ACLU: Bush Detainee Legislation Upends the Rule of Law
Posted on September 29, 2006
The United States Senate on Thursday passed the “Military Commissions Act of 2006″ (S. 3930). As expected it passed with some room to spare at a vote of 65 -39.
The ACLU didn’t take long to come out to condemn the action. The ACLU’s legislative spokeswoman, the ever ignorant Caroline Fredrickson had this to say…
“This legislation gives the president new unchecked powers to detain, abuse, and try people at Guantanamo Bay and other government facilities around the world.”
“Unfortunately for America, the Senate chose not to deliberate today. Instead, it joined the House and President Bush in jamming through a hastily written bill before running home to try to campaign.”
This legislation, although flawed, gives the CIA and military interrogators the tools that they need in order to conduct affective interrogation of high profile detainees.
My disappointment is in the fact water boarding will no longer be permitted under the new guidelines. This is ridiculous because our Special Operations soldiers and CIA Field Agents go through this operation as part of their survival training. But yet, we are forbidden to use this affective mode of pressured interrogation because a few uneducated individuals who have no idea what true torture is have labeled water boarding as torture.
Here is the truth and if you are an honest person, you will never accept this as the truth. Using the argument that anything we do to extract information from these detainees will put our troops at greater risk is nothing more fraudulent speculation.
Islamic Fascists don’t give a flying fig how we treat our prisoners. As far as they are concerned their operatives either should have killed Americans in their action or died in the attempt, so they don’t care if they live or die. For the love of Pete, they will kill dozens of their own innocents if there is a remote chance of killing just 1 single American.
Personally, I don’t think anything should be off the table. These individuals are known al Qaeda individuals who have been captured in Iraq or Afghanistan engaging in illegal warfare operations. These are not innocent civilians who wandered onto the battlefield. These are cold blooded killers who will stop at nothing in order to kill those who do not believe as they do.
This bill provides the same protections for these illegal combatants the same treatment as our own troops would get. Why should al Qaeda terrorists be treated any better than our own brave men and women. If left to the ACLU that is exactly what would have happened.
The ACLU is opposed to any kind of incarceration. Plain and simple. If it were up to me, everyone with one of those $25 membership cards should just replace Lady Liberty with large Red Stars.
So Caroline, do yourself a favor, shut your pie hole. Because overtime you open it, you make your precious organization’s position weaker.
Wizbang has a great roundup of reactions.
Also Hot Air
Wow! Watch Glenn Greenwald melt!
Carter points not realizing he has three fingers pointing back at himself: Bush has brought U.S. “international disgrace”.
Oliver Stone: “We have destroyed the world in the name of security!”
Leahy: America has now become a Taliban State where thugs herd women like animals…
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
27 Responses to “ACLU: Bush Detainee Legislation Upends the Rule of Law”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
What beats me is that the Democrats claim to have a tough stance against al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and other Islamo-terrorists who threaten our way of life yet, they have tried to block our war efforts every step of the way, simply because they are sore losers and hate George W. Bush.
If the Democrats had their way we would be reading the miranda act to the terrorists we capture right there on the battle field, as I heard some Republican Senator state.
The stance of the ACLU and Democrats is unconscionable.
From what I see the ACLU are anarchists and their goal is to weaken the government in any way that they can and at any cost. They are not concerned if Americans or anyone else dies as a result. Mind you, there are members and others that are blinded by their deception.
There are two questions that should be asked. The first, are the detainees guilty of the crime they committed. The second it what is a reasonable definition of cruel and unusual.
To answer the second, punishment inflicted on our own training or the equivalent is hardly cruel or unusual punishment. Our founders used dunking as a form of discipline, and so did not consider it cruel and unusual.
I think what concerns me the most is that so many Americans seem to be willfully blind to the ACLU idiocy.
Every accepted definition of torture includes the threat of imminent death. Every description of waterboarding says the subject believes that death is imminent. You would have to be uneducated to say that waterboarding is not torture.
