# Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 (Introduced in Senate) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 6, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149 "2010-04-06T15:39:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/1 "2010-04-06T15:39:40Z")
Has this been discussed? Anybody seen this? [This act](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s3081.is:), introduced on March 4, by McCain, Lieberman, Inhofe, Brown, Wicker, Chambliss, Lemieux, Sessions, and Vitter, includes the following provision. I find this extremely disturbing, even if it has little chance of passing. > [@](#): > > 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. > > ``` Bolding mine. WTF is McCain thinking? He was a POW who was held without trial and tortured, for Pete’s sake! So, reactions? Why draft this piece of garbage? How much chance does it have of passing? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/2 "2010-04-06T15:41:06Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > WTF is McCain thinking? He was a POW who was held without trial and tortured, for Pete’s sake! That was then. Now, he’s running for reelection. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/3 "2010-04-06T16:12:59Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Has this been discussed? Anybody seen this? [This act](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s3081.is:), introduced on March 4, by McCain, Lieberman, Inhofe, Brown, Wicker, Chambliss, Lemieux, Sessions, and Vitter, includes the following provision. I find this extremely disturbing, even if it has little chance of passing. > > Bolding mine. > > WTF is McCain thinking? He was a POW who was held without trial and tortured, for Pete’s sake! > > So, reactions? Why draft this piece of garbage? How much chance does it have of passing? It is still the U.S.'s current practice and generally in accordance with Geneva. McCain was a POW and this is for people who are not POWs in the legal sense. Also, it is commonpractice to hold POW for the duration of the conflict and since being captured in the battlefield is a crime per se there are no criminal charges. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/4 "2010-04-06T16:16:18Z")
While I’m sure McCain didn’t love being held as a POW, I’m also sure he understood the basic legality of the act. During war, if you capture enemy combatants, you are allowed to hold them as prisoners of war. Undoubtedly he objected to the torture, but I’m having trouble finding the section of this bill that authorizes torture, and thus should presumably arouse McCain’s ire. Where is it? ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/5 "2010-04-06T16:19:24Z")
But what if Obama says that Senator McCain is “unprivileged enemy belligerent?” I think he might want a chance to tell someone that a terrible mistake had been made and he’s really innocent instead of being held without trial for the duration of the hostilities. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/6 "2010-04-06T16:48:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > While I’m sure McCain didn’t love being held as a POW, I’m also sure he understood the basic legality of the act. During war, if you capture enemy combatants, you are allowed to hold them as prisoners of war. > > Undoubtedly he objected to the torture, but I’m having trouble finding the section of this bill that authorizes torture, and thus should presumably arouse McCain’s ire. > > Where is it? So you support this? It gives the government the explicit right to “disappear” a US citizen and hold that person for as long as the nebulously defined “War on Terror” lasts, and you’re OK with it? ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/7 "2010-04-06T16:51:09Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It is still the U.S.'s current practice and generally in accordance with Geneva. > McCain was a POW and this is for people who are not POWs in the legal sense. > Also, it is commonpractice to hold POW for the duration of the conflict and since being captured in the battlefield is a crime per se there are no criminal charges. This isn’t limited to people captured on the battlefield. Read the bill- they could do this to anyone, in principle. ETA: Check under “CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES”, section “e”: “Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.” That could be literally anything. It’s just a way to say “If we don’t want to, we don’t have to charge this person with a crime or let them go, no matter what.” ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/8 "2010-04-06T17:24:47Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > So you support this? It gives the government the explicit right to “disappear” a US citizen and hold that person for as long as the nebulously defined “War on Terror” lasts, and you’re OK with it? The biggest problem comes in the second half of the sentence, not the first. Congress wants to treat things like a war, but doesn’t have the balls to actually declare war. And making things last as long as the “War on Terror” is scary. Especially given their penchant for including anyone they don’t like into the bumper group of terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/9 "2010-04-06T17:35:06Z")
This does seem to short-circuit ‘due process’. If this had been suggested while Cheney was still in power, then I would be outraged, but since our current administration is righteous and trustworthy, I don’t worry that it will be misused. And, of course, the bill does have a limited duration, right? That is, if someone besides Mr. Obama becomes supreme leader then the bill will become null and void… right? \ ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/10 "2010-04-06T17:43:31Z")
