"A Detention Bill You Ought to Read More Carefully"

The title is in quotes because it is the title of the source article.

Why is the national security community treating the "Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010," introduced by Sens. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman on Thursday as a standard proposal, as a simple response to the administration's choices in the aftermath of the Christmas Day bombing attempt? A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the U.S. based on suspected activity.

The Atlantic has the bill in PDF form here, and here are a couple of snips:

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.

Further on (in case you thought McCain and Lieberman just forgot to exclude US citizens, native-born or naturalized):

SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

An individual, including a citizen of the United
States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent
under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article
5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal
charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities
against the United States or its coalition partners in which
the individual has engaged, or which the individual has
purposely and materially supported, consistent with the
law of war and any authorization for the use of military
force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

I know I'm not the only one who has a problem with this idea. Giving the feds any power is an automatic invitation for abuse, and never more so than now.

This has the imprimatur of the emotionally if not mentally unstable man the national GOP establishment wanted to be their nominee in '08. And they got him, with some help from crossover Democrats in 'blue' states and a few dirty tricks elsewhere courtesy of others.

So why is this happening? No telling what Lieberman's motives are-because he's Jewish and assumes anyone who's a terrorist hates Israel and/or is probably a Muslim? The reason that he became a pariah with the Democrats, I believe, is that he's pro-Israel and anti-islamonazi; even as an Independent he's otherwise a socialist.

As for McCain, someone who commented on Free Republic suggested that he's trying to juice up his tough-on-terrorism bona fides because he has a genuine conservative primary challenger in JD Hayworth; that it's a gesture he knows is going nowhere. Maybe. (The source of that FR post is here, by the way.) What I do know is that anything with McCain's name as lead sponsor or co-sponsor can't be good. Especially in combination with Lieberman, Feingold, or Kennedy.

It would take me far too long to go through what McCain (or McLame, as Mark Levin refers to him) did wrong once he secured the nomination in '08, but if he did one thing right, it was choosing Sarah Palin as his running-mate. I have a buddy in Anchorage, AK who would disagree with me on that, but she's at least a hundred times smarter than her counterpart in '08 was. We had Joe the Plumber, and then we had Joe the Dumber (Biden).

I like Gov. Palin, and I suspect that she's learned tremendously since August of '08. After all the smears she's endured since...in light of what I posted above, I find it regrettable that she endorsed and campaigned with McCain in his primary, but as Rush pointed out a while back, there was a debt to be paid; she wouldn't be where she is now but for McCain. Whether he wins or loses, the debt is cleared.

I do have to wonder if she would've reneged on that debt had she known about the Senate bill I highlighted above. I like to think so.

Seems to me that in '08 we had two Manchurian candidates, so to speak, and the worse but far brighter one prevailed.