Showing posts with label War on YOU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on YOU. Show all posts

Sunday, March 21, 2010

If you still think you are free... explain this

From Russia Today, "A new bill quietly introduced by congress last week (S.3081 "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act") is causing quite a stir among civil liberties groups. The brainchild of senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, the bill would give the United States government the power to indefinitely detain terror suspects without charge or trial. It would also allow the government to interrogate them for the intelligence value and it doesn't make a distinction between US citizens and non-citizens."
The bill "doesn't make a distinction between US citizens and non-citizens." It seems to me, if more "reports" are issued similar to the MIAC report, it isn't far fetched that you, me and anyone with similar beliefs could be "detained" (read arrested) for having never committed a crime or violated a law.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Vitamin D better than vaccines at preventing flu, report claims

March 15, 2010

Vitamin D better than vaccines at preventing flu, report claims

Vitamin D could cut the risk of flu infection in children by half, the report claims

(Richard Cannon/The Times)

Vitamin D could cut the risk of flu infection in children by half, the report claims

The risk of children suffering from flu can be halved if they take vitamin D, doctors in Japan have found. The finding has implications for flu epidemics since vitamin D, which is naturally produced by the human body when exposed to direct sunlight, has no significant side effects, costs little and can be several times more effective than anti-viral drugs or vaccine.

Only one in ten children, aged six to 15 years, taking the sunshine vitamin in a clinical trial came down with flu compared with one in five given a dummy tablet. Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the Japanese doctor who led the trial, told The Timesthat vitamin D was more effective than vaccines in preventing flu.

Vitamin D was found to be even more effective when the comparison left out children who were already given extra vitamin D by their parents, outside the trial. Taking the sunshine vitamin was then shown to reduce the risk of flu to a third of what it would otherwise be.

Altogether 354 children took part in the trial, which took place during the winter of 2008-09, before the swine flu epidemic. Vitamin D was found to protect against influenza A, which caused last year’s epidemic, but not against the less common influenza B. The trial, which was double blind, randomised, and fully controlled scientifically, was conducted by doctors and scientists from Jikei University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan.

The children were given a daily dose of 1200 IUs (international units) of vitamin D over a period of three months. In the first month children in the group taking the vitamin became ill just as often as those taking the dummy tablet. But by the second month, when the vitamin level in the children’s blood was higher, the advantage of the vitamin was clear.

The Japanese scientists, writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, say that the anti-viral drugs zanamivir and oseltamivir reduce risk of flu infection by 8 per cent in children who have been exposed to infection, compared with a 50 per cent or greater reduction with vitamin D.

Anti-virals are also too expensive, and possibly too toxic, to be given to the population as a whole whereas vitamin D has additional benefits. The sunshine vitamin not only prevents bone fractures but is also believed to reduce risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and other illness, including various bacterial as well as viral infections.

The Japanese finding supports a theory that low blood levels of the sunshine vitamin occurring in winter explain why flu epidemics generally peak between December and March.

Vitamin D activates the innate immune system, enabling the body to produce several proteins such as defensin and cathelicidin which trigger cell activity and disable viruses.

Dr Urashima said: “Vitamin D and vaccine work by quite different mechanisms. Vitamin D enhances innate immunity while vaccine enhances acquired immunity. So we do not have to select only one way of prevention, rather we should do both ways, I think.”

Dr John Oxford, professor of virology at Queen Mary School of Medicine, London, said: “This is a timely study. It will be noticed by scientists. It fits in with the seasonal pattern of flu. There is an increasing background of solid science that makes the vitamin D story credible. But this study needs to be replicated. If it is confirmed we might think of giving vitamin D at the same time as we vaccinate.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article7061778.ece

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

screen-shot-2010-03-10-at-33416-pmJosh Gerstein over at Politico sent Threat Level his piece underscoring once again President Barack Obama is not the civil-liberties knight in shining armor many were expecting.

Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades.

A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

The ACLU is suing California to block its voter-approved measure requiring saliva sampling of people picked up on felony charges. Authorities in the Golden State are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching” — when a genetic sample does not directly match another, authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.

Do you wonder whether DNA sampling is legal?

The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons, based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant.

