Tribunal/Interogation Bill Is A Good Deal, Why? The ACLU Has Just Condemned It
Posted on September 21, 2006
A press release just in from the American Civil Liberties Union:
New Military Commissions Compromise Gives License to Abuse Prisoners,
ACLU Says Dangerous Proposal Must Be RejectedWASHINGTON – Following announcements that an agreement has been reached between the White House and Senators John Warner (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on military commissions, the American Civil Liberties Union today said the compromise agreement does not protect due process, fails to meet international treaty obligations and urged lawmakers to reject the deal.
The following may be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
“This is a compromise of America’s commitment to the rule of law. The proposal would make the core protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions irrelevant and unenforceable. It deliberately provides a ‘get out of jail free card’ to the administration’s top torture officials, and backdates that card nine years. These are tactics expected of repressive regimes, not the American government.
“Also under the proposal, the president would have the authority to declare what is – and what is not – a grave breach of the War Crimes Act, making the president his own judge and jury. This provision would give him unilateral authority to declare certain torture and abuse legal and sound. In a telling move, during a call with reporters today, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley would not even answer a question about whether waterboarding would be permitted under the agreement.
“The agreement would also violate time-honored American due process standards by permitting the use of evidence coerced through cruel and abusive treatment. We urge lawmakers to stand firm in their commitment to American values and reject this charade of a compromise.”
More details via email from White House:
Hadley: “Clarity To The Legal Standard In Connection With Common Article 3? Is “Achieved In Three Ways In The Proposed Legislation.” (Steve Hadley, Press Briefing By Teleconference, 9/21/06)
1. Listing “Actions Which Would Expose People To Criminal Liability.” HADLEY: “One will be to enumerate those actions that will constitute violations of Common Article 3, that are grave breaches of Common Article 3, and those are defined in statute. So it will be clear from the statute of the kinds of activities which, if engaged in by men and women who are involved in interrogation of – in questioning of detainees, what kinds of activities would subject them to criminal penalties as grave breaches.”
2. “Reaffirming The Standard In The Detainee Treatment Act” And Enabling “The President To Adopt Measures For Enforcing Those Provisions.” HADLEY: “The second is that the Detainee Treatment Act, or the so-called McCain Amendment, which was adopted in December of last year, is reaffirmed in the statute, and the statute also provides that the President shall take action to ensure compliance with this section. As you know, the section prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment as prohibited in the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments – so-called McCain amendment standard.”
3. Granting The President The “Authority For The United States To Interpret The Meaning And Application Of The Geneva Conventions, Including Common Article III, And To Establish Standards And Administrative Regulations For Violations That Are Less Than Grave Breaches Of Geneva Conventions.”
Lots of details at Hot Air
The Moderate Voice has a great roundup of reactions.
Captain Ed:
If the Democrats are smart, they will just let the legislation pass quickly through Congress. They have seen the Republicans rise from the dead in the polls approaching the midterms, and it doesn’t take a mathematician to put two and two together on the effect the national security debate has had on their fortunes. Opposing a program that has saved America from eight separate terrorist plots with some belly-slapping and loud music will not convince voters that the Democrats will keep the nation safe during a time of war. They should keep the focus on Iraq, rather than give Bush any more opportunities to remind the nation that the same programs that kept terrorists from attacking us will disappear with a Democratic Congress.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
4 Responses to “Tribunal/Interogation Bill Is A Good Deal, Why? The ACLU Has Just Condemned It”
-
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
WOOT! Thanks, ACLU!
Torture is a straw man. Irrelevant.
These dimwit Senators gave our dimmerwitted President the authority to interpret an international treaty as he sees fit and to avoid any war crime punishments for the people responsible.
It just so happens he’ll USE this authority to torture people. But that’s the least of the problem.
The bigger part of this is that we uphold our six year tradition of ignoring, modifying or repealing with the very documents which define our nation and it’s part in the world.
What is left of this country that is sacred?
The ACLU is an extremist organization and so just because they are against legislation does not mean it the legislation is good just that is not extremely bad. Their argument has a number of fallacies. One is that Congress gets to decide the rule of evidence as it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Another is that Congress gets to pass legislation which decides how well we choose to adhere to foreign treaties. The third is that according to the cruel and unusual clause of the U.S. Constitution being put in a pillory or stock, wiped at a post, branded by and iron, ducked in a pool, and actions of the source that either exceed or match what I have heard described as torture against accused terrorist detainees. In other words they have no clue what they are talking about.
Winterbear,
Congress can not legally give their legislative power to the President in any degree according to the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. Any action he takes to do so can be challenged in court and will bring the situation back to Congress.