March 10, 2010 journal, no torture McCain and Lieberman father Enemy Belligerent and Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010. In other words a super torture bill. Loser John McCain has to do something really big to get reelected and win his seat again in the U.S. Senate. I am sure he may have help from his shadow senator Lindsay Graham. Quoting one of the most honest and capable writers I ever knew- Stephen Yates Ph.D. "Any remaining doubts that the current regime in D.C. headed by Mr. O and the Demo-cratic Congress, is different in its fundamentals from the old regime headed by G. W. B and Republicans, went down in flames last week. Last Thursday Senator John McCain Repub-Arizona & Joe Lieberman I-Conn introduced a bill entitled the Enemy Belligerent interrogation, Prosecution Act of 2010 EDIDP. This is the same John McCain that the Republican Party ran against Mr. O in 2008. If you thought some of the bills introduced and passed by Congress under Bush the younger were scary, then in the immortal words of Bachman & Turner, you ain't seen nothing yet. It has been increasingly clear that the federal government and the bankster class behind the scenes is very, very worried about the tea party movement (TPM). That doubtless includes worries that the insider's shame-less attempt to use the hapless Sarah Palin to hijack the movements will be thwarted at the grass-roots level. After all, while many of those involved in the TPM were politically naive at first, they are learning fast. Many now know the difference between a real conservative and a neocon. They have learned something of the history and rise of Globalism, & its relationship to the big banks. They have figured out that the Republican Party is not their friend. Those who hold the reins of money and power despise Ron Paul and his supporters who basically started this upsurge of public unrest. They detest libertarians and original intent constitutionalists. They enjoy ridiculing so-called Truthers (those who don't believe the official account of the 9/1/1 attacks) & other "conspiracy theories" because ridicule is the only ineffective weapon they have against ideas whose level of support among the general public has grown and grown and grown. The TPM is not simply harping about abortion & homosexuality any more-or, at least those members I have associated with recently are not. They talk about the Federal Reserve and the inter-national banking cartel; they are educating themselves about our money system, where money comes from; they have begun to see how the bankster's (A term I hear more & more) have been ripping off productive citizens with their fractional reserve system for almost a century now. What roused the TPM to action was not, as leftists would have it, "the election of the first black president", but at how the federal government-bipartisan support-bailed out the big Wall Street banks and surrounding corporations (e.g., AIG) with money it does not have, while mainstream businesses were closing, unemployment was soaring, savings account were being depleted, stock portfolios & 401ks were being decimated, foreclosures were reaching all-time highs, the newly homeless were moving into "tent cities", & evidence begins to mount that all the talk about "economic recovery" is just that: talk, surrounded by government numbers as cooked as boiled lobster. The EBIDP Act, as I'll call it, is the kind of response we can expect. The bill doesn't have a number yet. Last year, after all, we had the MIAC and Homeland Security smear jobs. Interestingly, the new bill speaks of "enemy belligerence" instead of "enemy combatants". This suggests, at least to my ears, that critics of Official Policy don't have to be engaging in or threatening violence. All they have to be is "belligerent" in their demands to be heard. This bill doesn't waste much time distinguishing between U.S. citizens & "aliens" for its purposes. First, who is an "enemy belligerent"? The bill tells us Section 6, para 9, "The term 'unprivileged enemy belligerent' means an individual ... who (a) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; (b) has surposely & mater-ially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (c) was a part of alkita) at the time of capture". Note the or in that sentence (Italics added) it is very important. That one word logically implies that an individual does not have to be a member of (alkita) to be swept up in this. Anyone who fits those other provisions, what ever they mean, could be detained under this act. The level of potential for abuse here depends on how far it is possible to stretch the meanings of words and phrases such as engaged in hostilities or purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States. We have had 3 violent attacks recently. One, of course, was the Christmas Day "underwear bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who cannot be given a military trial under this bill since it is not retroactive. The other 2, Andrew Joseph Stack who flew a private plane into a government building in Austin Texas and John Patrick Bedell who opened fire at a Pentagon entrance, were not members of any movements (despite desper-ate efforts by leftist to connect them with the TPM). Since such individuals usually end up dead at the scene, it is questionable that they are who the authors of this bill have in mind. A person may be, a high-value detainee "if he or she "meets the criteria for treatment as such established in the regulations required by subsection d". These regulations are: (a) the "potential threat" the person poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facilities. Questions: what do