Senators Demand the Military Lock Up of American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window
There has been a great dealof debate as to whether section 1031 and 1032 actually include / exclude American citizens from this trap.
Pay VERY close attention to this next paragraph...
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
A belligerent act? What the fuck does that mean? Must be important, as it supercedes the whole American Citizen provision.
What does Wikipedia say, I wonder?
A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Belligerent comes from Latin, literally meaning "to wage war". Unlike the colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive, its formal use does not necessarily imply that the belligerent country is an aggressor.
In times of war, belligerent countries can be contrasted with neutral countries and non-belligerents. However, the application of the laws of war to neutral countries and the responsibilities of belligerents are not affected by any distinction between neutral countries, neutral powers or non-belligerents. A non-belligerent may nevertheless risk being considered a belligerent if it aids or supports a belligerent in a way proscribed by neutral countries.
An interesting use of the term arose during the American Civil War, when the Confederate States of America, though not recognized as a sovereign state, was recognized as a belligerent power, and thus Confederate warships were given the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports.[1][2][3]
[edit] BelligerencyBelligerency is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war. Wars are often fought with one or both parties to a conflict invoking the right to self defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter,[4] (as did the United Kingdom in 1982 before the start of the Falklands War[5]) or under the auspices of a United Nations Security Council resolution (such as the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 which gave legal authorization for the Gulf War).
A state of belligerency may also exist between one or more sovereign states on one side, and rebel forces, if such rebel forces are recognised as belligerents. If there is a rebellion against a constituted authority (for example an authority recognised as such by the United Nations) and those taking part in the rebellion are not recognised as belligerents then the rebellion is an insurgency.[6]
This dovetails with the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 introduced by McCain in 2010.
It hasn't been passed, but it is rather telling. There should be no question as to their intention here.
They have already demostrated what they will do to "militants" (=belligerents=extremeists). American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are targeted by secret counsel, by the govs own admission... this is just an official smokescreen, in my opinion. They are going to do what they have always done, they are just looking to gain an aire of legitimacy in the eyes of the American people in order to preserve the illusion of law.
They are getting sloppy, making too many mistakes. Being too obvious and joygasmic in their Draconian orgy.
Posts
