Gordon Smith: He was against torture, before he was for it.
On Thursday, the US Senate approved the Bush Administration's bill on the interrogation and torture of accused terrorism suspects. A statement from the ACLU provides a clear summary:
The bill gives the president license to weaken enforcement of the basic protections in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. As passed, the president would have new power to decide much of the scope of authorized conduct and the severity of punishment, giving him unparalleled power to unilaterally determine whether the government can carry out cruelty and abuse.Additionally, the bill undermines the American value of due process by permitting convictions based on evidence literally beaten out of a witness or obtained through other abuse by either our government or other countries. Government officials who authorized or ordered illegal acts of torture and abuse would receive retroactive immunity for many of these acts, providing a "get out of jail free" card that is backdated nine years.
One proposed amendment would have stripped the bill of its habeas corpus provisions. From the NY Times:
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, arguing for an amendment to strike a provision to bar suspects from challenging their detentions in court, said it “is as legally abusive of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and secret prisons were physically abusive of detainees.”
That amendment failed 51-49. Among the Senators who voted for the provision was Gordon Smith. But after that vote failed, he flipped his position - and voted for the overall bill, including the offensive portion.
As the New York Times helpfully pointed out, Gordon Smith's position didn't make much logical sense:
“We should have done it right, because we’re going to have to do it again,” said Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, who voted to strike the provision and yet supported the bill.
Democratic leaders understood the need to get the bill correct on the first go-round:
“We should get this right, now, and we are not doing so by passing this bill,” Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the minority leader, said before the vote. “Future generations will view passage of this bill as a grave error.”
Discuss.
Sept. 30, 2006
Posted in in the news 2006. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Sep 30, '06
What an astute political move. Smith may now claim he did not support the most draconian provision of the bill. My question would be whether he waited until he was certain the amendment would not garner enough support when he took his stand? This would of course be politics at it’s most manipulative. Lets assume he truly felt opposed to suspending habeas corpus but didn’t want to toss the baby with the bath water. So he supported the bill on balance. This is a dark moment in history in which he could have been heroic. Instead he compromised a momentous principle to join the flock when the leadership said “bunch”. That’s Smith. My frustration with his failure to show some spine is well expressed in the lyrics of a song by Jonatha Brooke: - “And it's hard not being a hero - And it's hard living in between - Here with the light on in the dark”
12:25 p.m.
Sep 30, '06
I will predict how these votes will be summed up in the Oregonian: Smith is a principled moderate!
12:42 p.m.
Sep 30, '06
The fact that the Oregonian gave the impression that Smith was opposed to the torture bill with their Friday editorial praising his (and Wyden's) vote for the amendment was disgusting. Anyone with half a brain knew that Smith wasn't about to break with the party and vote against the bill without the amendement. Before they praised him for his "principled stand," they should have asked him if he was going to vote for the bill even if the Specter amendment didn't pass. It didn't, and he did, which kind of makes a hash of those principles.
Sep 30, '06
Here's a flier for our-pro-life-pro-torture-pro-fascist-pro-dictatorship -pro-naked-pyramid Sen. Smith:
flier
Sep 30, '06
If you want the press to start naming hypocrites on "symbolic" votes, you better get ready for a long line of Democrats that are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
The ugly underbelly of two party politics is that divisive issues hardly every come down to "principled stands"...More often it's a matter of playing to the hometown crowd, or representing the unions or the business interests that helped to elect you. Honesty is a blood sport for anybody with political ambition. You got to dance with them that brung ya.
Sep 30, '06
If you want the press to start naming hypocrites on "symbolic" votes, you better get ready for a long line of Democrats that are talking out of both sides of their mouth.
The ugly underbelly of two party politics is that divisive issues hardly every come down to "principled stands"...More often it's a matter of playing to the hometown crowd, or representing the unions or the business interests that helped to elect you. Honesty is a blood sport for anybody with political ambition. You got to dance with them that brung ya.
1:30 p.m.
Sep 30, '06
So far as I'm aware, there are only two US Senators from Oregon. One of them got a big wet kiss from the Oregonian for supporting an amendment that would have restricted a bill that he ended up voting for without the amendment.