Looks like a shot across the bows of the Dems, daring them to publicly be “soft on terror” during an election year. And considering that it’s worked before, well. . . ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/11 "2010-04-06T17:46:54Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > This does seem to short-circuit ‘due process’. > If this had been suggested while Cheney was still in power, then I would be outraged, but since our current administration is righteous and trustworthy, I don’t worry that it will be misused. > > And, of course, the bill does have a limited duration, right? That is, if someone besides Mr. Obama becomes supreme leader then the bill will become null and void… right? > > \ Frankly, I’d love to see it get to President Obama’s desk, and have its veto sustained. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/12 "2010-04-06T17:49:50Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > So you support this? It gives the government the explicit right to “disappear” a US citizen and hold that person for as long as the nebulously defined “War on Terror” lasts, and you’re OK with it? No, I don’t support this. But I also don’t support inane parallels such as “McCain was a POW that was tortured, therefore he shouldn’t support this.” This bill doesn’t pertain to either POWs or torture, so of what relevance is MCain’s past status as a tortured POW? ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/13 "2010-04-06T18:00:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I don’t support this. > > But I also don’t support inane parallels such as “McCain was a POW that was tortured, therefore he shouldn’t support this.” > > This bill doesn’t pertain to either POWs or torture, so of what relevance is MCain’s past status as a tortured POW? I’m not sure about the exact legal definition of “POW”, since I am not a lawyer, but you don’t think anyone subjected to the treatment described in this proposed legislation could be reasonably described as a “prisoner of war”, since the Act describes the conditions under which an individual can be take prisoner and held during a war? As for torture, yes, stress positions are torture. Not that the legislation addresses that, but the conditions under which an “enemy belligerent” is held by US forces is quite likely to involve stress positions. ---
**Author:** ![kenner116](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecb155/32.png) [@kenner116](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenner116)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/14 "2010-04-06T18:01:20Z")
If this bill passes over a presidential veto, Obama should indefinitely detain all members of Congress who voted for it. I wonder how long that law would last. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/15 "2010-04-06T18:16:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I don’t support this. > > But I also don’t support inane parallels such as “McCain was a POW that was tortured, therefore he shouldn’t support this.” > > This bill doesn’t pertain to either POWs or torture, so of what relevance is MCain’s past status as a tortured POW? The relevance might be that a person who had his human rights violated in the past should be a little more sensitive about denying other (related) human rights to other people. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/16 "2010-04-06T18:35:01Z")
> [@kenner116](#): > > If this bill passes over a presidential veto, Obama should indefinitely detain all members of Congress who voted for it. I wonder how long that law would last. He most probably couldn’t do that. Art I, Sec. 6. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/17 "2010-04-06T18:37:39Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > How much chance does it have of passing? I would guess extremely little chance. For one, the US won’t hold US citizens without trial/charge. If they were reluctant to do it previously, I can’t see how this would pass now. Second, this proposal has no judicial oversight. The act that has a much more realistic chance of passing is the one proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham. I don’t think the act has been released, but here is an [article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032203441.html) discussing it. From what I’ve heard, it has much more judicial oversight (McCain’s had zip) which is good. Of course, if you’re still in a prosecute or release mind frame, you won’t like it. Something needs to be in place for future treatment of non-POW terrorists. Or Obama needs to clearly state we will treat all terrorists as criminals, but I personally do not think he is going that route. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/18 "2010-04-06T18:39:06Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > The relevance might be that a person who had his human rights violated in the past should be a little more sensitive about denying other (related) human rights to other people. That’s unlikely to be the meaning intended by the OP: > [@](#): > > WTF is McCain thinking? He was a POW who was held without trial and tortured, for Pete’s sake! This line seems to suggest that holding a POW without trial is wrong, somehow. Yet it’s not at all wrong; it’s exactly what is contemplated as the fate of a POW during the time hostilities are in force. Right? There’s something, though to your contention about torture, but if that were the intent of the OP, surely he would have said something like: “WTF is McCain thinking? He was a POW who tortured, and now he’s willing to let other be tortured?!? For Pete’s sake!” That line emphasizes the torture, and presents a very different complaint than the one actually tendered by the OP, who appears to be objecting to the entire practice of prisoners of war. ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/19 "2010-04-06T18:42:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s unlikely to be the meaning intended by the OP: > > This line seems to suggest that holding a POW without trial is wrong, somehow. Yet it’s not at all wrong; it’s exactly what is contemplated as the fate of a POW during the time hostilities are in force. Right? > > There’s something, though to your contention about torture, but if that were the intent of the OP, surely he would have said something like: “WTF is McCain thinking? He was a POW who tortured, and now he’s willing to let other be tortured?!? For Pete’s sake!” > > That line emphasizes the torture, and presents a very different complaint than the one actually tendered by the OP, who appears to be objecting to the entire practice of prisoners of war. Actually, that was precisely the meaning intended by the OP. If I was unclear, I apologize, but I strongly suspect that you are intentionally misunderstanding, since you’re the only one who seemingly has had trouble parsing the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149/20 "2010-04-06T18:44:25Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > The relevance might be that a person who had his human rights violated in the past should be a little more sensitive about denying other (related) human rights to other people. You’d think, but in practice how often does this actually happen? A thorough lack of support for gay rights among blacks is but one recent example. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enemy-belligerent-interrogation-detention-and-prosecution-act-of-2010-introduced-in-senate/535149.md?page=2)