A Kindler, Gentler War on Terror
Democratic Congress to Revisit Detainee Rights
By Mark I Posted in Congress — Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The not-yet newly minted Democratic leadership in Congress, aided by some key moderate Republicans, is planning on revisiting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush in October. The bill was debated and passed last year in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Hamden v. Rumsfeld, which virtually rewrote the Geneva Conventions.
Democrats it seems, along with those key moderate Republicans, are concerned that the military commissions set up by the DTA will only try detainees that the president designates. Democrats want all detainees to get their day in court, literally. They are not satisfied that the DTA provided detainees with an appeal route through the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. And they are concerned about the impact the law will have on our service men and women, in the event they are captured.
Read on...
Senate Democrats plan to use their newfound power to revisit one of the most contentious national security matters of 2006: Deciding what legal rights must be protected for detainees held in the war on terrorism. […]
The proposed revisions to the terrorism detainee bill could surface in the new Congress early in the year, staffers say -- with new sympathetic ears in leadership and a slim Democratic majority in Congress.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who will take control of the Senate as majority leader next year, "would support attempts to revisit some of the most extreme elements of the bill," including language stripping detainees of habeas corpus rights, although no immediate action is planned, said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. […]
While the charge to revise the bill is expected to be led by the Senate, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also may want to take another look at it. Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said House Democrats "have a number of concerns about whether the bill is constitutional, and the impact that it will have on the treatment accorded our troops if they are captured in combat."
That’s right, Sen. Reid, judges will protect us. And you’re right too, Speaker-to-be Pelosi, if we just play nice, all the bad guys will leave us alone. Too bad the bad guys don’t care about your good intentions. Too bad that they will take all of your good intentions and turn them into new and exciting ways to kill Americans and prevent you from doing anything about it. Too bad we live in a world in which results are important, and the results of your good intentions would make it easier for terrorists to do harm to our nation, no matter how nice we are in advance.
Building on Pelosi's concern for America’s image in the eyes of terrorists, other Democrats have their own plans for revising the legislation. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) wants to bar coerced statements from the tribunals and limit the president’s ability to interpret the Geneva Conventions in the area of detainee treatment. These changes, says Dodd, would help ensure that American personnel are similarly treated by our enemies.
"I strongly believe that terrorists who seek to destroy America must be punished for any wrongs they commit against this country," Dodd told Bush in a November letter, urging the president to delay implementation of the bill.
"But in my view, in order to sustain America's moral authority and win a lasting victory against our enemies, such punishment must be meted out only in accordance with the rule of law," Dodd added.
In other words, it is more important to preserve America’s moral authority than it is to preserve America itself.
If Reid, Dodd, and Pelosi really believe that terrorists will give one second’s consideration to their concern for detainee “rights” when deciding what to do with an American captive, they are either willfully delusional or harboring nefarious intent. This is what terrorists do to our service men when they are captured.
The US military says Iraqi special forces backed by American advisers have captured an Al Qaeda cell leader believed to be behind the June kidnapping of two US soldiers who were found tortured and dead. […]
The mutilated and booby-trapped bodies of Pvt Menchaca, 23, and Pvt Tucker, 25, were found three days after the June 16 attack.
Now, Sen. Reid, what should we do with this captured terrorist? Should we grant him a lawyer? How about you Rep. Pelosi? Should this terrorist be provided with medical care? Sen. Dodd, should we read this terrorist his Miranda warnings and allow him to refuse to talk to us?
These are the real world consequences of your good intentions. American service personnel will be killed if captured. No questions asked. And the terrorists who kill them will laugh at you while they are doing it, secure in the knowledge that all the while, you are seeking so earnestly to get them to like you more.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Moonbattery and the House Intel Committee — Comments (8) »
A Kindler, Gentler War on Terror 49 Comments (0 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I can only wonder if there is a Magic Number, that number of Americans who have to die at the hands of the terrorists before the liberals finally wake up and realize we are at war and have to stop pretending.
I fear the Magic Number, if it exists at all, is very, very large.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
What should we do with people accused of being terrorists? As of May this year, 1/3rd of all Guantanamo Bay inmates were released without charges.
Is the accusation that someone may be a terrorist so compelling that as a nation we should abandon the Constitution for them? Should the accused have a right to defend themselves?
actaully protected by the Constitution I'd agree with you. However, it is the modern liberals who are trying to undo centuries of practice with respect to combatants, both legal and illegal.
The moves to grant Constitutional protections to these detainees actaully grants them different, arguably more/better, rights and protections than are available to normal prisoners of war.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
...people would at least know how people end up there; where they're coming from; and what the alternative is to a Gitmo stay for them.
How did you manage all of that? I really would like to know.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
But if we released a third of them without charges, does that not say that innocents have also been caught by mistake? No government is close to perfect, mistakes happen. But what do we do to try to ensure the number of mistakes is kept to a minimum?
It is not the terrorists I am worried about in Gitmo, it is the people who were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.
of the current process. Preliminary military hearings to determine the status of the detainees. Then for those not released trial and if appropriate execution. This can all proceed without granting the detainees rights under our Constitution.