Sep 30, '06
I, for one, am not prepared to accept without verification anything that comes out of Harry Reid. I apply the same standard to Gordon Smith. Both fail the sniff test.
Sep 30, '06
The way you can tell the Oregonian is lying is that there is print on the page.
Bottom line -- Congress has in one magnificent vote given away the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Geneva accord and the Magna Carta, and Smith is complicit. Permanent fear, permanent war, permanent facism. US democracy, RIP 2006.
Sep 30, '06
Two years from now, when Smith is running for reelection he will regret this. It's a big fat talking point that his democratic opponent can hammer the hell out of. Personally I can't see how anyone who voted for that bill can sleep at night.
Sep 30, '06
Dyspeptic:
How does this legislation erode our Democracy (including the U.S. Constitution, the Magna Carta, and the Geneva Accords), if it is limited to Terrorism Suspects? It seems like a prudent course of action if you believe there are still wackos who would like to fly more planes into skyscrapers, poison our food and water, or detonate a biological/chemical/radiological weapon in a civilian population centers.
You don't really believe the gummint wants to label a bunch of whiny-ass liberals as terrorists, just to put an end to the whining and the silly bumper stickers? As attractive as the strategy sounds, I would much rather spend those funds that we save (by letting you run free) on bombs and bullets for the real bad guys. Plus, I would miss some of the more creative bumper stickers, even when I do disagree with them.
6:52 p.m.
Sep 30, '06
I want to see every single one of the Senators who voted for this measure, and presumably took an oath to defend the Constitution, impeached. I don't know what it takes to get a sitting Senator out of office, but if there's a way to do a recall, lets start it now.
10:18 p.m.
Sep 30, '06
You don't really believe the gummint wants to label a bunch of whiny-ass liberals as terrorists, just to put an end to the whining and the silly bumper stickers?
Replace "liberals" with "civil rights activists" and "terrorists" with "communists" - and you'll get the 1950s edition.
How quickly we forget our history.
Oct 1, '06
Help me out, Kari...
I can't find any historical reference to mass arrests of alleged communists held without a writ of habeus corpus. Sure, McCarthyism ruined a lot of careers/lives, but I don't recall much complicity by the courts. You may recall that Sen. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat from 1957 to 1964 (a Dixiecrat before and a Republican after): he was a Democrat when he conducted the longest filibuster on record (24 hours, 18 minutes), in opposition to the Voting Rights Act of 1957.
While I am certain hundreds of peace activists were arrested (and subsequently released), and many hundreds more we're physically assaulted during sit-ins or protests, I can't find any record of them being held without a writ of habeus corpus. The only prosectutions (of any substance) were for the Chicago 7, and several activists that destroyed property. Again, none were held more than 72 hours without a writ. The only mass violation of American's writ of Habeus Corpus was the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans by FDR, a Democrat. It was sustained (TWICE!) by the liberal (Chief Justice) Harland Fiske Stone Supreme Court.
The current legislation is limited in scope to foreign nationals accused of terrorism, which is hardly a wholesale assult on the Civil Liberties of American Citizens. In the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, "you gonna have some 'splaining to do" if you wish to suggest that foreign national homicidal Islamo-Fascists merit the same level of constitutional protections as Peace Activists. I don't see why you would. The old Niemoller poem doesn't seem appropriate..."First they came for the Jihadists, caught on the battle field shooting at Marines, and I did nothing..." Mmmmm, not so much an ethical or legal debate: more about the preservation of our basic right to exist without fear of future mass homicide events.
The left is making a political mountain out of a national security mole hill. Your party's fervent defense of Terrorist Rights will cost the Democrats the White House in 2007. And you can forget about the Senate if standing up for Jihadists and criticizing Republican pedophiles is the best you can do. We'd do it differently is hardly a platform.