Why don’t you just come out and say that you believe we should be torturing these people? Pointing out the obvious that our enemy already practices torture only shows that you would lower yourself to their level. In the Ten Conservative Principles laid out by Russell Kirk in 1993 states “First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it; human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.” If Conservatives truly believe this, then they should rethink their support for this legislation.
“Here is the truth and if you are an honest person, you will never accept this as the truth.”
Can someone explain to me what the hell this means?
But the IDEA is that if American soldiers getting tortured pisses you off, then maybe Muslims getting tortured may be upsetting to other moderate Muslims who are not yet terrorists or insurgents.
Name one war America has fought, that our captured soldiers were not tortured.
Why are the liberals worried about upsetting moderate Muslims with effective interrogation techniques, (called torture by liberals)when Muslims are protesting, rioting and calling for the beheading of Americans and the British?
It amazes me that you think that an enemy that riots, burns, blow themselves up and kill over a cartoon of their pedophile cult leader being published, would somehow feel more benevolent if you talk nice to them when you capture and interrogate them.
Maybe it will bring them to the other side of the fence, generating MORE enemies of America.
I thought you liberals said that the whole world hates us. Why should we be concerned with a few more that have never needed an excuse?
You didn’t answer my question, loboinok, which is a pretty standard way of going about things. I understand that the terrorists are calling for torture and beheadings, but our calling is to rise above.
I question your “effective interrogation techniques” line, because you’re really just parroting it. Show me a source. Point me to a study that shows the efficacy of these “effective techniques”.
Anyway, you’re missing my point. You seem to think that all Muslims are out to get us, which is clearly not true or we’d have an even more serious problem on our hands than the one we have now. Just like us, the Muslim community is made up of a diversity of opinions. Many of them favor what the terrorists are doing, many of them don’t. The point is that their religion calls them to defend Islam, and when we start torturing them and detaining them indefinitely with no legal recourse regardless of their ACTUAL status as terrorists, people who were on the fence try start to wonder if ol’ Osama ain’t right. That’s why the NIE report indicated the world is now less safe from terrorism than before: we’re effectively pushing the middle towards extremism.
Also, I’m amused by your “whole world hates us” retort. Hate is a strong word. The terrorists hate us. The rest of the world just ain’t too keen. It’s like the crazy guy on the bus: You may not want to punch or murder him, but you keep your distance.
By the by, I’m not a liberal.
Carmanintx,
You might want to check out American history. The writers of the Bill of Rights did not consider water boarding as cruel and unusual punishment. If you are going by another definition then why do we as the U.S. have to use that standard?
Jon,
We train our soldiers to resist torture for a reason. Maybe that is because it is effective despite all the propaganda you have heard to the opposite. Since there have already been examples presented in the Media, either you are unaware of them or choose to ignore them.
I am not a conservative since I vote according to my ethics and neither party has completely ethical platforms. I do prefer the conservative ticket because they do not support genocide. I am a traditionalist in many ways so I use the standards of those who established the U.S Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution which you may call savage. I do modify some of their ideas but I always attempt to stay within the bounds of the Law of Nature and Nature’s God.
Kerwin -
I wasn’t referring to American history, I was talking about current US law. That is a standard we most definitely have to follow.
Camanintx,
That is the thing about the legislation. They can make a law and then make a new law that contradicts the old law as the situation changes. The U.S. Constitution is harder to change but the laws at that time were also more just, at least where they could afford to be. This new legislation by Congress over rides US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, § 2340 in those areas where it applies because it has precedent just like 18-I-113C over rode the laws of our founders.
So I guess President Bush was not being completely truthful when he said on September 6th:
keriwn,
Since there are so many examples in the media of how effective torture can be, then I’m sure you’ll have no trouble providing a link for describing the efficacy, instead of merely TELLING me it’s true.
