WP: Detainee Bill in Final Stages: White House Winning Wide Legal Latitude

[DeepModem Mom]

Detainee Bill in Final Stages
White House Appears to Be Winning Wide Legal Latitude
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A04

White House national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley met with Republican senators yesterday in an effort to reach final agreement on legislation that would govern the military trials of terrorism suspects, but they did not resolve a dispute over whether the captives should have access to U.S. courts.

The complex measure, which President Bush has called a top legislative priority, nonetheless appears likely to win approval by the time Congress adjourns at the end of this week. A vote is expected in the House today on a version of the legislation that the White House supports. It was unclear yesterday evening whether Republican leaders would allow any amendments to it.

The Senate-White House negotiations centered on what is known as a "court-stripping" provision that bars U.S. courts from considering habeas corpus filings by detainees over their confinement and treatment. It affirms the Bush administration's assertion that it has an incontestable right to hold persons detained as "unlawful enemy combatants" for the duration of the battle against terrorism.

"Habeas has to be resolved," and it will most likely be addressed on the Senate floor, John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters after meeting with Hadley. Senate Republican leadership aides said that the floor debate could begin today and that the legislation setting rules for military commissions, as they are known, might be combined with a bill to create a new fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Three foes of the habeas corpus provision -- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) -- introduced yesterday an amendment to overturn the administration-backed provision by allowing foreign nationals in military or CIA custody to challenge the legality of their detentions after one year....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601638.html

[Thickasabrick]

1. I still think that even if it passes, the supremes will shoot it down

[hang a left]

3. How will they be able to??

Someone has to bring a case first. Under this legislation who would be able to?? If I am understanding how all this works.

[Thickasabrick]

14. I don't think there will be that long a wait before someone challenges

the law if it passes. ACLU will probably step up first. Remember Turley from the Olbermann show - he reminded us that in the end, the supremes have the last word.

I read an article the other day about how basically the court gave Bush and congress the basic guidelines to follow and they have ignored them all.

That's why I'm not going to get too upset about this until this is settled by the supremes.

[tritsofme]

5. This is pushing the Constitution to its limits

And flouting 200 years of tradition, but I don't know if its unconstitutional.

Congress has the power to suspend habeas corpus "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

And the Constitution also allows that: "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Which means technically Congress can strip the courts of all the power it chooses.

[OneBlueSky]

2. why, why, WHY aren't the Democrats opposing this . . .

with every fiber of their being? . . . they should be holding press conferences, appearing on tv, sending our news releases, doing anything and everything they possibly can to rigorously oppose this abomination . . .

what in the hell is wrong with these people? . . .

[w4rma]

4. Democrats have no reason to allow Repukes to speed this bill up.

None whatsoever.

And this bill still allows for the torture of Americans, also.

And it legalizes Abu Garhib and similar activities. It is absolutely stupid, politically, and immoral to allow this bill to pass.

In fact they tie of Rove in trying to figure out how to get his bosses out of trouble if they don't pass it before elections.

[Jelperman]

6. History of Waterboarding

I found this at The First Church of Free Speech:

Just In Time For Halloween!
http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=69

Since the Bush Junta is about to legalize torture, grant itself immunity from war crimes prosecution and the Democrats don’t have the balls to filibuster it, let’s have a look at what’s in store for anyone the Smirking Chimp decides is a “terrorist”. For the past few years, Republitards have been extolling the virtues of waterboarding, which means subjecting the victim to simulated drowning and provoking a gag reflex.

Waterboarding has a long history.


Until witch hysteria ended in the early 1700s, the favored method of getting old biddies to confess to witchcraft -which included things such as casting spells, fornicating with devils, joining covens, attending sabbats and other fanciful “crimes” was to make them think they were drowning or by actually drowning them.



The penalty for witchcraft was death. In England during the 1600s they got off with a hanging but in earlier times and on the continent, they were burned alive. Something that can make a religious old woman “confess” to a mortal sin (damning her to hell) that carries a gruesome death sentence (hangings back then were drawn out executions more like lynchings since the drop-noose hadn’t yet been invented) is quite obviously torture since the “witch” had every reason to not confess since her body and soul were in danger.


This is what the Bush Junta wants Congress to “clarify” -that is, make legal- and what McCain, Graham and those other Republitard wankers agreed to grant immunity for. Their timing is perfect: just a few weeks before Halloween to kick off a new witchseason. The torture is the same and so are the special pleadings from the pro-torture morons. The only thing missing is the bonfire and the scales used to determine if the defendant weighs the same as a duck…

Since the US government won’t enforce the laws against torture, I hope other nations will follow the example of Spain and Britain when they collared Augusto Pinochet and start arresting and charging these cowardly, sadistic fucks should they set foot on foreign soil.

and

One Nation, Under The Waterboard, With Rape And Torture For All
http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=68

Let’s be clear about one thing. There is one reason -and only one reason- why a person tortures an animal: pure sadism.

Sure the redneck who tapes fishhooks and razor blades to the feet of a rooster to give him a leg up at the cockfights will earnestly insist that the chicken who is about to be torn to pieces in the cockpit has it much better than the ones who are cut up and served for dinner. The inbred peckerwoods who feed ground glass to pit bulls at the dogfights to make them more ferocious are no different when they claim that since the dog enjoys fighting and was going to be put down anyway, there was no harm done. Both who revel in the torture of animals might, in an unguarded, candid moment (usually brought on by grain alcohol), admit that they do it as a way to come up with some tax-free cash to pay for that double-wide they’ve had their eyes on. But the main reason people throw roosters, dogs and other animals into a pit to kill and maim (or be killed and maimed) is because of the sadistic joy they get out of watching and/ or taking part in pain, mutilation and death.

This perverted thrill at suffering is no different among those who condone or take part in the torture of two-legged animals, and I’m not referring to male chickens.

Of course like their boss, Bush’s thugs are cowards who are quite happy to throw low level henchmen under the bus, so a barely literate Private Lynddie England straight out of White Trash Central Casting gets to serve time in prison while Alberto Gonzalez gets promoted from presidential attorney to Attorney General, where he can work on the inside to try to keep himself and his employer from facing the consequences of their war crimes and crimes against humanity.

That’s right -WAR CRIMES. Back in 1996, members of Congress reacted to the atrocities committed against American prisoners by the Vietnamese, including torture, by passing the War Cimes Act. It was also the age when numerous “truth commissions” in other countries put out detailed reports of countless acts of torture, rape and murder committed by various governments, as well as the fact that so many of those who commit crimes against humanity were never brought to justice. The War Crimes Act makes it a crime under U.S. law to violate the Geneva Conventions and other treaties pertaining to human rights. If a victim should die, the perpetrator is eligible for the death penalty even if the crime did not take place on American soil, or was not committed by or against an American citizen.

The Bush Junta, knowing its members could face trial for torture and murder wants to nullify (”clarify”) the Act to give themselves immunity from prosecution. No doubt Roman Polanski would like to see U.S. laws against drugging and sodomizing little girls “clarified” so he can’t be made to serve time behind bars, too. After some hollow posturing by Senators Graham, Warner and McCain, they agreed in principle to give the Coward-In-Chief and his thugs immunity from prosecution.

If Congress, including the gutless Democrats, wasn’t afflicted with moral leprosy they would see Bush’s demand for immunity for what it is: A free and open confession that he and his sadistic henchmen have committed capital crimes and should be impeached, removed, tried and sentenced as soon as humanly possible. They would also point out that Bush is acting in the yellowbellied tradition of fascist thugs like Pinochet and the various Generalissimos of Argentina who also had people “disappeared” and took the coward’s way out by granting themselves immunity. Of course the Democrats are also behaving in typical lilly-livered fashion. At least liberal-minded politicians in Chile, Argentina and elsewhere in South America had to be jailed, tortured, exiled and assassinated (sometimes all of the above) before they knuckled under. What’s Harry Reid’s excuse? Or Nancy Pelosi’s? Or Howard Dean’s? Is it to win the next election? If they manage that, it will be in spite of being the party of Torture Lite, not because of it. If anything, being silent might cost them the upcoming elections. I for one would give them more credit if they said they didn’t really care to assume the leadership of a country that embraced torture and murder and the GOP can have the government.

For many years, we in the land of the not-so-free and the home of the not-so-brave have rather smugly belittled the Good Germans and their counterparts living under other despots who laid down like sheep while the governments they lived under committed all kinds of vile acts. The fatuous hacks of the news media think the fact that Bush isn’t Hitler means that they and the other three estates shouldn’t make an effort to call Bush to account. Actually, it’s the other way around: the fact that Bush isn’t Hitler only makes their craven, compliant behavior more disgraceful.

I will not vote for any member of Congress who votes to give immunity to torturers. I will also not vote for any member of the Senate who does not filibuster this abomination of a bill. I’m not someone who expects elected officials to agree with me on every point, but there are dealbreakers and torture is one of them. If that means the Republitards hold onto Congress until the Democrats grow a pair, so be it. What’s the point of voting for Democrats who lack the spine or morals to oppose something that is inherently vile and un-American? One of the founding principles of the Republic is that “cruel and unusual” punishment is forbidden. There’s a reason the Eighth Amendment bans torture. If the Democrats can’t work up the nerve to oppose “cruel and unusual” treatment now, when Bush is about as popular as head lice, they never will and I say to hell with them if they don’t.

Great Stuff!

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Thanks for an excellent post, Jelperman -- welcome to DU!!!

[Jelperman]

10. Thanks!

Thanks. I was reading "Witches and Neighbors" and noticed (as have Orcinus and the others) that the same methods of torture used on old ladies to get "confessions" out of them are being used by Bush's henchmen. If you can get a superstitious old woman who has a real fear of hellfire to confess to flying around on a broomstick, then obviously it's torture.

[KoKo]

11. Great Post Jelperman and Welcome to DU!

It's unbelievable that this bill couldn't be delayed until after the Mid-terms and I have a hard time dealing with any Dem who would vote for something like this.

It's like the Iraq War Resolution. This will come home to bite these folks who vote for it in their butts some day. But, they still keep doing this even when faced with overwhelming evidence of how wrong they are and how they will shred once again the intent of Constitution to separate the branches of Government. :banghead:

[Supersedeas]

8. yet, the Corp Media doesn't want to inform to public in order to have a

real debate...just speed it along and mindlessly report to results of the vote.

[Vidar]

9. Great post. Welcome to DU.

[leQ]

13. yes, Jelperman, what an excellent post. and i too welcome you to DU. -n/t

[ShortnFiery]

12. Where are our Democratic Leaders?!? eom

[pscot]

15. I don't think you can use "Democratic"

and "Leaders" in the same sentence. It's an oxy-moran.

[Jelperman]

16. No Guts, No Votes

If the Democrats don't filibuster this Torture Bill, I'm through with them. They only need 41 votes, so there are no excuses. Otherwise, I don't see what the point is in supporting them. If they don't have the guts to oppose it now, there's no way in hell they'll have the nerve to undo it even if they take back Congress. I'd respect them more if they just came out and said:

"We're only making a half-hearted effort because quite frankly, we're not terribly interesting in leading a country that supports torture. We're just here for the money and perks for our districts and states."

Their cowardice disgusts me.