For those curious, here's the text and the vote for the Military Commissions Act.Word comes down that tomorrow Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) are going to introduce a bill to radically reform the constitutionally-challenged system of terrorism detainee prosecutions. Known as the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act, the bill, according to Dodd, would reintroduce habeas corpus protections to Guantanamo Bay detainees; create an independent court review to military commission rulings; and bar information obtained through "coercion" (read: torture); among other provisions.
Whether Dodd and Menendez's legal fix will pass is unclear. It essentially reverses the Bush administration's favored Military Commissions Act of last year, which stripped habeas rights from terrorism detainees -- and passed the Senate with 65 votes.
The bill would almost certainly face a veto from the White House. But with civil liberties lawyers gearing up for a litany of legal challenges to the MCA's constitutionality, Dodd and Menendez might have an opening.
A few questions (and I'm channeling the trolls so that they don't have to do a "spit take" with their morning coffee):
- Doesn't Christopher Dodd and the rest of the Democrat Party see we're at war?
- Does they hate George Bush so much that they'll do anything to undermine him, even if it means helping the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11?
- Did Dodd and the Democrat Party forget the lessons 9/11?
- Why does Christopher Dodd and the Democrat Party hate America?
On the other, who cares? If it will restore the Constitution to something recognizable, then I'm all for it.
4 comments:
Well, let's check history here; have we ever offered habeus corpus to enemy combatants before? Anyone, anyone, Buehler?
No? Then why start now. Furthermore, we are not fighting another nation state so, when hostilities have ended, there is nobody with which to negotiate the release.
Finally, when they are released, why do you think they won't go back to a life of terror?
Once again, you libs keep thinking this is a law and order fight instead of a war using troops. By that logic, you sit back, wait till the bombs go off domestically, killing who-knows-how-may, then lock up thye perpetrators.
W chooses differently.
I just hope that you never get declared an enemy combatant, X. You seem awfully ready to just cede the fact that the guys being held are indeed guilty of something. I'm not arguing that they aren't, but nobody really knows.
Jose Padilla was the dirty bomber, but never charged. Now he's got the mental state of a piece of furniture. A fellow from Canada was thought to be guilty of something and got sent to Syria to be tortured. Turns out, he's guilty of nothing. How many of these guys are innocent? How many being unjustly held will end up being examples of U.S. hypocrisy that only helps to further fuel radicalism overseas? Talk about emboldening the enemy.
If Dubya wants to litter his speeches with terms like liberty and justice, then he should try figuring out what the hell they mean.
The thing is, X, as you say, we are not fighting a nation state. So there are considerable limits to what our troops can do. Yeah, Afghanistan, where the government was supporting the terrorists who attacked us. But Iraq? And where else will we able to send troops? Unless we stomp on sovereignty (and posse comitatus), we have to rely on either other countries or our own police forces to find and pursue terrorists. And why not? Terrorists are rarely so well armed that their capture would be beyond an average police force. More importantly, local police know the terrain on the ground, and can be alert for the presence of outsiders. Perhaps most important of all, local citizenry will talk to local police. The lack of another nation state to fight has always made this a law and order matter. For that reason, we need the support of our citizens, and the support of foreign governments (and their citizens), to root out these small, shadowy groups looking to terrorize us. Certainly if we stomp all over civil liberties, we will discourage our citizens from wishing to draw attention to themselves by volunteering help, even as we have likely lost a measure of support from foreign governments and populations with our actions in Iraq.
W chooses to ignore the Constitution.
Article I, Section 9:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
If that doesn't bother you, then there is no problem
Post a Comment