And I absolutely believe in following the guidelines of what the founders of this country set up. But it’s clear to me if you read their intent that they would consider torture to be a bad thing, and when it comes to determining if something is torture, if you think it might be then it probably is.
Anyway, you’re contradicting yourself. You’re describing it as effective interrogation but not torture. Well, why the heck is it so effective to make people think they’re going to drown? It’s not like they give up the info because they’re having so much fun.
Anyway, you still need to get me that link on how effective these methods are, chief.
jon,
you said:
“I question your “effective interrogation techniques” line, because you’re really just parroting it. Show me a source. Point me to a study that shows the efficacy of these “effective techniques”.”
Nobody owes you any source of proof. Common sense should inform you of two things:
First, politely asking them for much needed intel to prevent any future atrocities over expresso and whatever other comforts the terrorist prisoner might enjoy will most certainly not work.
Second, stronger measures would not be sought if gentle ones worked. (By the way if you want a source regarding proof that tough interrogations work, consider the absence of any more activities in the homeland by al Qaeda in the last 5 years, and consider the thwarting of the planned liquid bombs on those airliners leaving Britain and heading to the U.S.)
You said:
“The point is that their religion calls them to defend Islam, and when we start torturing them and detaining them indefinitely with no legal recourse regardless of their ACTUAL status as terrorists, people who were on the fence try start to wonder if ol’ Osama ain’t right”
If strongly interrogating these bloodthirsty terrorists is going to cause those other “peaceful muslims” to be upset because they must defend Islam, then are they really that much different from the terrorists? I mean, that would mean that the “peaceful muslims” are obligated to defend the bloodthirsy terrorists because they too are following Islam.
So much for some support the terrorist and some don’t.
Jon said:
If you are referring to the interrogation of Rashid Rauf by the Pakistani’s, the British had all of the suspects under surveillance for over a year. Besides, the information they extracted from him that an attack was “imminent” has been largely disproved since most of the conspirators didn’t even have passports to get them on a flight to the US. Hardly proof that tough interrogations work.
Jon said:
This statement also struck me as odd so I did a little research. If this technique doesn’t work then why is it featured so prominently in the Army’s interrogation manual?
Army Field Manual, Appendix H, Approaches, Incentive Approach
camanintx,
It is obviously in the manual because it can be considered a starting point. But, perhaps you should read the entire Army Manuel, since it doesn’t stop there. So again, tell me why espresso and an atmosphere that the terrorist captive is as far as we should go in getting intel info?
Jon,
Refer to my response to camanintx.
The thwarting of the liquid bombs is in no way representative of all efforts to gain needed intel as to future terrorist plans.
Plus, you have only touched upon one aspect of my response to you. Why are you silent on the rest?
ABC said Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was broke by weatherboarding in two minutes. The accuracy of the claim nor of the information he gave can not be confirmed because it is top secret. If you get information you just find a second or more sources to confirm it. That is how intelligence gathering works. ABC say it gets people to talk in attempt to please their interrogators. This leads me to the conclusion that the information they give may be either true or false. Interrogators may also use it as a method to soften up detainees for later soft questioning.
Clay,
Wow, you’re really bad at this.
You absolutely do owe me source of proof if you want to make a valid point that can withstand criticism. In a debate class, they’d call that burden of proof, but SOMEHOW I doubt you’ve ever taken one of those. But here, I’m going to go ahead and start with a few links on the so-called efficacy of torture. Since your side is so clearly and obviously right, you should have no problem coming up with some counter-links to how awesome and effective torture is.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss18/booknotes-Torture_.shtml
http://moroncowboy.blogspot.com/2006/09/us-experience-with-efficacy-of-torture.html
That should be enough to get you started (if you bother to read them).
The argument that asking them for intel over tea doesn’t work is NOT in fact an argument FOR torture. That’s like having an argument over whether or not it’s okay to pull a facemask in football, and your response is “Well, dressing like an Oompa Loompa on the sideline doesn’t win the game!” They don’t have that kind of direct relationship. (By the by, it’s espresso, not expresso. You should probably stop pronouncing it that way out loud, too.)
