GOP Senators Sound Like ACLU On Terror Tribunals
Posted on September 14, 2006
Hot Air has a lot of analysis on this one.
The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday voted 15-9 to recommend a bill — over the objections of the Bush administration — that would authorize tribunals for terror suspects in a way that it says would protect suspects’ rights.
The bill was backed by Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
It differs from the administration’s proposal in two major ways: It would permit terror suspects to view classified evidence against them and does not include a proposal that critics say reinterprets a Geneva Conventions rule that prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees.
McCain is insane. Give terrorist our classified documents? To the orchestrator of 9/11? You freaking moron.
Enough of this clown, and yeah, I’ll challenge not only his sanity, but now I challenge his patriotism. Just who in the hell side of the ocean you on Senator?
We can’t afford another 9/11 and a vote for you is to give our ass over to Al Qaeda lock and key.
In a decision earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must meet Article III standards in its treatment of detainees.
Article III prohibits nations engaged in combat not of “an international character” from, among other things, “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”
Hmmm…sounds a lot like something the ACLU might say.
And nowCollin Powell steps in.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday endorsed efforts by three Republican senators to block President Bush’s plan to authorize harsh interrogations of terror suspects.
The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came in a statement that Powell sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the rebellious lawmakers. Powell said that Congress must not pass Bush’s proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.This development accompanied Bush’s visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans. His would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the treaty in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.
“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”
Insanity! Sounds like the ol’ moral equivalence argument. Whats going on here? We are going to treat these maniacs with kid gloves?
It was to be expected that Democrats would complain. They have not supported a sensible national-security initiative since President Clinton bombed Iraq and Kosovo without U.N. approval and had his Justice Department claim a right to conduct foreign-intelligence searches without court approval. It’s an election year and, in the thrall of the hard Left, Democrats are playing to type.
No, the problem here is McCain & Co. Yet again, they appear poised to risk our security in the service of a purportedly pro-military standard that won’t protect a single member of the armed forces.
The president’s Code for Military Commissions would vest jihadists — unlawful enemy combatants who scoff at the dignity of true soldiers and intentionally target civilians — with a plethora of rights: fair notice of the charges, counsel paid for by the American taxpayers they are trying to murder, the presumption of innocence (notwithstanding that they were presumed guilty on the battlefield), lavish discovery of the prosecution’s case, and more.
Nonetheless, the trial rules would allow evidence to which the accused has been denied personal access. Not denied all access, mind you; just personal access. (More on that in a moment.) This suggestion, naturally, has led to star-chamber claims by McCain, Graham, and Warner. (“It would be unacceptable, legally,” Graham blustered, “to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them.”)
So now that some Republican Senators have lost their minds and are sounding like the ACLU, I will do the same thing. I will now agree with something the ACLU said:
“Some Members of Congress are allowing partisan election considerations to overrule common sense ….
AJ Strata is outraged!
First off, any enemy willing to use that excuse against our soldiers or standing on the conventions can and will have numerous excuses to disparage us. And as Talk Radio pointed out all day long, don’t look for Al Qaeda to stop torturing, beheading or abusing the dead bodies of our soldiers because we won’t insult them. You can ‘outrage personal dignity’ by simply insulting someone’s family roots. This is absolutely ridiculous! Sen Graham, sit down and shut up you blubbering idiot! (there – I violated the Geneva Convention). This is not torture. This is not inhumane. This is getting so damn close to controlling hate speech it is frightening. The detainee will get to determine what is insulting, or the UN. Bush could be held on war crimes under the Geneva Conventions when he calls them Islamo Fascists with this kind of thinking.
Macsmind has a message for McCaine.
Wizbang
Flopping Aces
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “GOP Senators Sound Like ACLU On Terror Tribunals”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
If another country labeled people as subversives, detained them for several years without access to lawyers, then tried them in courts devoid of due process, wouldn’t we accuse them of violating basic human rights? Just look at some of the State Department reports on Iran (Arbitrary Arrest or Detention), Syria (Denial of Fair Public Trial), Pakistan (poor prison conditions, arbitrary arrest, and lengthy pretrial detention) and Cuba (denial of fair trial).
Camanintx,
You are speaking of people who are prisoners of war despite Bush using that euphemism “enemy combatants”. You do not give prisoners of war trials. If they are saboteurs, spies, etc caught in the U.S. then maybe you try them. I would have to check the precedent on that one.
McCain stands his ground on CIA jails(”willing to risk the presidency”)
Right wingers are so busy peeing down their leg in terror they don’t mind trashing the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution or American morality in order to feel a little less afraid. Torture is immoral and I want to hang onto my morality, thanks anyway.
What happened to courage in this country? Lock yourself in a deep hole if that will make you feel less afraid. You won’t have any freedom, but that’s your choice. The rest of us are willing to take some risks in order to remain a free people. If I can’t live free, the terrorists can just go ahead and pull the trigger. I’d rather be dead.
Kerwin,
I would really like to hear your definition of war. Most common definitions rest on the assumption that both parties are nations. While military action may be taken against nations which harbor or assist terrorists, individual terrorists should be treated as criminals. How do the attacks of 9/11 and 7/11 differ from the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 and why shouldn’t we hold them accountable in a court of law?