we mean, potential threat? How much potential threat is required? Does potential involve actions, or just speech within an assembly of dissenting voices which someone in government has interpreted as a threat? (B) The "potential threat" the person poses to U.S. military personnel or facilities. The same questions apply. (C) The "potential intelligence" value of the individual. See below. (D) "Membership in (al*kita) or in any terrorist group affiliated with them". (E) "Such other matters as the president considers appropriate". This last of course, could mean anyone any president wants it to mean, whether it is Oba-ma, or whoever sits in the Oval Office in the future. This makes the meaning high-value detainee completely open-ended! Moreover, according to this Act, individuals need only to be "suspected" of commission of "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners". Miranda Rights warnings become "inapplicable". Section 3, par. 3 tells us: "An individual who is suspected of being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not, during interrogation under this subsection, be provided the statement required by Miranda vs. Arizona 384 US 4361966 or otherwise be informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with the Miranda v Arizona (Italics added). How is that again? Any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent ... "? Does this not suggest that as far as the authors and signers of this legislation are concerned, those accused "suspects" do not really have any rights under our constitution? What this Bill does is selective repeal Miranda, intended to prevent police and other official abuse of the legal system of those accused of crimes. It works under the assumption that suspects are guilty until proven innocent-and leaves them with little means of proving their innocence if they cannot consult with legal counsel. So much for habeas corpus. Lastly, what are we to make of the reference to "remaining silent" in this context? Can a "suspect" be compelled to reveal his "potential intelligence value" against his or her will and without an attorney present, obviously if so, how? This bill no where explicitly repudiates "enhanced interrogation techniques", the Bush era euphemism for torture. It mentions the Geneva conventions 3 times, but we have already seen how much these now mean. Finally, "The president shall submit the regulations & guidance required by this subsection to appropriate committees of Congress no later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act". In other words, this bill can become law prior to the actual "regulations & guidance" being work-ed out and put into place. Again, those dotting the i's & crossing t's will have free reign. If this Act doesn't give you a sleepless night, nothing will. It goes well beyond previous bills that were passed or introduced during the bush II years. What are we seeing here in the potential for a wholesale assault on any descending group's once constitutionally protected freedoms in America, should O---a or a future chief executive decide that this group's experience of these freedoms does too much to challenge unbridled power. We should note that the problem is not that there is a specific plan in motion to deprive law abiding U.S. citizens from exercising free speech, assembly, and so on; bills such as this one open the door for such plans can be put in motion and be immune to legal challenge. Should peaceful, law-abiding U.S. citizens be swept up should this bill-or some possible worst future version signed by Ob-ma, be acted upon, used to justify a crackdown against their expressing an opinion? This should not be seen as a "liberal" verses "conservative" issue, or a "left" verses "right" issue. It is definitely not a democratic verses Republican Party issue. This is a freedom verses creeping totalitarian issue, and it would not matter which major party controls Congress or the White House. Carroll Quigley said it best back in the 1960's in his tome Tragedy and Hope: The History of the World in Our Time: "The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the 2 congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the 2 parties should represent opposed idea's and polities, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two-parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Either party in office becomes corrupt, tried, unenterprising & vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every 4 years if necessary by the other party, which will be done in those things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic polices". Today, I think we need some "profound, and extensive shifts in policy". Stephen Yates is a whole hearted truthful and honest non partisan philosopher & teacher who has survived in a newspaper predominantly Republican. His writings are based on facts and trustworthy. He teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina in the upstate & Greenville Technical College. He is on the board of the South Carolina chapter of Citizens Committee to stop the FTAA. "The views expressed in his columns are his own, and do not reflect official views of any of these institutions are organizations". His latest book World Views: Christian Theism verses Modern Materialism, was published last year by the Worldview Project". For more information call 864-288-0043. He is at work on a new book tentatively entitled The Real Matrix". His e-mail address is- FreeYourMindinSC@yahoo.com This may be what we can expect next as things get worse and more difficult to deal with. The depression is not over so long as jobs are being lost and homes are being foreclosed.