Second, lack of evidence doesn’t constitute evidence in and of itself. A lack of further attacks doesn’t mean that this is all clearly because of the handy intel work we’re doing. There’s a number of reasons why there might not be further attacks in the US, not the least of which is that to accomplish their goals, more attacks aren’t currently needed. Another poster commented quite nicely on that whole “liquid gel” nonsense.
You’re really missing the whole point on the “pushing the center” argument, and it just goes to show that you really haven’t put any thought into how someone grows up to be a terrorist, anyway. It’s not like daddy didn’t hug him enough when he was growing up, and then one day he woke up and thought “Man, I hate America’s freedoms! I’m going to strap on a bomb and walk into a marketplace!” What we’re doing here is creating an environment so poor for this region (via international policies that support brutal regimes that oppress their people, occupying territory, setting up governments that don’t aren’t effective and don’t take into account the history or beliefs of the people, etc.) that the nutty things the terrorists say actually start to make sense, especially when the suicide bombers/hijackers/etc. are reassured that they will be martyrs and their families looked after, etc. The people at the top of the structure may be bloodthirsty and insane, but for the grunt foot soldiers who are detonating themselves, it’s probably more an act of desperation than anything else. If you’d like to read more on the subject from a 25+ year expert on Middle Eastern and Muslim affairs, check out Imperial Hubris.
If the thwarting of liquid bombs isn’t representative, then what is? It’s fairly convenient that the US can’t tell us about all of the stuff they’ve stopped. Why can’t they tell us that, again? If the intel is coming from these detainees that they’ve nabbed, why is that a source that can’t be revealed? Is there a reason they can’t say “We caught Bob, and Bob told us about this attack on a lemonade stand, and we stopped it. Go us!”? Help reason me through that one, please.
Kerwin,
I’ve read the report on the “breaking” of KSM, but breaking just means that he begged and pleaded for it to stop. It doesn’t mean that he told the truth, and if you read the links I provided above, experts and people who have undergone torture alike (innocent people abducted by our government, by the by) explain pretty clearly that you become like an animal so quickly that you’ll say anything to get the pain to stop. So if you’ve got a link on just how super effective this treatment is, I’d still like to see it.
Jon,
You said:
“Wow, you’re really bad at this.”
Tsk tsk tsk. Now, now Jon. Just because you don’t like my position doesn’t make me “bad at this”.
More arrogance from you:
“You absolutely do owe me source of proof if you want to make a valid point that can withstand criticism. In a debate class, they’d call that burden of proof, but SOMEHOW I doubt you’ve ever taken one of those. But here, I’m going to go ahead and start with a few links on the so-called efficacy of torture.”
Burden of proof? What are you some college professor handing out assignments? It’s funny how you don’t respond to my earlier comments to you regarding reading all of the Army Manuel and not just stopping with one technique. Your silence is telling. Unless, its because you are arrogant enough to presume that you know better than the experts on interrogation and anything beyond just polite conversation is patently useless.
You said:
“Since your side is so clearly and obviously right, you should have no problem coming up with some counter-links to how awesome and effective torture is.”
Jon, I’m not advocating torture. And once again, read the WHOLE Army Manuel.
More arrogant claptrap from you:
“The argument that asking them for intel over tea doesn’t work is NOT in fact an argument FOR torture.”
Sorry, you are half right. I’m not making an argument for torture, and you know it. Please try and be honest. But, it IS an effective argument for more intense interrogation methods.
You babbled:
“That’s like having an argument over whether or not it’s okay to pull a facemask in football, and your response is “Well, dressing like an Oompa Loompa on the sideline doesn’t win the game!”
Ok. You got me there. I have no idea how to respond to such a poor attempt at using analogies. How do you respond to such utter nonsense? One wonders.
You said:
“(By the by, it’s espresso, not expresso. You should probably stop pronouncing it that way out loud, too.)”