Illustration: hibiotech/Flickr

See Also:



Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest#ixzz0iCDddDrT

Saturday, March 13, 2010

McCain and Lieberman's Nightmarish Detention Bill

McCain and Lieberman's Nightmarish Detention Bill

March 13, 2010 - by Donny Shaw

One of Congress’s most notoriously hawkish duos, Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]and Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT], recently introduced legislation in response to President Obama’s decision to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day airplane bomber, in a criminal court. Their proposal, which they are calling the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act, would empower the U.S. military to arrest anyone, U.S. citizen or otherwise, who is suspected of terrorist associations and detain them indefinitely, without right to a trial.

Here’s my analysis with links to specific sections of the actual bill text and a few excerpts of key sections. I invite your fact-checking.

Terrorist suspects would be given over to military custody for interrogation:

(a) Military Custody Requirement- Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States who is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war, or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities, and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

People would have to be given over to the military within a “reasonable time” (undefined) of their initial arrest. Miranda rights would be specifically waived, denying the detainee a right to a lawyer and a right to refuse to cooperate:

(3) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN STATEMENT AND RIGHTS- A individual who is suspected of being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not, during interrogation under this subsection, be provided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of any rights that the individual may or may not have to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Miranda v. Arizona.

Once in custody, suspects would be interrogated by a “high-value detainee interrogation group”to determine whether the person is, in fact, “an unprivileged enemy belligerent” according to any of thecriteria below:

(2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS HIGH-VALUEDETAINEES- The regulations required by this subsection shall include criteria for designating an individual as a high-value detainee based on the following:

(A) The potential threat the individual poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the United States or upon United States citizens or United States civilian facilities abroad at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

(B) The potential threat the individual poses to United States military personnel or United States military facilities at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

(C ) The potential intelligence value of the individual.

(D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.

(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

If there is any disagreement about a person’s unprivileged enemy belligerent according to the above criteria, the final determination goes to the President. Once determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, a person, regardless of citizenship status, can be detained indefinitely, without trial, until terrorist threats against the U.S are determined to be over:

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.

So far, the bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It currently has nine co-sponsors, including the newly-elected Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]. We’ll update on this blog if it gets a hearing or a mark-up in the committee.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Brain scan can read people's thoughts: researchers

Brain scan can read people's thoughts: researchers

Brain scan can read people's thoughts: researchersAFP/File – A hospital employee performs a magnetic resonance scan on a patient in 2009. A scan of brain activity …

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A scan of brain activity can effectively read a person's mind, researchers said Thursday.

British scientists from University College London found they could differentiate brain activity linked to different memories and thereby identify thought patterns by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

The evidence suggests researchers can tell which memory of a past event a person is recalling from the pattern of their brain activity alone.

"We've been able to look at brain activity for a specific episodic memory -- to look at actual memory traces," said senior author of the study, Eleanor Maguire.

"We found that our memories are definitely represented in the hippocampus. Now that we've seen where they are, we have an opportunity to understand how memories are stored and how they may change through time."

The results, reported in the March 11 online edition of Current Biology, follow an earlier discovery by the same team that they could tell where a person was standing within a virtual reality room in the same way.

The researchers say the new results move this line of research along because episodic memories -- recollections of everyday events -- are expected to be more complex, and thus more difficult to crack thanspatial memory.

In the study, Maguire and her colleagues Martin Chadwick, Demis Hassabis, and Nikolaus Weiskopf showed 10 people each three very short films before brain scanning. Each movie featured a different actress and a fairly similar everyday scenario.

The researchers scanned the participants' brains while the participants were asked to recall each of the films. The researchers then ran the imaging data through a computer algorithm designed to identify patterns in the brain activity associated with memories for each of the films.

Finally, they showed that those patterns could be identified to accurately predict which film a given person was thinking about when he or she was scanned.

The results imply that the traces of episodic memories are found in the brain, and are identifiable, even over many re-activations, the researchers said.

The results reinforce the findings of a 2008 US study that showed similar scans can determine what images people are seeing based on brain activity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100311/hl_afp/scienceresearchusbritainpsychology_20100311174114

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010: You are the terrorist now

A Detention Bill You Ought to Read More Carefully

MAR 5 2010, 3:40 PM ET

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. Read the bill here, and then read the summarized points after the jump.
According to the summary, the bill sets out a comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected enemy belligerents who are believed to have engaged in hostilities against the United States by requiring these individuals to be held in military custody, interrogated for their intelligence value and not provided with a Miranda warning.

(There is no distinction between U.S. persons--visa holders or citizens--and non-U.S. persons.)

It would require these "belligerents" to be coded as "high-value detainee[s]" to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team established by the president. (The H.I.G., of course, was established to bring a sophisticated interrogation capacity to the federal justice system.)

Any suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents considered a "high-value detainee" shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.

The bill asks the President to determine criteria for designating an individual as a "high-value detainee" if he/she: (1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate. The President must submit the regulations and guidance to the appropriate committees of Congress no later than 60 days after enactment.

To the extent possible, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.

The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination.

This is the Bill every line is evil:

111THCONGRESS

2DSESSION

S. ll

To provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who

commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limita-

tions on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for

other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

llllllllll

Mr. MCCAINintroduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on

llllllllll

A BILL

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

1

tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

2

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

3

This Act may be cited as the


‘‘Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010’’.

5

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)

2

ARM10090 S.L.C.

SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY

BELLIGERENTS IN MILITARY CUSTODY.

2

(a) MILITARYCUSTODYREQUIREMENT.—Whenever

3

within the United States, its territories, and possessions,

4

or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an

5

individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody

6

or under the effective control of the United States who

7

is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United

8

States or its coalition partners through an act of ter-

9

rorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war,

10

or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities,

11

and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the

12

individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes

13

of initial interrogation and determination of status in ac-

14

cordance with the provisions of this Act.

15

(b) REASONABLE DELAY FOR INTELLIGENCE AC-

16

TIVITIES.—An individual who may be an unprivileged

17

enemy belligerent and who is initially captured or other-

18

wise comes into the custody or under the effective control

19

of the United States by an intelligence agency of the

20

United States may be held, interrogated, or transported

21

by the intelligence agency and placed into military custody

22

for purposes of this Act if retained by the United States

23

within a reasonable time after the capture or coming into

24

the custody or effective control by the intelligence agency,

25

giving due consideration to operational needs and require-

26

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)

3

ARM10090 S.L.C.

ments to avoid compromise or disclosure of an intelligence

1

mission or intelligence sources or methods.

2


SEC. 3. INTERROGATION AND DETERMINATION OF STATUS

OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

5

(a) ESTABLISHMENTOFINTERROGATIONGROUPS.—

6

(1) ESTABLISHMENTAUTHORIZED.—The Presi-

7

dent is authorized to establish an interagency team

8

for purposes as follows:

9

(A) To interrogate under subsection (b) in-

10

dividuals placed in military custody under sec-

11

tion 2.

12

(B) To make under subsection (c)(1) a

13

preliminary determination of the status of indi-

14

viduals described in section 2.

15

(2) COMPOSITION.—Each interagency team

16

under this subsection shall be composed of such per-

17

sonnel of the Executive Branch having expertise in

18

matters relating to national security, terrorism, in-

19

telligence, interrogation, or law enforcement as the

20

President considers appropriate. The members of

21

any particular interagency team may vary depending

22

on the skills most relevant to a particular case.

23

(3) DESIGNATIONS.—

24

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)

4

ARM10090 S.L.C.

(A) HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE.An indi-

1

vidual placed in military custody under section

2

2 shall, while subject to interrogation and de-

3

termination of status under this section, be re-

4

ferred to as a ‘‘high-value detainee’’ if the indi-

5

vidual meets the criteria for treatment as such

6

established in the regulations required by sub-

7

section (d).

8

(B) HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGA-

9

TIONGROUP.—An interagency team established

10

under this subsection shall be known as a

11

‘‘high-value detainee interrogation group’’.

12

(b) INTERROGATIONS.—

13

(1) INTERROGATIONS TO BE CONDUCTED BY

14

HIGH-VALUEDETAINEEINTERROGATIONGROUP.—A

15

high-value detainee interrogation group established

16

under this section shall conduct the interrogations of

17

each high-value detainee.

