball’ warming horse shit, and that canceled CBS series, “Jericho”.

Or was that a ‘documentary’??

steveandbrit 05/16/2010 3:42pm

To quote the Great PZ on this issue:
“If this bill passes, may I suggest that, since it does undermine the rule of law and does great damage to the republic, that the first persons charged under its provisions be the despicable McCain and Lieberman? Won’t they be surprised!

Of course, since we do respect the rule of law, I suggest that everyone write to their congresspeople and tell them that you oppose this bill."

I wholeheartedly agree!

Ruteekatreya 05/16/2010 9:14am

I thought the republicans were supposed to be against President Obama having unlimited powers.

And Terrorists are civilian saboteurs according to the Geneva Convention. That actually gives them even more rights then PoWs.

It’s not like any of this stuff is new.

jslsingleton 05/14/2010 5:57pm

That such a bill, even one so terribly misguided and blatantly against our Constitution as this travesty of law, could be introduced is no great surprise: we have been given no promise of greater immunity from fools and would-be tyrants than any earlier decade or generation.

That the sponsor and co-sponsor are, respectively, the narrow losers of previous races for the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency should merely make us happy that neither of these two men attained positions of command in such desperate times.

pointus 05/13/2010 10:02am

Glenn Greenwald has a great article talking about the government’s trend toward stripping us of (what remains of) our Constitutional rights: http://bit.ly/9KpW0r

dockilldare 05/08/2010 6:18am

i guess i just misunderstood that whole first amendment thing and our god given right to free speech and the ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. if we take a look at that pesky bill of rights thingy lets see what it says:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

personally i prefer the ideals of some other American statesmen.

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” James Madison

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Patrick Henry

“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Thomas Jefferson

any questions

WalterBrownJr 04/25/2010 2:23am
in reply to InspectorRikati Mar 19, 2010 2:02pm

Here’s what the United States Constitution says about treaties:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Which already provides for all of the provisions in the bill. The bill is just to clarify how the procedures work for our uneducated current administration.

We are signatories to the Geneva Convention:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

WalterBrownJr 04/25/2010 2:19am
in reply to Pete6176 Apr 22, 2010 2:07pm

Not really. To be a traitor you would have to betray a trust. The United States is already under Geneva Convention’s provisions for enemy combatant treatment, which specifies the same treatment that the bill specifies. Dont like it, that’s OK. The answer is to petition your congressmen to remove the United States as a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

WalterBrownJr 04/25/2010 2:16am

The United States is a signatory to the Genveva Convention, treaties are considered the law of the land, per the united states constitution. All of these provisions have been established already in the Geneva Convention. The bill is a response to the bungled handling of the 2009 Christmas Day bomber’ attack. In general it ensures that we treat people that commit acts of war against us as combatants and interrogate them.

ontoiran 04/22/2010 5:07pm

Whoever goes along with this is a TRAITOR to his or her oath and to this COUNTRY and it’s people and should be dealt with accordingly

Pete6176 04/22/2010 2:07pm

There is no way that a bunch of criminals hiding in caves half a world away could take on the United States and most of the “free” world in open combat. In order to fight a war on so many continents and with so many fronts you would have to have a major State sponsor! Can you Imagine the resupply logistical nightmare that these terrorists would have in order to field an army and fight a war like the one in Afghanistan? How could they hide the flow of money, food, medical supplies and munitions? This is not a war on terror, it is a war on freedom! The great war hero John McCain becomes the Benedict Arnold of our time. This Bill shows how much they fear the people as they plot against our Constitution and our balances of power, whose final resting place is with the collective indignation of the citizens.

d3hartm2 04/05/2010 12:24pm

While I do fear that the political climate in D.C. could very well lead to the passage of this bill, I am not disheartened. The reaction I have heard to this proposed bill is so universally negative, from all sides of the political spectrum, that I simply don’t believe Americans would tolerate it. I hope that everyone will join me in saying that ANYONE who votes in favor of this should not be reelected, whenever their term is up. It wouldn’t matter to me how much I generally agreed with the politician in question – this issue would trump all.

firbolg 03/27/2010 8:09am

“They Thought They Were Free” by Milton Mayer was published in 1955. It is based on interviews with “ordinary” Germans who experienced the growth of National Socialism then lived through the war and the revelation of atrocities carried out in their name.
One interviewee said:- “What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people. What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information that the people could not understand, or so dangerous that it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with (their leader), their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried.”
It could never happen here, right?

Byron67 03/20/2010 8:27am

This bill is showing quite a bit of similarity to the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950(aka “Emergency Detention Act” of 1950). There is a reason why the ISA of 1950 was mostly repealed in 1971 by President Nixon. It is also reflective of some of the language in Executive order 9066 in 1941…Let’s not make those same mistakes again.

bmac6446 03/20/2010 3:58am

This disgusting bill is more worse than the Alien and Sedition Act that sunk John Adam’s presidency.