Jon, it’s called a typo you oaf. What, you don’t type your own comments? Is there someone else typing in talking points for you?
You said:
“Second, lack of evidence doesn’t constitute evidence in and of itself. A lack of further attacks doesn’t mean that this is all clearly because of the handy intel work we’re doing.”
No, the lack of any futher attacks isn’t soley based on intel we have gathered from interrogations, and I don’t remember ever claiming that. (Please lose the disengenous trick, it’s boring and telling), but it is helping or else, prisoner interrogation would not be pursued.
(then you comment on your theory of the origons of terrorist, which, is totaly irrelevant to the debate at hand)
You said:
“If the thwarting of liquid bombs isn’t representative, then what is? It’s fairly convenient that the US can’t tell us about all of the stuff they’ve stopped. Why can’t they tell us that, again? If the intel is coming from these detainees that they’ve nabbed, why is that a source that can’t be revealed? Is there a reason they can’t say “We caught Bob, and Bob told us about this attack on a lemonade stand, and we stopped it. Go us!”? Help reason me through that one, please.”
Jon, surely, you don’t need much help in reasoning there? Interrogation methods, persons being interrogated and what was learned is classified. I doubt you have a security clearance that give you the “need to know” this sort of information.
Let’s just put it this way. There’s no need to tip off the enemy on what methods are being used successfully and who is squealing.
Clay,
I was listening to some This American Life clips this morning and thought of you. Thought you might get a kick out of putting this on in the background at work.
http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/06/310.html
Cheers,
Jon
Jon,
I’m not sure what you are getting at. How would I get a kick out of putting this on in the background at work?
The opening remarks in this public radio excerpt are problematic:
“The right of habeas corpus has been a part of this country’s legal tradition longer than we’ve actually been a country. It means the government has to explain why it’s holding a person in custody. But now, the war on terror has nixed many of the rules we used to think of as fundamental.”
I have no problem with habeus corpus has being a right of this country.
But, where this piece loses me is when it tries to extend that right to prisoners of war being held outside the U.S., who aren’t even US citizens and it’s insinuation that somehow the Bush administration is undermining the American right of habeus corpus by denying it to those detainees at Gitmo.
This kind of wrong-headed thinking is similar to the idiotic notion that we should extend Geneva Convention rights to these terrorists who aren’t signatories of the Geneva Convention, as well as give them the same US Constitutional rights that US citizens have.
That is a load of poppycock that, perhaps, is good for a prelimenary chuckle, but then should be summarily dismissed.
Clay,
There were two items I was hoping you’d take away from that.
1) The fact that the terrorists haven’t signed the Geneva Convention doesn’t change the fact that WE HAVE, and we should abide by it as a humane and civilized society, and
2) Doesn’t it bother you that by the army’s own admission, less than 5% of the detainees being held and tortured at Gitmo are actually even enemy combatants? What’s your answer to the 95+% that are estimated to be innocent?
One last thing: Habeus corpus isn’t just for the benefit of the citizens. Requiring proof of guilt from governments helps keep them from going corrupt.
Jon,
We signed the Geneva Convention which is an agreement between nations who signed it. The enemy we are fighting is not a national army, it is cells of non-uniformed terrorist enemy combatants. There is a big difference in all of that.
I didn’t listen to anything there, just read what was on the page, so I didn’t catch that the Army admitted that only 5% being held were enemy combatants. But, considering the source of all of this, I’m not inclined to give that much crediblity. After all, this is coming from National Public Radio, a part of the leftist media, and there is such a thing as disgruntled military members who, particularily when they are out of the service, are liable to take pot shots at the military when it is safe to do so.
You may believe that habeus courpus may not, on the broader scope, be just the benefit of citizens, but, the site you refered me to opened up stressing that it was a time honored US right for this country. Therefore, I don’t see the worth of your generalized platitiude since it still doesn’t show just how the US right of habeus corpus extends beyond the US to whole wide world.