18

(2) UTILIZATION OF OTHER PERSONNEL.—A

19

high-value detainee interrogation group may utilize

20

military and intelligence personnel, and Federal,

21

State, and local law enforcement personnel, in con-

22

ducting interrogations of a high-value detainee. The

23

utilization of such personnel for the interrogation of

24

a detainee shall not alter the responsibility of the in-

25

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)

5

ARM10090 S.L.C.

terrogation group for the coordination within the

1

Executive Branch of the interrogation of the de-

2

tainee or the determination of status and disposition

3

of the detainee under this Act.

4

(3) INAPPLICABILITYOFCERTAINSTATEMENT

5

AND RIGHTS.A individual who is suspected of

6

being an unprivileged enemy belligerent shall not,

7

during interrogation under this subsection, be pro-

8

vided the statement required by Miranda v. Arizona

9

(384 U.S. 436 (1966)) or otherwise be informed of

10

any rights that the individual may or may not have

11

to counsel or to remain silent consistent with Mi-

12

randa v. Arizona.

13

(c) DETERMINATIONSOFSTATUS.—

14

(1) PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION BY HIGH-

15

VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP.—The

16

high-value detainee interrogation group responsible

17

for interrogating a high-value detainee under sub-

18

section (b) shall make a preliminary determination

19

whether or not the detainee is an unprivileged enemy

20

belligerent. The interrogation group shall make such

21

determination based on the result of its interroga-

22

tion of the individual and on all intelligence informa-

23

tion available to the interrogation group. The inter-

24

rogation group shall, after consultation with the Di-

25

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)

6

ARM10090 S.L.C.

rector of National Intelligence, the Director of the

1

Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of

2

the Central Intelligence Agency, submit such deter-

3

mination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attor-

4

ney General.

5

(2) FINALDETERMINATION.—As soon as pos-

6

sible after receipt of a preliminary determination of

7

status with respect to a high-value detainee under

8

paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense and the At-

9

torney General shall jointly submit to the President

10

and to the appropriate committees of Congress a

11

final determination whether or not the detainee is an

12

unprivileged enemy belligerent for purposes of this

13

Act. In the event of a disagreement between the Sec-

14

retary of Defense and the Attorney General, the

15

President shall make the final determination.

16

(3) DEADLINEFORDETERMINATIONS.—All ac-

17

tions required regarding a high-value detainee under

18

this subsection shall, to the extent practicable, be

19

completed not later than 48 hours after the detainee

20

is placed in military custody under section 2.

21

(d) REGULATIONS.—

22

(1) INGENERAL.—The operations and activities

23

of high-value detainee interrogation groups under

24

this section shall be governed by such regulations

25

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)

7

ARM10090 S.L.C.

and guidance as the President shall establish for

1

purposes of implementing this section. The regula-

2

tions shall specify the officer or officers of the Exec-

3

utive Branch responsible for determining whether an

4

individual placed in military custody under section 2

5

meets the criteria for treatment as a high-value de-

6

tainee for purposes of interrogation and determina-

7

tion of status by a high-value interrogation group

8

under this section.

9

(2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATIONOF INDIVID-

10

UALSASHIGH-VALUEDETAINEES.—The regulations

11

required by this subsection shall include criteria for

12

designating an individual as a high-value detainee

13

based on the following:

14

(A) The potential threat the individual

15

poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facili-

16

ties within the United States or upon United

17

States citizens or United States civilian facili-

18

ties abroad at the time of capture or when com-

19

ing under the custody or control of the United

20

States.

21

(B) The potential threat the individual

22

poses to United States military personnel or

23

United States military facilities at the time of

8

ARM10090 S.L.C.

capture or when coming under the custody or

1

control of the United States.

2

(C) The potential intelligence value of the

3

individual.

4

(D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a ter-

5

rorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.

6

(E) Such other matters as the President

7

considers appropriate.

8

(3) PARAMOUNT PURPOSE OF INTERROGA-

9

TIONS.—The regulations required by this subsection

10

shall provide that the paramount purpose of the in-

11

terrogation of high-value detainees under this Act

12

shall be the protection of United States civilians and

13

United States civilian facilities through thorough

14

and professional interrogation for intelligence pur-

15

poses.

16

(4) SUBMITTALTOCONGRESS.—The President

17

shall submit the regulations and guidance required

18

by this subsection to the appropriate committees of

19

Congress not later than 60 days after the date of

20

the enactment of this Act.

21

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON PROSECUTION OF ALIEN

22

UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

23

(a) LIMITATION.—No funds appropriated or other-

24

wise made available to the Department of Justice may be

25

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)

9

ARM10090 S.L.C.

used to prosecute in an Article III court in the United

1

States, or in any territory or possession of the United

2

States, any alien who has been determined to be an

3

unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2).

4

(b) APPLICABILITY PENDING FINAL DETERMINA-

5

TIONOFSTATUS.—While a final determination on the sta-

6

tus of an alien high-value detainee is pending under sec-

7

tion 3(c)(2), the alien shall be treated as an unprivileged

8

enemy belligerent for purposes of subsection (a).

9

SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED

10 ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

11

An individual, including a citizen of the United

12

States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent

13

under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article

14

5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of

15

Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal

16

charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities

17

against the United States or its coalition partners in which

18

the individual has engaged, or which the individual has

19

purposely and materially supported, consistent with the

20

law of war and any authorization for the use of 9

ARM10090 S.L.C.

used to prosecute in an Article III court in the United

1

States, or in any territory or possession of the United

2

States, any alien who has been determined to be an

3

unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2).

4

(b) APPLICABILITY PENDING FINAL DETERMINA-

5

TIONOFSTATUS.—While a final determination on the sta-

6

tus of an alien high-value detainee is pending under sec-

7

tion 3(c)(2), the alien shall be treated as an unprivileged

8

enemy belligerent for purposes of subsection (a).


ARM10090 S.L.C.

(1) ACTOFTERRORISM.—The term ‘‘act of ter-

1

rorism’’ means an act of terrorism as that term is

2

defined in section 101(16) of the Homeland Security

3

Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(16)).

4

(2) ALIEN.—The term ‘‘alien’’ means an indi-

5

vidual who is not a citizen of the United States.

6

(3) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CON-

7

GRESS.—The term ‘‘appropriate committees of Con-

8

gress’’ means—

9

(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the

10

Committee on Homeland Security and Govern-

11

mental Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary,

12

and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the

13

Senate; and

14

(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the

15

Committee on Homeland Security, the Com-

16

mittee on the Judiciary, and the Permanent Se-

17

lect Committee on Intelligence of the House of

18

Representatives.

19

(4) ARTICLEIII COURT.—The term ‘‘Article III

20

court’’ means a court of the United States estab-

21

lished under Article III of the Constitution of the

22

United States.

23

(5) COALITIONPARTNER.—The term ‘‘coalition

24

partner’’, with respect to hostilities engaged in by

25

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)

11

ARM10090 S.L.C.

the United States, means any State or armed force

1

directly engaged along with the United States in

2

such hostilities or providing direct operational sup-

3

port to the United States in connection with such

4

hostilities.

5

(6) GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE

6

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.—The term

7

‘‘Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of

8

Prisoners of War’’ means the Geneva Convention

9

Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done

10

at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316).

11

(7) HOSTILITIES.—The term ‘‘hostilities’’

12

means any conflict subject to the laws of war, and

13

includes a deliberate attack upon civilians and civil-

14

ian targets protected by the laws of war.

15

(8) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term

16

‘‘privileged belligerent’’ means an individual belong-

17

ing to one of the eight categories enumerated in Ar-

18

ticle 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the

19

Treatment of Prisoners of War.

20

(9) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT.—

21

The term ‘‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’’ means an

22

individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—

23

(A) has engaged in hostilities against the

24

United States or its coalition partners;

25

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)

12

ARM10090 S.L.C.

(B) has purposely and materially sup-

1

ported hostilities against the United States or

2

its coalition partners; or

3

(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of

4

capture.

5

SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

6

This Act shall take effect on the date of the enact-

7

ment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to individ-

8

uals who are captured or otherwise come into the custody

9

or under the effective control of the United States on or

10

after that date.

11

March 4, 2010 (12:06 p.m.)