And, by the way a third of them have been released and a fair percentage have been caught or killed on the battlelfield again --- and my money is that the rest of them are just biding their time.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
is what fillibusters and vetos are for.
Let the dhimmies rail and wail away on this.
It is a dead issue.
...What should we do with American citizens accused of being terrorists?
Gitmo detainees are not American citizens. Our Constitution is not their shield, and we owe them only what the Geneva POW rules require. Gitmo detainees are on "the accused". They are POW's.
they are terrorists, illegal combatants, and are not entitled to the protections afforded a POW.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
...we have currently decided to extend them Geneva Convention protections; they are not entitled to them in the same way that I (or any other American citizen) am, say, entitled to freedom of speech.
Subtle, yet important, difference.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
the fact that we have extended them this protection does not make them entitled to it. However, having done so now means that all future cases, US and others, will be guided by our misguided behavior.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
...and it seems that our rules for dealing with persons captured during a conflict are rapidly coming to resemble our tax code. I suspect that you, like me, have neither the time nor patience to waste on the quibblers showing the face of concern for thugs and murderers.
Oh, great. I could have gone all day without that image :-)
I just do not understand the concern for these murderers. But then again these are the same people that rally to object to the death penalty for cop killers so why am I surprised.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
...the Military Commissions Act allows the president to designate US citizens as enemy combatants with no recourse, or Constitutional protections.
Ignorance twice wins you a 750 word essay on the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Be sure to include a detailed discussion of what, precisely, is a "Combatant Status Review Tribunal" and how it applies to the matter at hand.
We'll turn your account back on once we get it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
If you claim to be the moral superiors of your enemy you better walk the walk instead of talk the talk.
and this is no doubt leading to the leftist inanity that we can't behave "badly" because that makes us no better than the enemy. This is sheer, utter nonsense. I offer WW II as more than adequate evidence that extreme behavior does not reduce you to the level of the enemy.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
There are some clear cut differences between now and WWII, and I won't dwell on most of them.
But the one I think matters most is that WWII had a precise definition of victory after which the President and the Federal government in general was bound to relinquish its extraordinary powers given to it for the sake of the war.
There is no such definition for the current war on terror. Hundred years from now there will still be people willing to use terror as a means to achieve a political goal or just plain kill people. There will still be religious fanatics willing to use terrorism. That is why many on both the right and the left are concerned about giving extra powers to the federal government which would technically extend for an indefinate amount of time.
Now, I am not a legal expert and I do not know whether the law passed in 2006 actually allows the President to detain US citizens indiscriminately. The law has been criticized as one that is legalizing the "Padilla Treatment". Because of the ambiguities in the definitions of an "enemy combatant", I believe that the law does indeed require scrutiny and further work to make sure that US citizens cannot and will NEVER be held illegally without due process, as well as allow a due process for foreign "suspects".
Is this the most safe way to proceed with fighting the war? Of course not. The safest way would be to record every single thing everyone of us and establish a central authority that can do ANYTHING without any considerations. There is no doubt that such a system would do a better job at protecting us from terrorists or even common crime. But I, my parents, and other relatives have lived in precisely such a society and trust me, it's not fun.
And not worry about due process. That certainly seems to be the way to go. We let people out of Gitmo and we recapture them later, fighting American forces. Why do we put our men at risk for such stupidity? Incidentally, American citizens can be shot on the battlefield without due process, so I can't say I have a problem with one hypothetically being captured on the battlefield and not being given due process either.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
but not all suspects are captured on the "battlefield". Many are captured due to faulty intelligence, and some suspects have even been turned in by others due to personal grievances.
I also have no problem with killing those who openly wage war on American troops so I guess we agree on that.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I also have no problem with killing those who openly wage war on American troops so I guess we agree on that.
Too bad CNN, the White House, and the Pentagon don't agree.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
So CNN, the White House and the Pentagon are NOT ok with US troops shooting those who are shooting at them? Maybe you're right, it's been a while since I've turned on the TV.
The troops have a much too high burden to meet before they can open fire on someone. They have to second guess their actions and guess at (and worry about) what some lawyer would think about their actions after the fact. Or they can pass the buck and wait until it stops getting passed around, after they are either dead or the bad guys get away. The bad guys know all this and use it to their advantage. That's the problem. Apparently this has gotten much worse in the last couple years as a result of some of the high-profile media extravaganzas.
They aren't the NYPD on patrol in Manhattan, they are the military trying to secure a country that is in the grip of an insurgency. They should be given wide latitude to take out any perceived threats. They are not given that latitude because the WH and Pentagon are afraid of the media, who will endlessly regurgitate any enemy propaganda about our killing of innocents.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
does this due process right for "foreign suspects" inhere? Give me the cite. Hint: "It's the right thing to do" won't do.
In Vino Veritas
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
And equally without question we walk the walk. Or did I miss a detainee being beheaded on TV?
Your comment and your tone are patently offensive. Be happy you're where you are and I'm not there.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I had planned to post on the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2006 last week. Unfortunately, the holidays intervened.
Even as the federal courts are reviewing Congress' move to strip them of authority to hear challenges to military detention of foreign nationals in the war on terrorism, Congress is likely to be considering whether to undo what it has just done. The two leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee are planning to move ahead with a bill to restore all of the habeas rights that detainees had before Congress adopted the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in October.
Two, and perhaps three, federal courts will be at work early in the new year trying to decipher the new Act's court-stripping provisions. Even if the D.C. Circuit Court has decided two packets of cases on the issue by that time, it could have before it a new appeal on the same question in the case of Salem Ahmed Hamdan. The Fourth Circuit Court will be holding a hea[ri]ng on Feb. 1 addressing the same question. Conceivably, the Supreme Court might be drawn into this new controversy soon, either in an appeal from the D.C. Circuit or perhaps a direct appeal in the Hamdan case.
It is unlikely that any of this judicial activity will be put on hold to see what Congress does with the proposal to restore habeas rights for the detainees. But Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is scheduled to become Judiciary Committee chairman, and Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylva[n]ia Republican who is due to leave the chairmanship, have announced plans to move ahead with th[ei]r new bill, S. 4081, titled "To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States." The text of the bill can be found here, and statements by the two senators when they jointly introduced the measure can be found here.
[emphasis added]
The relevant text of the bill:
SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (e).
(b) Title 10- Section 950j of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
`(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.'.SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.
The amendments made by this Act shall--
(1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
h/t scotusblog
Note to mbecker908: Arlen Specter is most assuredly "Off the Reservation," and IMHO, he has become border-line delusional.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Arlen Specter - Off the Reservation
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
How does one restore something that they never had?
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
It is a KnownFact™ the U.S. Constitution guarantees Habeas Corpus Rights to terrorists.
If you don't believe that, just ask Justice John Paul Stevens.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
its right in there in Amendment 9A with the Right Not To Be Offended.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
I saw some reports about his all too short time in Syria today, I'm planning on writing a blog on it tomorrow. And I think you're being kind with the "border line" comment.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I still respect the United States Senate as an institution, even though I often don't agree with the Senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
for term limits. Too much time in DC without holding a real job causes ego expansion. Specter has it to the point that he's sure that his opinion matters. Like Teddy Kennedy.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
You stated "These are the real world consequences of your good intentions. American service personnel will be killed if captured. No questions asked. And the terrorists who kill them will laugh at you while they are doing it, secure in the knowledge that all the while, you are seeking so earnestly to get them to like you more."
The terrorists are going to kill Americans no matter what. We can give up freedoms for security, and the terrorists will still come after us.
Our moral authority is one of the things that makes the United States a unique country in world history. We should remain true to that morality that we have crafted for over 200 years. We should expand our freedoms, not restrict them. If they hate us for our freedoms, don't give them up. Expand freedom and throw it in the face of every terrorist on earth.
Point out for me where I advocated restricting any American citizen's freedom. Or are you arguing that we should protect the rights of people who would see us dead right up until the point where they succeed?
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Let's see,
1. 5.56 mm steel jacket........... yep
2. 7.62 mm steel jacket........... yep
3. C4............................. yep
4. Access to attorney............. nope
5. habeas corpus.................. nope
6. internment until we get tired.. yep
7. shot on sight by military...... yep
8. access to world court.......... nope
9. 9 mm ball cartridge............ yep
For starters.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
who decides if someone is a terrorist that deserves to have their rights denied? I don't think anyone (I hope) gives a damn if a terrorist is killed on sight or imprisoned in a tiny cage in Gitmo for eternity. The key, however, is ensuring that these detainees get some kind of fair military tribunal that separates the terrorists from those who are not. Should they get access to US courts and US laws and attorneys? NO! Should there be a fair process to determine guilt or innocence? Yes.
...imprisoned in a tiny cage in Gitmo for eternity. Tell that to some of the House/Senate Democrats and their fellow travelers on the left.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
In fact, the DTA lays out a procedure that is more than fair. Terrorists do not get to wrap themselves in the protection of the very document whose freedoms they seek to stamp out.
Not in my world, anyway.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
anybody with a law degree, anybody who is now or has ever held elective office, or is now or ever has been a registered Democrat, I've got a real problem.
I do not care in the least if people who are swept up in what are combat zones are shot after questioning, kept in a cage forever, have a clue which way Mecca is or anything else about them.
Let the military sort it out with no oversight, I'm OK.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
You don't mind killing or imprisoning innocent people? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. We have to do our best to identify the guilty from the unlucky and we need civilian oversight into the process.
allowing the process to be politicized in any way. The more "civilian" oversight you have the more probability it will turn into the same CF [Marine term] that we've been suffering over Gitmo.
The US Senate would turn this into a daily media circus forever, caring nothing for justice or security, caring only for face time on TV.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I'm sort of beyond caring about guilt, innocence, or rights.
We need a process to determine their status simply because it is costly and inefficient to detain people who are truly non-combatants but that process, in my view, need have nothing to do with their guilt or innocence or fairness.
John McCain can put his name on this bill and finish off his candidacy once and for all.
McCain Feingold
McCain Lieberman
McCain Kennedy
Make it 4
Just imagine a McCain-Clinton Bill to revise the DTA
That would be poetic justice