Oct 1, '06
Mr. Tee - There might be at least a facially logical argument for justifying torture if it prevented mass murder (a lesser of evils concept). For the life of me, I cannot justify flushing our sense of human decency imbedded in due process for all, down the toilet based upon the hysteria driven anti-terrorist sentiment now embraced by a majority of congress. Why? Because it seems illogical to sacrifice the moral/ethical/humanistic high ground that anti-torture occupies, when the object of such extreme inhuman techniques is a suicide bomber. Duh - if they're willing to die for their cause, what makes you and all these supposedly high principled law makers think they are unwilling to accept pain and suffering to protect their diabolical plans? Torture is ineffective against these zealots. But we as a nation are willing to give it a go anyway (and send a message we are no better than the zealots) in the name of national security. Fear should never drive our policies, but it is now the overiding motivator. Turn out the lights, separation of powers is dead. The fundamental Writ which says Judges I am being held unlawfully will not exist for accused "enemy combatants", it was killed by the hand of paranoia - Sad.
Oct 1, '06
In gauging the 'cruelty and recklessness' of "Mister Tee", I am minded to quote army attorney general Joseph Welch addressing the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on June 9, 1954: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
He may dismiss McCarthyism's mere crimes of ruination of lots of people's 'careers-slash-lives' by innuendo, fear-mongering, and guilt-by-association as unworthy of consideration because a different mode of abuse of power is used, yet it illustrates the aptitude of Kari's reversal of T's earlier dismissal of the seriousness of the threat posed to Democracy by this fascist legislation. The underhanded corrosive effects on the morals of the citizens of this great nation when abuses of power go unchecked will be the same. Stooping to such measures will result in Soviet-style show-trials in contravention of our treaty obligations and will rightly heap upon us the enmity of the world. It will show us to be in a paranoid hysteria, willing to commit crimes against humanity out of fear that we may become a victim.
Oct 1, '06
It doesn't legalize torture. The interrogation tactics currently authorized are less severe than the hazing/conditioning suffered by most U.S. soldiers at basic training, or most college fraternity pledges.
You should not conflate torture with the absence of due process: torture is the hot button straw man, and we both know it.
The only substantive point of disagreement is whether or not suspected terrorists of foreign nationality should be granted all the rights and privileges accorded to a U.S. Citizen in a court of law. I believe the answer is no.
If the Democrats believe the answer is yes, they're going to have to explain why. They have not advanced the debate when they suggest they oppose torture and they support the Constitution. Most Americans oppose torture and support the Constitution: that doesn't mean we those who wage war against us must be afforded the same protections as a bank robber or a rapist.
Oct 1, '06
Bickford:
You are operating under an outdated paradigm: you need to refresh your belief system.
McCarthy was persecuting Americans. If you want to believe George Bush is bent on persecuting Islamo-Fascists, at least acknowledge they are not U.S. Citizens. That is a qualitative distinction that cannot be denied.
My reference to Sen. Joseph McCarthy was in response to Kari's implication that today's loss of writ of habeus corpus is analagous to previous persecution of communists or civil rights activists. That is factually incorrect: neither the accused communists or civil rights/peace activists were deprived of their writ of habeus corpus. With rare exceptions, they were never tortured. I said nothing to condone or minimize McCarthyism or racism.
The legislation in question is anti-fascist in that it prevents the exploitation of our liberal criminal justice system and evidentiary rules by the very fascists who would destroy our institutions and our liberal/tolerant beliefs. If you let them use the tolerant mechanisms of a liberal democracy to advance their monotheistic homicidal rage, then you play into their hands.
To put it another way: in the past, a war would be fought, and the vanquished would accept the terms of the victors. Prisoners would be exchanged, and the cessation of hostilities would be respected by both sides because it was in their interest to do so. Any individual examples of revenge killings or guerrilla movements would be promptly dispatched, lest they threaten the peace.
In the war against Al Qaeda, there is no national body with whom to negotiate the terms of their surrender. There is no country that can be trusted to receive (and supervise) the enemy combatants we have taken prisoner. There is no mechanism to prevent these independent contractors from rejoining the battle, with the stated intention of killing civilians. Even if we thought the prisoners held at GITMO were no longer bent on waging a terror war (and they were set free), we would have no foreign government to blame if we later learned we were mistaken. Lacking a state actor to assume responsibility for the actions of their "soldiers" we have nobody to "keep the peace" within their ranks. In short, we have nobody to bomb if they take out the Sears Tower, or detonate a dirty bomb in Manhattan. Our military might is no longer a viable deterrent when the bad guys have nothing to lose. So we are left with no alternative except to hold these enemy combatants until they're dead.
That's the new paradigm. Our Western Values have no experience with Total War waged by non-state sponsored terrorists eager to give their own life in the pursuit of homicidal attacks on our civilian populations and infrastructure.
In the absence of some responsible party with whom we can negotiate a cessation of hostilities, we must supervise those who may represent an ongoing threat, or kill them where we find them (i.e. "take no prisoners"). You don't have to like it, but you're safer with these thugs in GITMO than if they all received a "fair trial."
If they won't play by our rules, then we have to modify the rules.
Oct 1, '06
What do we lose by providing all detainees basic, fundamental due process? How much of an imposition on our security is affording suspects with notice, right to be heard, see evidence, and confront witneses. Were I a terrorist, I would set up my enemies to be falsely accused and arrested by the U.S. Will this happen - bank on it. How many innocent detainees have been killed in our secret prisons by the terrorists in prison? Fundamental justice has been trumped by terrorism and they have won by making us stoop to their tactics which devalue life. All you fundamentalist Bushie Christians how do you justify torture in light of the biblical admonition to "love thy enemy" - "turn the other cheek" ? Please educate me, I seem to be confused these days. I erroneously thought we were better than that.
Oct 1, '06
The Senate has just been doing whatever the president wants when it comes to financing the Iraq war. Now, the use of interrogation and torture of terrorism suspects gets support in the Senate. What's next? You would think Senator Smith would stand up to this kind of abominable legislation. The Senate is wrong and so is Senator Smith.
Oct 1, '06
My belief system is in no need of "updating" from anyone such as "Mr. Tee" who indeed seems to have no understanding of human decency. His xenophobia cannot justify treating foreign nationals as less than human. This is a matter of principle, and I fear he has no standing to debate.
This is not Imperial Rome, not all foreigners are barbarians fit only for enslavement. Your use of the Republican buzz-word "Islamo-fascists" shows that you understand neither Islam nor Fascism. Islam is a religion, and Fascism is when government is merged with corporate power; neither of those are the organizing principle behind the hostility of the Middle Eastern bogeymen.
We have civil rights because we believe that ordinary people deserve them and they make our justice system respectable and forthright. It is not because American citizens deserved these rights more than other peoples of the world that they had it written into the Constitution, but that they maintained that all people deserved them. They wanted to perform a Great Experiment to show them what they were missing. The right of habeus corpus as first wrested from King John was reserved for the noble elite, but we believe in a broader, higher law. It is "Mister Tee" who is "operating under an outdated paradigm".
Unless we revert to the morals of Attila the Hun (which I judge your "new paradigm" to be) then if "If they won't play by our rules," then you arrest the conspirators and submit them to justice. Your vaunted military deterrent is not viable because is inapt to the crime.
Oct 1, '06
Their fundamental due process will be in accordance with the law, as revised. I lack sufficient knowledge of military tribunals to assert that "justice has been trumped by terrorism" and believe the same could be said by you, GenoP.
It certainly trumps having your head sawed off while you scream in agony, or being burned alive while your family and friends watch it unfold live on CNN. Compared to watching your loved ones get pulverized inside a 110 story building collapse, I'd say a military tribunal is looking better and better.
When we start dragging the corpses of Al Qaeda suspects through the streets of Washington, D.C. slowing down only to let the kids kick them, then I will agree we have "stooped to their tactics"... We're not there yet, not by a long shot. Despite what sanctimonious Ed and the rest of the blathering nabobs of negativity would have you believe.
Oct 1, '06
You know it's a troll when they start channelling Spiro Agnew.
I am not abashed at holding the Contitution sacrosanct, for without its protections there is nothing left here to defend.
Oct 1, '06
I claim no special insight, only the knowledge garnered from reading that "evidence" obtained through torture will be admissible in the process. I also seem to recall from classes taken long ago that years of legal precedent on admissibility focus on how trustworthy the proffered evidence is in expressing the truth of factual assertions. I have read much about the lack of trustworthiness of coerced confession and find ludicrous that the Bill makes such evidence admissible. This aspect of the legislation alone will simply encourage more vigorous torture by the captives to elicit "evidence" with which to assure convictions. But the law be damned, this here is war, eh?
Oct 1, '06
We have civil rights because we believe that ordinary people deserve them....
You have civil rights because men with guns had the courage to risk being hanged as traitors (after 8 long years) to DEFEAT the King's Army and Navy.
You have civil rights because men with guns fought and died in a Civil War (that lasted five years) to DEFEAT a secessionist confederacy.
You have civil rights because men with guns spilled their blood across Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific in two World Wars.
The South Koreans have civil rights because men with guns (from a myriad of countries) fought and died there until we achieved a cessation of hostilities. The Vietnamese weren't so lucky.
In each of these conflicts there were pacifists and naysayers who argued against fighting the war. It was immoral....too many would die....it's not our war....we can't win....They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
There is no freedom without men with guns who are willing to kill and be killed on behalf of the Bickfords of the world, who will never understand that all rights come from the barrel of a gun.
5:23 p.m.
Oct 1, '06
all rights come from the barrel of a gun.
Now the troll's channeling Mao Tse-tung..."policial power comes out of the barrel of a gun."
You know what comes out of the barrel of a gun, Mr. T(roll)? Bullets, that's all. Nothing magical. What makes us a great country isn't bullets --and being on a constant war footing, and a half TRILLION dollar defense budget-- it's our Constitution that Bush just peed on.
Jeez...over on Jack Bog's Blog you've been arguing that indefinite detention of innocent people is fine with you as just so much collateral damage. How long before you fall further down the slipery slope to calling for the indefinite detention of Americans who you've decided are "wrong."
You're a scary guy, Mr. T. Too bad you've got more in common with the values of terrorists then American values.
Oct 1, '06
Get off your high horse T! I spent my six years on active duty in the US armed forces, so you have no right to question my commitment to defending this country from all enemies to the Constitution, foreign and domestic. I have every right and indeed the duty to criticize use of our forces that do not accomplish those ends.
Oct 1, '06
For those who can benefit from reality and facts, may I suggest you read the text (you want the enrolled version which you can download from the GPO):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:
Take special note of paragraph 950q(1) which explicitly states:
Any person is punishable as a principle under this chapter
and that, counter to how law worked under our former Constitutional system, the law actually does not define any specific crimes. Rather it allows the Executive to accuse, arrest, indefinitely detain, search by torture, and try anyone with evidence gathered by torture, pretty much for anything he wants to define as hostile to what he defines is the interests of the United States. In part this vagueness is probably because the people who actually drafted the law knew that most of the Senators they needed didn't really care what the law said, but that doesn't matter in now that the law is passed:
Congress in dark on terror program http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/23/congress_in_dark_on_terror_program/ ``I don't know what the CIA has been doing, nor should I know," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican
From this comments like this by Mister Tee which repeat talking points that have long since been dismissed as simply moronic, but which may either be read like a failed attempt to sound intellectual, or as an attempt at making the most inane arguments just to rattle the cages of many of the folks here:
You are operating under an outdated paradigm: you need to refresh your belief system.
I'm genuinely unsure whether Mister Tee is: 1) just the dumb wind-up toy repeating right-wing nonsense that he frequently seems, 2) genuinely deranged (he did after all defend the killing of innocents civilians in blatant contradiction to the Geneva Conventions so long as it is the side he supported doing the killing, and he seems hear to get just a little too tingly about the idea of living in a banana-republic where our very own angry, dry-drunken, and clearly mentally unbalanced despot can torture anyone he wants just because), or 3) really is just repeating the best the neo-fascist right has to offer to help folks on our side improve their chops.
If it's 1), messing with the dumb kid is becoming kind of cruel. If it's the case 2) that he's deranged, well, I suppose we could look at him as our very own chance to better understand the sadistic lunatic we have in the big house (http://hnn.us/articles/7106.html). And finally, if he's 3), really just a little cranky and giving us the chance to hone our arguments, I suppose we should thank him and take the time to figure out why we haven't got aggressive answers down yet so that, instead, we ended up with a number of Democrats whose seats aren't really threatened voting for this abomination. (And I tend to agree with him that our prospects this fall are still uncertain if we don't rev up our rhetoric and sharpen our focus.)
One way we should probably start is by also repeating over and over, with passion, that the folks Mister Tee is throwing in with knew that:
"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo
and that the facts on the record prove they had no interest in stopping it, nor did anything to stop it. We should also continue to hammer home the undeniable truth that the polices Mister Tee argues for are making us far less safe by the day:
http://www.juancole.com/2006_09_01_juanricole_archive.html (scroll down to the Sept. 27 post "Partially Declassified NIE")
Regardless of whether 1), 2) or 3) is the case, come on Mister Tee, really let your id go and rant out every lurid detail of the most over-the-top fantasies that the demented right-wing psychos in charge have about the future of our country and what they will do if they hold on to power. That will do far more to get decent Americans scared enough of what they really need to fear, and wake them up to retake their country, than almost anything one can imagine. Just to get you worked up for the task, I'll quote the guy who excites you so much: Bring it on.
Oct 1, '06
Bickford: thank you for your service. Whether you chose to serve, or were drafted, I believe all veterans have earned the right to promote pacifism. I believe intelligent people may disagree without attacking the person they disagree with: but I give as good as I get.
I do wish you would refute the content of my posts, rather than seeking to marginalize my opinions simply because they challenge yours.
Ask1st: I believe answer choice 3 is the closest to the truth, but I don't read/watch much right wing propaganda. I do subscribe to the WSJ and find Daniel Henninger and Daniel Pipes to be the best authorities on Islamo-Fascism. I believe that Democrats underestimate the threat posed by Al Qaeda, and I look forward to the day they are forced to lead, rather than simply criticize the President.
I could find no section 950(q)1...Perhaps it was deleted from the final version? I do believe this is dispositive:
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.
Oct 1, '06
I have refuted "Mister Tee's" comments specifically by content, and have only called attention to shortcomings as clearly evidenced by the sociopathic fantasies he writes out.
Oct 1, '06
Mister Tee wrote: I believe answer choice 3 is the closest to the truth, but I don't read/watch much right wing propaganda.
I would agree that your commentary matches your assessment that answer 3 is closest to the truth. I certainly find your comments to be some of the most in depth here and formulated in a way that is intended to elicit responses which go beyond the formulaic answers from both sides. Which is why I think they are important to challenge in a way that shows progressives both have principles and can forcefully take on such arguments. (And of course you've seen where I've agreed with you on certain key points from time to time.) In fairness, "Islamo-Fascism" is an abuse of the accepted definition of the word "fascism" by the right, specifically with the intent of leveraging the emotional content of that term for propaganda purposes. It is a standard a technique after all. And if we don't have commonly agreed upon definitions, we can't communicate, so you'll understand if I keep a wary eye on some of your comments.
As far as Paragraph 950q(1). The version one wants to read is the "enrolled" version. As I'm gathering you understand, the "enrolled" version is the supposed to be the final language of the passed bill that will be printed in the Congressional record and sent to the Executive branch for action. In this case, the enrolled version is found at the GPO link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/t2GPO/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf
You should be able to find Sec. 950q(1) on page 25, about half-way down the page. And please, be fair in any response to note that my comment references only the argument made by honest-to-goodness constitutional scholars that it is the introductory clause of this subparagraph:
Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who -
which makes this law apply to American citizens. It omits the restriction to "alien unlawful enemy combatant" in Sec. 948c that you cite, and sets out a much broader set of the punishable actions to more than is provided for in Sec. 948c. Furthermore, neither Sec. 948c nor Sec. 950q(1) actually defines what the rather vague terms of those sections actually mean, and it is the intentionial vagueness of the wording that actually gives the Executive autocratic powers that were unheard of under our former Constitutional system.
Finally, I just don't agree at all that intelligent and thoughtful Democrats underestimate the dangers we face from the quarters you suggest. However, we make the as yet unrefuted argument, supported by the NIE, that if one pursues a policy of belligerency in this world, one will be responded to with belligerency. It is a cycle of escalating violence that we are not in a position to "win" without abandoning all of our core American values and, without moral justification, devastate a swath of the Mideast and Asia from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas. This law is just the tip of that iceberg.
Furthermore, at this time China, who owns a huge amount of our debt, and who has a keen interest in the same oil resources we seek, has the military and economic power to make us pay a higher price than we can bear should we undertake such actions. Given those facts, all of the thinking Democrats and progressives I know recognize that de-escalating belligerency, and that term means something very specific I won't pursue further here, is the only possible solution for reducing, isolating, and confining the total numbers of people you cite who actually want to cause us harm.
Oct 2, '06
I did locate 950(q)1 and would defer to any Constitutional or Criminal Lawyer who believes this supercedes the introductory 948(c) definition of "Persons subject to military commissions..."
See pages 26-27 of Section 950(v) "Crimes Triable by Military Commissions" which goes on to list the various specific crimes that (most will agree) merit punishment. If an American Citizen chooses to engage in these kind of terrorist attacks on non-military targets, I would happily see them tried by a military commission.
Whether American Citizens can be prosecuted under this Act (or not), I am perplexed why any politician would be willing to stand up for "Terrorist Suspect Rights" and oppose this Act. It seems obvious that the burden of criminal proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is too rigorous for an alleged terrorist. We all know that juries are notoriously unreliable (O.J. Simpson representing the most egregious example of many): are you ready to subject the mastermind of 9/11 (Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh) to the vagaries of a jury trial? I'm not.
You can imagine Barry Scheck in the courtroom, "Ramzi was a devoted Muslim and family man who had the misfortune of sharing an apartment with Mohammed Atta....but having a diabolical roommate is not a crime under U.S. Law... Would the members of our jury be willing to take responsibility for the actions of your family members or roommates, simply because you live in close proximity?"
Trial by jury is a crapshoot: it has less to do with the truth, and more to do with good lawyering and manipulation of the juries emotions. Any criminal defense attorney will admit that, if he/she is honest. Many of the guilty are set free, and some of the innocent are convicted. It is an imperfect system, particularly where national security and intelligence sources are concerned. If you're interested in punishing the perpetrators of 9/11, you should be willing to admit that our criminal justice system is not adequate for the task.
Oct 2, '06
I think there are some things that need to be considered in this debate that I haven't really heard mentioned yet. The Geneva Conventions worked well as a way to reduce atrocities when nation states engaged in war with each other. However, what do you do when one side of the fight isn't a nation state? The problems we've faced with defining these laws are indicative of greater trends involved in the evolution of warfare. How do you hold a non-state entity (i.e., Al-Qaeda, Hezbolla) responsible for its own atrocities against civilians? None of those groups signed on to the Geneva Conventions, and all indications (beheadings, deliberate targeting of civilians, the use of civilians as human shields) are that they don't have much regard for them. Take the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, for example. Here you had a state entity fighting a non-state entity in the territory of another nation, which wasn't involved in the fight. What rules apply in that kind of a conflict? Nobody knows, because it's the new face of warefare. I would submit that future conflicts will be more along those lines than anything we've ever seen before. We just have to be prepared to adjust our tactics accordingly. You can't win the next war by thinking of the last war...especially if your enemy has changed the rules and you haven't adjusted accordingly.
Oct 2, '06
i am always amused when folks debate the fine points of the laws the bush admin has been putting forward as part of their prescription to fighting the "War on Terror". this type of quaint discussion entirely misses the point.
the policies pursued by this administration in it's execution of the wot have effectively cast aside the 4th through 8th amendments. the laws relating to these policies that they've passed recently have been done for one reason: they are a pardon for bush, cheney and the rest of the architects and executors. they already broke the law and they had two choices, rewrite the laws to make their illegal actions legal, or wait until they finish their term and be arrested.
Oct 2, '06
Since when is our adherence to the rule of law dependent on the actions of others? Yes we must adjust warfare tactics when the need arises. That completely misses the point. We have abided by the Geneva Convention for years. We do it because we choose to treat even the least among us with basic human respect and dignity. Not because we receive equal treatment at the hands of the enemy. Unfortunately the rule of law seems a bit too restrictive to this "compassionately conservative" administration, so they change the "rule of law" to suit their needs. The world watches and learns from us that the rule of law is just another myth busted by Bush. Even if we repeal all the adverse legislation foisted by W and his cronies, it is too late to regain our national dignity. That will forever be suspect. Those seeking an eye for an eye should move to the Middle East where some tribes still operate on that principle. You and the terrorists deserve each other.
