Thune-backed bill would gut constitutional rights

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Sam Kephart rapidcityjournal.com | Posted: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:00 am

Senate Bill 3081 - the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 - is proposed by Senator John McCain and co-sponsored by eight others, including his good friend, John Thune. It has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for review.

It's appalling that two patriotic men, one who spent five years as a North Vietnamese POW, and another with professed "heartland values" like John Thune, could promulgate such an intellectually dishonest, and blatantly unconstitutional law that shreds the fifth and sixth amendments.

S.3081 promises to streamline the identification, capture, interrogation, and detention of terrorists and others who represent a clear and present danger to the United States.

Further, an ever-increasing number of U. S. citizens at home and abroad wish us harm, so they are included, without distinction, in the bill's language.

However, S.3081 lacks clear definitions for the operational terms "material support,"

Under this law as currently written, any U. S. citizen who is a war protester, publicly exhibits anti-government sentiments, is a tea party activist, or political opponent of a given administration could fall under one or more of its ambiguous conditions.

If the feds believe you are committing a "suspicious activity" or "supporting hostilities," you can be hauled off and held indefinitely in military custody with neither legal recourse nor due process.

Your constitutional rights to free speech and personal liberties would disappear with the stroke of a hidden pen.

Nobly intended to counter growing terrorism, S.3081 offers no controls nor checks and balances to prevent it from being used for politically nefarious purposes.

The unintended consequences of S.3081 are eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's Discriminatory Decrees, enacted on February 28, 1933.

Assurances I received from a senior Thune staffer that S.3081 is well-intended and necessary don't cut it. Should S.3081 pass, no senator or court will have any say over its implementation.

It contains zero safeguards to prevent a paranoid and power-hungry president or his/her national security team, from using it to mete out threats or punishment to political enemies.


For national security purposes, Americans are already subject to warrantless wiretaps of calls and emails, the warrantless GPS "tagging" of their vehicles, the domestic use of Predators or other spy-in-the-sky drones, and the Department of Homeland Security's monitoring of all our behavior through "data fusion centers." (Google that, it's an eye-opener.)

Given this toxic loss of privacy, S.3081 is a slippery slope for civil rights and an horrific abrogation of the Constitution.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then S.3081 is a superhighway to an Orwellian panoptic gulag.

America's promise has always been the power of the many to rule, instead of the one.

S.3081 returns unilateral power to the one. It's ill-conceived, elitist, and end-runs our inherent Constitutional protections.

Founder and Framer Benjamin Franklin famously warned: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Or as I now like to say, "Those who fail to watch the pot will end up in it."

This article is written by Sam Kephart, CEO of Virtual Acumen, a creative media firm in Spearfish.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Our government no longer cares about following the Constitution. Those of us who do are called "righties" or "radical". In a way I guess that radical is a good term to use. Freedom and the idea that the People should control government is a radical notion in today's world.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
even tho this bill just went to committee..I think as good as Thune has been...he did not think it thru completely...just how wide open ended this bill could be used by a hostile WH as is in there now....this is a bill Obama would jump on to invoke his control further....
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
even tho this bill just went to committee..I think as good as Thune has been...he did not think it thru completely...just how wide open ended this bill could be used by a hostile WH as is in there now....this is a bill Obama would jump on to invoke his control further....


There will come a time, maybe in the VERY near future, that we WILL see "brown shirts" or the like on our streets. Obama is just another bum in a long line of bums who would LOVE that kind of power and will strive for it, push for it, until they get it.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
OMG ... get the guns Ethel, we are losing our rights.

We must defend our rights.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

DO you know how fast this bill will crash?

EVEN if it gets into the senate and voted on and passed, it has a zero chance in today's country to actually get through the house.

THEN it will be I M P O S S I B L E to get any president to sign it.

Let's not mention that before it is signed, there will a lot of court cases that will be filed and the bill will never last the first one.

This is not 1914, we don't have a pure white supremacists president in the WH, we don't need to worry about anarchists (which read history about US citizens becoming enemies of the country).

It's appalling that two patriotic men, one who spent five years as a North Vietnamese POW, and another with professed "heartland values" like John Thune, could promulgate such an intellectually dishonest, and blatantly unconstitutional law that shreds the fifth and sixth amendments.

It's appalling to consider these two patriotic, let alone try to tell me that the writer built their patriotism on their past. Patriotism is not something that lasts within a person, history has shown that and especially McCain, he has shown a wavering in what's left of his many times before.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It sounds like a very bad implementation of a good idea. Any terrorists, whether Islamist or otherwise, deserve any and every harsh reality they earn. I haven't read it so I can only comment on what's presented in the article. Based on that I'd say it needs clarification and additional definitions so it's limited to true terrorists.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
It sounds like a very bad implementation of a good idea. Any terrorists, whether Islamist or otherwise, deserve any and every harsh reality they earn. I haven't read it so I can only comment on what's presented in the article. Based on that I'd say it needs clarification and additional definitions so it's limited to true terrorists.

But.....who decides what a "true terrorist" is???
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Not really Leo, what it needs is nothing. There is an inherent problem with it, in its purpose solely based on the fact it includes US citizens and does not exclude the use of it on US soil.

The real problem that it should address isn't the need of interigation of non-citizens but rather how things are handled by the DoJ and possibly excluding them and the FBI (and any other agency that falls under their department). The DoJ has been Instrumental in messing with the trials of existing terrorists and even allowed one terrorist to be treated as a criminal.

