photo Kai Mörk
Sean Sailor
March 14, 2010
March 4th, 2010, Senator John McCain, Senator Joseph Lieberman and eight other co-sponsors introduced Senate Bill 3081, the “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010″. The full of text of which can be located here.
As with most modern legislation, there will be various propaganda efforts and counter-efforts to define for the public a mental image of what the law actually does.
Meanwhile, the actual facts will be easily hidden.
This process has been perfected to a high science in American politics and makes true political discourse impossible for the citizens of this alleged “democracy”.
The game is easy. Almost all legislation is now written in hundreds of needless pages while at the same time- and this is key- endless references are made to subsections of subsections buried deep within US Code.
The voter is generally at the mercy of pundits selected by the corporate media to explain to them just what the law will or will not do.
This process has been exploited to the hilt in Washington.
I submit three glaring examples of this- 1) NAFTA 2) the Patriot Act and 3) the “bailout bill” of 2008.
I further submit that the majority of the people of this nation still to this day do not understand what these three laws actually do.
They have heard much debate pro and con by “experts” , both before and after the passage of these three and the majority still don’t know what to believe on the key points of them to this day.
The opponents of constitutional restraint upon government love to bellow glowing tributes to “democracy” to the masses of sheeple. They are the same ones pushing these labyrinthine (therefore, unreadable) laws on the American public.
And the reasons why they talk in such endearing terms about “democracy” can be found somewhere in the endless mazes of those laws.
A truly restrained government wouldn’t be able to bury codes within laws that abrogate the people’s rights.
The voter, the one that is alleged to be making the decisions in this “democratic process” isn’t privy to the information about that which they are supposed to be deciding. They have to rely on “interpretations”. They after all, have jobs to attend to and they are most likely not a lawyer. Even then, these bills are usually so complex only the authors know the true meaning of them.
For a further analysis of this process, I refer the reader to Orwell’s Animal Farm.
Each time the pigs would again be caught changing the “Rights of All Animals”, the sheep never knew who to believe about the changes that were made.
Like the sheep in Animal Farm, most people are unable to read these laws. They are too complicated.
The “pigs” say one thing and there are various animals that go along with the pigs on everything, such as the rat that knows he gets extra goodies only by helping the pigs with their lies. There may be a donkey that’s able to read, but he’s too cynical to think anything he could say would change anything.
And then there’s an old horse that is the one of the few dissenting voices that says “they are changing the rules and its bad for you”.
Just think of me as that old horse. They are changing the rules. And its bad for you.
However this legislation is, uncharacteristically, relatively uncomplicated. It is difficult for this researcher to fathom its purpose, even after a careful review. In that, as far as actually changing anything about existing law (as interpreted in the courts as of now) it does nothing and changes nothing.
It does however have a purpose, of course. That the purpose is not readily apparent is not unusual. An example of this is at the height of debate over the “bailout bill”, opponents were unable to define what the bill did that had not already been done for decades- without a “bailout bill”.
That’s right. There was nothing new, unusual or different about bailing out banks that the US gov had not already been doing for decades. Neither the amount nor the process or the reasons behind it were any different from countless bailouts performed, more or less silently, within the confines of unconstitutional bureaucracy in the US government. As was so well described by James Watt, Secretary of Interior under Ronald Reagan. In his memoirs he details how the process works and writes of how in 1982 he found out.
In amazement, I leaned back in my large leather chair, only two seats from the President of the United States. I realized nothing in the world could keep these high government officials from scrambling to protect and bail out a few and very large and sorely troubled banks.
Right. Remember, this is money that will never be repaid and everyone at the table is aware of this. There was nothing new about this type of bail out. It had been done dozens of times.
Then why all the debate in Congress? Why all the talk of “martial law in America if we vote no on this bill” ? Why not just do it silently, as they had for decades?
It took some time to discover. By the time most potential opponents had found out the answer to this conundrum, the bill had already passed.
Just as in Animal Farm, the sheep vote mostly based on emotional reasons.
Who sounds the best? Who is most likable, Al Gore or Ross Perot? Coke or Pepsi? Who keeps their cool best under pressure? Which danced best on “Ellen”?
There were indeed reasons behind the bailout bills, make no mistake. But I doubt fewer than one in ten Americans is aware of the actual purpose of that series of bills. Even most of those voting in Congress didn’t know or understand the purpose, especially early on. The purpose was buried deep in a series of subsections located within other, already existing law.
In the case of the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, it too has its purpose.
I have read the legislation, it provides for nothing new that is not already being done under the provisions of the Patriot Act.
I know the definition of ” Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent”. I am also aware that US citizens can be classified as such now. The provisions of 3081 are quite clear on this issue. That means you US citizen.
I also know the definition 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”
I know these things because I have followed the definition of “materially supporting hostilities” on through up to the United States Supreme Court.
Is the title of this article “McCain Lieberman Propose New Legislation: Indefinite Detention of Americans Without Trial” an accurate assessment of the bill?
In that it strips away the right of an American to a trial? Yes.
I thought that was one of our fundamental rights.
It gets worse.
Again, if you are only suspected of “material support” you can be detained indefinitely. The legislation gives the President authority to designate a special police force that will decide who is to be held “suspect” in this regard.
And further, “material support” is defined in the courts now as even including humanitarian aid, literature distribution and political advocacy, to any foreign entity that the government has designated as a “terrorist” group.
As people have found out after having been prosecuted under provisions of the Patriot Act for just such activities.
That right. For providing information. And I don’t mean information on how to build a bomb. Or even to commit an illegal act. As Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project so clearly illustrates. Humanitarian Law Project was found guilty of disseminating information on how to proceed through a legal process. And were found guilty of “material support” for doing so.
I can’t yet say what the purpose of this new legislation is or if it will pass. More additions may be waiting in the wings to be added at a later date before the final vote.
But I find it intriguing that it states so clearly what is already true of the Patriot Act’s provisions.
If you are even suspected of a crime under this law, the special police can make the determination that you can be held indefinitely without trial.
Further, that giving information that “supports” the “enemy” you are guilty. (as decided, not in a court of law, but by some faceless bureau worker “selected” by the President)
That’s right. I bet a lot of those that have a “patriot” radio show or website aren’t aware that they are often times breaking the provisions of the Patriot Act by broadcasting what could be considered as information “supporting” the “enemy”. Doing so could result in your indefinite detention under the Patriot Act.
Now McCain and Lieberman want to pass a law that puts another layer of “legality” on the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act. So that even if that act were allowed to sunset, its provisions would still exist.
I can’t say yet whether or not that is the full purpose of the bill, though it appears that way as of this writing.
What this horse is trying to tell you is that they are changing the rules again. And it’s not going to be good for you.
Sean Sailor March, 2010
