Senator Reid's statement on detainee compromise

[Solly Mack]

September 21, 2006

REID: AMERICA MUST BRING TERRORISTS TO JUSTICE
Washington, DC — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement today on Republicans’ announcement of a deal on legislation to bring terrorists to justice.


“Democrats are united behind the need to work on a bipartisan basis to bring terrorists to justice, and to do it in a manner consistent with our laws, our values, and our national security. Hopefully, today’s press conference means that President Bush and the congressional Republican leadership have changed course and listened to numerous national security experts such as General Colin Powell. Five years after 9/11, it is time to make the tough and smart decisions to give the American people the real security they deserve.”

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=263588&

[MallRat]

1. OK, this was yesterday's statement... where's the follow-up...

...in which Reid announces that he's read the compromise legislation and declares it a piece of shit which legitimizes torture, worthy of filibuster?

I'm crossing my fingers. DON'T DROP THE BALL, HARRY.

-MR

[Solly Mack]

3. Get comfy

just saying...

[warrens]

18. He won't see the final bill until two minutes before the vote

NPR noted today that unless there are surprises in the actual language, this is a piece of shit that still allows torture and exempts the torturers from criminal charges unless they nearly kill the guy.

[rodeodance]

20. very very few are talking of the exemption provision.

[Ian David]

2. There can be no "compromise" on torture.

Anyone who votes to condone torture is complicit in war crimes.

If I were a Democratic Congressman, I would vote "Present" when the bill comes up, if there aren't enough votes to defeat it.

[MallRat]

10. This should never even COME to a vote.

If we can't muster up 41 votes to filibuster the shit out of this bill, then there truly is no point in working towards a Democratic Senate.

This is the line in the sand, Harry. Draw it. And threaten to chop off any Democrat at the knees who doesn't toe the line.

-MR

[BootinUp]

4. He is just going to delay until after the elections

No need to give Rove any ammunition.

[flyarm]

5. has anyone seen a copy of the compromise?? n/t

[Solly Mack]

14. Read this

"Under the deal, Congress will try to clarify the limits of what methods U.S. interrogators can use by making the domestic War Crimes Act match up more closely with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions "

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1541504/20060922/index.jhtml?headlines=true

This means all the punitive measures in the War Crimes Act of 1996 will be removed or changed, and the offenses in the War Crimes Act of 1996 will be gutted

[bryant69]

6. When's the full vote scheduleda?

I don't know -that's noncommittal - if the vote is later on today, it means we we are done - if the vote is next week, well, maybe he's waiting till monday when the story wont' be burried by the weekend?

I try to be hopeful

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Solly Mack]

8. I've read in articles that it will be next week - that's the plan anyway

But who knows what will happen?

[rocktivity]

7. Cagey little bastard, isn't he?

Let hope he really means the "consistent with our laws, our values, and our national security" stuff...

:eyes:
rocknation

[sutz12]

9. No, it isn't "time" dildo....

It's fucking years past time to do these things!

[bigtree]

11. I'm sure he's not holding his breath

I'm not

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. No Habeas Corpus = No Justice

Passing a law in which detainees are prohibited access to our system of justice is by definition unjust.

[pat_k]

13. The War Criminals Protection Act. . .

. . .has nothing to do with bringing anyone to justice. Just the opposite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2190505&mesg_id=2190505

. . .
Like all other fascist attempts to bury simple truths in complexity, this bill is a labyrinth of references to, and modification of, selected aspects of many other statutes. But it doesn't take must detangling to expose the simple truth, which is that:

The War Criminals Protection Act of 2006 has one goal: to protect themselves from prosecution for the war crimes they have committed. To that end, the bill seeks to gut U.S. Code of any avenue through which they could be prosecuted, even going so far as to strip our courts of the ability to examine their actions. It is a transparent attempt to escape the consequences that their actions would demand in any civilized society. Their attempt to escape prosecution demonstrates their consciousness of guilt.. . .

[Solly Mack]

15. see post 14 - They are going to change the War Crimes Act of 1996

Which further proves your point.

[pat_k]

17. It is worse than that. . .,

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2190505&mesg_id=2190505

. . .perhaps the most destructive part is found on page 79 of http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf">Bush's version:

(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United or its States or territories.

This abominable provision strips any person, American or Foreign National, of the ability to seek to protect fundamental human rights in ANY court in the United States (or to seek redress for violation of those rights). In other words, if it had been in effect prior to July, SCOTUS would have been barred from reviewing Hamdam.

Our collective standards for civilized conduct (and therefore our collective will) are meaningless if our judges and our peers on juries are barred from determining whether or not specific acts constitute torture.

Clinton gets it, but fails to emphasize the significance.

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060921/pl_nm/security_clinton_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AkmygpDutVyAhmfYOiG.P_Eb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-">Bill Clinton warns against wide torture approval:

. . .any decision to use harsh treatment in interrogating suspects should be subject to court review. . .

In other words, the War Crimes Protection Act EXEMPTS "harsh treatment" from court review -- an incredible subversion of our constitutional democracy.
. . .

[Solly Mack]

19. Oh, I know

[dkofos]

16. We don't need new laws, clarified laws or any bipartisn BS to

bring terrorists to justice.

All they have to do is follow the rule of law and prosecute the terrorists.

The Clinton Justice dept. managed to do it.