This bill and a few others seems to want to actually gut more than our rights, they all seem to allow the Feds to define what a citizen is and is not even though we already have laws on the books that could effectively strip that away form a person - criminal due process is one way.

We as a country need to ask ourselves this, what is the risk if we just remain vigilante and watch opposed to actually acting to change things to lessen the need to be vigilant?

Our biggest enemy is not the terrorist by any means but it is ourselves and our inability to remain vigilant and not become complacent by focusing on the wrong things.
 
Last edited:

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The Obama Care bill is unconstitutional, it passed and was signed by THIS president. IF this bill somehow gets passed THIS president would sign it in a heartbeat. The current house crew would pass this too, Nancy must LOVE this bill. More power to her!!
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Here is the thing many of you are forgetting;

a bill is only unconstitutional when it is brought up to the courts. That is where it is judged based on the argument presented to the courts. If there is no case, then the bill can be construed as unconstitutional but not unconstitutional.

A lot of the civil rights bill is unconstitutional, based on the fact that the government has no right to be involved with a contract between two people - I can decide to sell my home to anyone I choose, this is a contract between two people. But under the law, I can not refuse to sell to a minority which trashes my rights. It is not regulated by the feds as in interstate commerce, it is not an issue where there is some federal jurisdiction over finances like the stock market or banking but a private agreement and a private transaction.

The other very important thing that you are missing is that this is not a democratic bill, it is a republican bill and the president, even this one has moved to ensure terror cases are subject to civilian court. IT is in all intent and purpose a bill to slam him for the order to have the civilian courts take over.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
It's appalling that two patriotic men, one who spent five years as a North Vietnamese POW, and another with professed "heartland values" like John Thune...
What's most appalling to me is that the author of the piece thinks John McCain is North Vietnamese.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
No, I didn't. McCain wasn't a North Vietnamese POW anymore than the Americans held in Japanese POW camps where Japanese POWs or the Americans held in German gulags were German POWs. They were American POWs, or during WWII were often called the more generic Allied POWs, regardless of where they were held or from which country they originated. The Iraqi, Afghani, and Pakistani, Al Qaeda POWs held at Guantanamo Bay aren't American POWs, either. McCain was an American POW held in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.

It's basic grammar.

It reminds me of baseball when people say "He's a good fastball hitter."

What they're trying to say is that he's good at hitting a fastball.

What they are actually saying is, he's a hitter who can hit a good fastball, because "good fastball" is the object, and "he's a hitter" is the subject of the object.

In Lake County, Illinois there is the Lake County Koreans Veterans Memorial. It consists of five, 18-foot tall limestone columns for each of the US Armed Forces, a central flagpole and monument wall with the names of the 101 soldiers from Lake County who gave the ultimate sacrifice, not one of which was Korean, even though the name of the memorial is explicitly named in memoriam of Koreans who were Veterans.

In Indiana, and you've all seen it, I-69 fr
om I-465 to Michigan State Line is the Koreans Veteran's Memorial Highway, which explicitly gives possession of the Memorial Highway to Veterans who were Koreans (plural, meaning both North and South Korean), and thus is a memorial to all those Korean veterans, rather than to the American Veterans of the Korean War. That one in particular drives me crazy every time I pass by the sign. The American Korean War veterans deserve more clarity.

On these types of signs and memorials, you can leave out "War" or "American" and it will be understood (just like the absent "You" in the complete sentence of a STOP sign), but you can't leave out both, as the entire meaning becomes something different.

But I digress....

Calling John McCain a North Vietnamese POW is describing John McCain as North Vietnamese, who was also by the way a prisoner of war.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
YOUVE GOT MAIL, drive me nuts. BUT. I am always being told that English is a LIVING language and Latin is dead. He go to 'ospital is gooder english in parts of england. Who cares? You really do KNOW what they mean. Don't you?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
YOUVE GOT MAIL, drive me nuts. BUT. I am always being told that English is a LIVING language and Latin is dead. He go to 'ospital is gooder english in parts of england. Who cares? You really do KNOW what they mean. Don't you?
Yeah, but calling John McCain something he isn't is just wrong. If you're going to call him a North Vietnamese POW, you might as well call him a North Vietnamese pilot because he was a pilot in North Vietnam, and while yer at it you can call him Jennifer Lopez, and you'd be just as correct on all counts. :D
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yeah, but calling John McCain something he isn't is just wrong. If you're going to call him a North Vietnamese POW, you might as well call him a North Vietnamese pilot because he was a pilot in North Vietnam, and while yer at it you can call him Jennifer Lopez, and you'd be just as correct on all counts. :D


I understand. John McCain was a U.S POW held by the the North Vietnamese (Russians) in North Vietnam after he was shot down. Just as my wife's uncle was a U.S. POW that was lucky enough to survive the Batan Death march. I get it.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The author also could have worded it as, he was a Vietnam War POW... or simply a Vietnam POW, with the "War" being understood... and would have been correct.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Our government no longer cares about following the Constitution. Those of us who do are called "righties" or "radical". In a way I guess that radical is a good term to use. Freedom and the idea that the People should control government is a radical notion in today's world.
Your buddies on the other side of the aisle are no better, LOS. One side wipes their backsides with some of the Bill of Rights, then the other side gets in and wipes with the others.
 
Top