What do you want next Jon, the reading of the Miranda Act on the battle field?
Clay,
The general gist of our disagreement is that I simply believe that we as a country should be ABOVE inhumane treatment of others, even enemy combatants, whereas you seem to think that if they can do it than so should we. That’s not going to change, so I’m simply going to call it out and leave it there. I don’t know how anyone can listen to descriptions of torture and think “Yeah, it’s okay to do that to another person under pretty loosely defined circumstances,” but fortunately for me I can choose not to socialize with those people.
NPR being part of this “leftist media” doesn’t make the accusation less true, nor does your simply dismissing it as MAYBE being a former disgruntled military member. There have been repeated accusations that MANY of the people in Gitmo were not “scooped up off the battlefield”, but were in fact turned in for a reward from opportunists or people with a grudge, simply because they could. Indeed, the NPR bit interviews a man who was imprisoned for several years for telling a joke that someone else didn’t like.
But you didn’t answer my question, and I’ll ask it again in another form. I imagine you could agree that not EVERYONE in Gitmo is actually an enemy combatant, even if you don’t want to believe the
Jon,
First off, I can’t help but notice your comments ends “even if you don’t want to believe the” I’m not sure what you are trying to say there.
Ok. We do have a disagreement. And that’s ok. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. Nor do I think of myself as always right and everyone else is always wrong. I happen to enjoy and believe that healthy debate is good for all involved. It helps you learn to think out your veiwpoints, and even sometimes change your view.
Having said this, while we probably do have a disagreement here, you seem to be confused over what we disagree on. Nowhere have I said that because the enemy beheads and mutilates our captives that we should do the same. I don’t believe that we should stoop to such barbaric levels. I don’t think we should be wasting time playing tit for tat. We should be dedicating our efforts to extracting the kind of intel that can prevent the slaughter of any more innocent Americans, as well as any innocent people of the whole world outside the barbaric mindset of the Islamo Facist terrorists.
I *have* called for more than chitchat over a cup of espresso to obtain this much needed intel from detainees.
After 9/11 I have adopted “Never Again!” as my motto, and I think it is in our best interest to head off any future atrocities by tough interrogation if needed. I believe we can do that without the need for brutal torture, which the US military does not suppport or do. This is not only because that is not the American way, but also, because it has been proven from experience that brutality doesn’t work. Under excrutiating pain a person will no doubt say whatever it takes to stop the torture. We need reliable intelligence not lip service.
As for my dismissal of the NPR story not making their claims untrue, it doesn’t make them true either.
I have a hard time believing the US military is so stupid and inept at identifying which captives are dangerous and which ones are of no consequence, yet NPR and you (?) somehow know the difference.
I will admit that I am not privy to what criteria the military is using but our military has been in the business of capturing enemy combatants and interrogating them for a long time, and I am confident in their abilities.
Our military is taking the higher moral ground regarding detainess they decide to release. I was listening to NPR this morning and they reported that the US is having problems releasing some of the detainees because the countries that they come from won’t accept them and we are having a hard time finding any other country to adopt them. Of course, it makes me wonder why we are considering releasing them in the first place when their own country doesn’t want them back. That in itself, supports the validity of their capture in the first place.
The NPR report went on to state that we also are careful not to return detainees to their countries if their lives would be in danger after their release. It cited a chinese muslim prisoner that we did not return to China for precisely this reason.
So, the left’s fears that we aren’t taking the higher moral ground just aren’t warranted. This coming from liberal slanted public radio!
If everyone is not an enemy combatant at Gitmo, I’m quite sure they are released as soon as that is determined. I find it ludicrous to paint our military, (which is equipped with some of our finest men and women, and the greatest military in the world), as being so ignorant that they are detaining people only based on the word of someone seeking reward money.
Come on Jon. Have a little more faith in the military that is guaranteeing your’s and my right to be having this discussion in the first place.