InspectorRikati 03/19/2010 2:02pm

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that while congress can pass any Bill it desires in the end the issue is if it is constitutionally permissible. The Supreme Court itself has previously held that the Magna Carta does apply and as such we must make clear to all representatives that unless a Bill is in compliance to constitutional provisions, and as such doesn’t include arbitrary detention, etc, the proposed legislation should be rejected.

Government will always seek to use excuses to broaden their powers and by this override civil and other political rights and any purported safeguards in a Bill will more then likely at a later stage be removed. Hence, lets not be deceived and not accept anything that is intended to oppress the freedom of any person. We all must trust the judicial system operating through the courts to act appropriately and not disregard the protections provided for in the constitution.

GowriJ 03/18/2010 8:05pm

Aside from the fact that the spirit of this bill is fundamentally unconstitutional, I have some questions (and I hope there’s a lawyer around who can answer it!)

First, where do terrorists fall in terms of the laws of war? Are they considered enemy combatants? Leading off of that, when McCain invokes a definition of non-UN Convention-protected ‘unprivileged’ enemy belligerents, isn’t he basically rewriting international law? Third, and unrelated to the legal questions, I’ve been hearing that this bill has the tacit support of the White House. Can anybody confirm/not confirm this last one to be true or not?

I just want to be clear: I find this bill abhorrent. I just have questions about how McCain and his co-conspirators are managing to pull it off.

nmeagent 03/18/2010 4:39pm

“I believe terrorists should have trials, but at a military tribunal.”

They would have to be alleged terrorists before the trial. That means that you believe that the mere allegation of terrorism or support of terrorism requires an alternate justice system without the guarantee of a jury trial, public proceedings, protection against self incrimination, full rights of appeal, etc.? Never mind that the defendant must be military unless a legal state of war exists, which most certainly does not.

“I am not in favor, however, of suspending Miranda rights. I believe that is more than a constitutional right. It’s a human right.”

All of the rights protected by the Constitution are natural (i.e. human) rights or closely related to natural rights. They are derived from our humanity and cannot be granted or taken away by any government.

nmeagent 03/18/2010 4:39pm
in reply to KyleAbbott Mar 17, 2010 3:18pm

I know you don’t support the bill, but some of your statements bother me.

“We should have the right to hold suspected terrorists as long as the threat of terror is real.”

The “threat of terror” has existed pretty much since the dawn of human civilization and is not going away any time soon. You’re basically saying here that you are fine with effectively permanent detention based on suspicion of terrorism. If you were suspected of terrorism, would you want the government to ignore your rights and force you to sit in some cell in Guantanamo until they decided to cut you a break or would you rather be guaranteed recognition of your natural right to due process? Your statement advocates the former.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

rwolf 03/17/2010 2:04pm

Are You Scheduled For Government Interrogation If Senate bill 3081 Is Passed?

Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. McCain’s bill has the potential of spawning domestic terrorism in the United States. Consider how Americans might respond should Government use this bill to take away their loved ones, family members and friends on mere suspicion. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

Jearayne 03/17/2010 3:49am

Benjamin Franklin:

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” It is only a matter of time before the 2nd amendment will come into play. Remember what Jefferson had to say on that:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

HeyPorkJesusIsHere 03/16/2010 12:15pm

S.3801 is treasonous and a serious act of betrayal of this nation and the constitution. The ninth and lowest circle of Hell is reserved for traitors. McCain and Leiberman and anyone who votes for this bill belong in prison.

nmeagent 03/15/2010 8:10pm
in reply to applemanmatt Mar 13, 2010 12:49pm

You can yell fire in a crowded theater, by the way, especially when there actually is a fire. You may of course be charged for manslaughter or some such if this causes trampling and death. You can also say the F bomb on television or the radio since the federal government has no constitutional authority to apply decency standards to the frequency spectrum. They’ve gotten away with doing so since the 30s, but as Alan Gura recently stated (though directed at State 2nd amendment infringement), “States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.”

nmeagent 03/15/2010 7:58pm
in reply to applemanmatt Mar 13, 2010 12:49pm

So you’re saying that you want the executive branch to have the power to designate you as either a terrorist, a supporter of terrorism, or a person of intelligence interest (presumeably in relation to terrorism) and then proceed to detain you indefinitely without due process or recognition of the rights “protected” by the Constitution, all in the name of doing “whatever it takes” to fight terrorism? It sounds to me like you’re supporting a different form of terrorism. I hope you enjoy the camps.

Pure and utter madness.

dankennedy73 03/14/2010 5:48pm
in reply to spender Mar 13, 2010 7:06am

I can assure you, having taken the same oath as a soldier first and then later as a sailor, that they do not take their oaths seriously

dankennedy73 03/14/2010 5:45pm
in reply to applemanmatt Mar 13, 2010 12:49pm

First of all, Read the Constitution, then the Bill of Rights, then read upon our founding fathers, get to know them and see what it was they intended. This is not something they would have approved of and I, as an informed Patriot and former service member, am saddened by such disgrace in our Congress and our Citizenry for allowing this total affront to true liberty!


Vote on This Bill

7% Users Support Bill

38 in favor / 530 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments