4409 -- McCain admits Americans are the Enemy Belligerents
Written by Forty Four O Nine Subject: Videos by 4409In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of United States citizens to seek writs of habeas corpus even when declared enemy combatants. Now I see why they changed the term to enemy belligerents.
Overall, this bill seeks to create a new category of prisoner / detainee called the “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent” and this bill specifically states that it can include American citizens. The bill’s main points revolve around the creation of an inter-agency Executive Branch “Interrogation Team” whose criteria for selection is up to the President. Furthermore, the “interrogation team” can be anyone who has an intelligence, law enforcement or military background and is based upon what type of information they want to learn from the detainee.
This means the NSA, CIA, FBI, Military, DEA or even city and state police officers may be a part of the team. This also allows for private contractors to be included on the interrogation team as the bill does not stipulate that the interrogators must be sworn officers or soldiers.
FOR MORE INFO ABOUT THE BILL CLICK THE LINK BELOW
http://www.truthistreason.net/s-3081-enemy-belligerent-interrogation-a-sick-merry-go-round
The bill does NOT mention the word “combatant” as McCain stated. This is very telling because I think by law an American citizen cannot be a combatant so they are going to use the term belligerent in place of combatant.
1 Comments in Response to 4409 -- McCain admits Americans are the Enemy Belligerents
Here's why:
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person."
--
United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 540 (District Court, M.D. PA. 1947)
"The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection.