Detainee Rights Create a Divide on Capitol Hill

[highnooner]

WASHINGTON, July 9 — The Supreme Court decision striking down the use of military commissions to bring terrorism detainees to trial has set off sharp differences among Republicans in Congress over what kind of rights detainees should be granted and how much deference should be shown the president in deciding the issue.

The debate is expected to consume the rest of the summer in Congress as lawmakers head into an election season expected to be dominated by issues of national security. The issue reflects the difficult legal, diplomatic and political choices the government faces in dealing with terrorism suspects.

The divisions do not fall strictly along traditional partisan lines and are as much within the parties as between them, particularly for Republicans. On one side of the debate are Republicans who believe Congress should give the president the authority to set up the kind of military commissions that were struck down by the court. Such commissions would sharply curtail defendants' rights.

On the other side are those who say the trials should be modeled on the military system of courts-martial, an approach that would give detainees more due-process rights than would the commissions. In between, many Republicans and Democrats alike argue for starting with the military judicial system and tweaking it to reflect the differences of trying terrorism suspects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/washington/10gitmo.html?hp&ex=1152504000&en=5bebbf8829c8f7ff&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[gratuitous]

1. Get with the program, New York Times

They're not "detainees," they're prisoners of war. Words mean things -- as a newspaper, the Times should know that. The Supreme Court's ruling did away with the legally meaningless label of "detainee" or "enemy combatant," and brought them under the rubric of the Geneva Conventions.

[ninkasi]

2. That's where they should have been all along

The administration has assured us at various times that each and every individual at Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib, is guilty, dangerous, and just waiting for the chance to kill Americans. Then, a few days later, we read that a number of prisoners have been released. What changed in the meantime? When we abused and tortured them, they were "bad guys". When they were released, these same "bad guys" by some mysterious process became innocent, and in prison due to some error.

We know that many at Gitmo were turned in by people who were settling a grudge, or looking for a reward. To hold them with no rights, is immoral. If the world could pass judgment on some of the most evil, vile creatures ever to live at the trials at Nuremberg, then certainly we can find a way to preserve both justice and human rights now.

[countmyvote4real]

3. Amen to that. n/t

[gratuitous]

4. Little bump for the morning crowd

And isn't it odd that the GOP is now divided on proper treatment of these prisoners of war? We've been shouting at them for years that this isn't what America is supposed to stand for, and got called traitors or terrorist sympathizers for our trouble. A few Republicans actually sprout a nascent conscience and we finally have a debate.

So, how's that imperial presidency working out for you, Republicans?

[The Stranger]

5. It's a concentration camp. The people there are incarcerated.

"In a time of universal deceit, to speak the truth is a revolutionary act." --George Orwell