1:41 p.m.
Oct 2, '06
Just to throw some fuel onto the fire:
Out of our two Senators, only one of them has voted recently to support habeas corpus for detainees in bills where that was the primary or only issue. And his name is not Ron Wyden.
Mister Tee's comments are consistent with modern thinking...when the 10th century was considered modern. Think about that one, Tee--you're having to reach back to pre-Magna Carta days to find positions that resonate with yours.
1:41 p.m.
Oct 2, '06
sorry, that first line should say "has voted TWICE recently"...
Oct 2, '06
You forgot the part about them being guilty of war crimes, and just wait 'til they are indighted in The Hague.
And they're only interested in Iraq because of oil.
And people who drive SUVs are omplicit in the war crimes.
And Hugo Chavez was speaking truthiness to power.
And Socialism is the only path to peace.
2:14 p.m.
Oct 2, '06
Do you raise crops, Tee? I don't, so let me hand back that big strawman you just tried to give me.
Oct 2, '06
My post was in response to "Overlooking the Obvious", but I took a lunch break and several new posts arrived.
I won't even bother to respond to your drivel.
2:59 p.m.
Oct 2, '06
Tee, it's a very simple concept. US citizens are now no longer protected by habeas corpus, at the discretion of the Executive. Do you believe that's a good thing, or not?
Oct 2, '06
tee,
the only one of those statements i would partially agree with was "And they're only interested in Iraq because of oil". i would change "only" to "mostly".
rather than just attributing beliefs to me, what do you disagree with about my earlier statement? the architects of these policies knew they had broken the law, and they had to effectively pardon themselves by including retroactive immunity for many of these acts that is backdated 9 years. this is not a controversial point--if the democrats win either house in november, there will be investigations, and had this bill not passed, laws would have been found to have been broken.
Oct 2, '06
Bush didn't order/authorize the CIA to use "torture" any more than Teddy authorized the DMV to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens. There are lots of very competent lawyers that review executive orders, directives, and authorization to make certain the law is respected. That doesn't mean that every actor in every operation is going to respect the letter of the law.
Those of you who equate the Bush Administration with Hitler (or any of the other asinine comparisons that serve only to highlight your bias) need to realize that if things were half as bad you think they are, you would have been arrested for treason, or your brakes would have" failed", or they would have planted drugs in your car, or you would have had your taxes audited for the past 7 years.
The fact that you are able to make all these treacherous and libelous allegations (without reprisal) is proof you ladies doth protest too much.
If you wish to provide a detailed list of violations of amendments 4,5,6,7, and 8 then I will refute them on a case by case basis. Otherwise, I call bullshit.
As for what might happen "if the Democrats win either house"...don't count your chickens before they hatch. And don't underestimate the possible backlash the D's will incur from independent/centrist voters if they see a partisan witchhunt (in Bush's last year in office) whose only purpose is to embarrass the Republicans. It will look very ugly if the Presidential Impeachment Hearing is sharing a split screen with live video of the follow on attack to September 11th. There will be bipartisan outrage that our nation was focused on how many lawyers can dance on the top of a Parker Pen, instead of preventing the next attack.
Oct 2, '06
tee,
you invoked hitler in your post ("Those of you who equate the Bush Administration with Hitler..."), therefore by godwin's law, you automatically lose this argument. better luck next time.
otherwise i would have addressed your concerns about violations of the due process amendments, which were thrown away with last weeks torture/detainee/"pardon our assess before congress is done for the year" bill.
ps - my only bias is towards the constitution.
Oct 3, '06
"The policies pursued by this administration...have effectively cast aside the 4th through 8th amendments."
To which Mr. T replied: Bullshit!
Also: I was deriding those "liberals" who invoke the name of Hitler, ergo: Godwins law doesn't apply.
Oct 3, '06
the Godwin's Law FAQ states: "If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult"
<h2>you were employing a strawman "Hitler", no one in this thread said that, you used "liberals" in scare quotes, which is insulting. hitler plus insulting = godwin's law.</h2>