"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism"

House Passes Detainee Interrogation Bill

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; 5:58 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701287_pf.html

The House approved an administration-backed system of questioning and prosecuting terrorism suspects today, setting clearer limits on CIA interrogation techniques but denying access to courts for detainees seeking to challenge their imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

The 253-168 vote was a victory for President Bush, who yielded some ground during weeks of negotiations but fully embraced the language that House members approved with support from 34 Democrats and all but seven Republicans. Senators also began debating the measure today and defeated the first of five amendments opposed by the administration. Senators predicted their chamber will approve the legislation Thursday.

That would enable Bush to hold a signing ceremony on a high-profile bill about a month before the Nov. 7 elections. He was scheduled to meet with GOP senators in the Capitol Thursday morning for a final pep rally before the measure's expected passage. Republicans hope to campaign on the bill as proof of their party's toughness against terrorists, and many congressional Democrats decided to swallow their misgivings to avoid being portrayed as less than vigilant against suspects captured in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

Barring a last-minute snag, the House and Senate action will conclude three months of debate that began in June, when the Supreme Court struck down Bush's proposed system of military commissions to try so-called unlawful enemy combatants. Such combatants enjoy fewer rights than prisoners of war, and much of the congressional debate has centered on which, if any, rudimentary legal rights should apply to the detainees. The administration also was eager to protect CIA officers from possible prosecution or lawsuits stemming from aggressive interrogation techniques such as water-boarding, which simulates drowning.

The White House proposed legislation that would have embraced much of the military commission setup and interrogation practices. But a trio of Republican senators -- John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and John W. Warner (Va.) -- forced him to modify several points.

The compromise legislation does not seek to clarify the Geneva Conventions, as Bush had hoped. But it gives the executive branch substantial leeway in deciding how to comply with treaty obligations that fall short of "grave breaches" of the conventions.

It bars military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that violate "the cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited" by the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. But it allows such testimony from practices that occured before Dec. 30, 2005, when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act. Some Democrats said the loophole signals U.S. acceptance of abusive practices, but GOP sponsors said the language was essential to protect well-intended CIA officers from vague guidelines.

The Senate debate today followed negotiations yesterday between White House national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and Republican senators. They did not resolve a dispute over whether the captives should have access to U.S. courts. That meeting 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, Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters yesterday after meeting with Hadley.

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.

Graham, who supports the suspension of the habeas corpus process, predicted that the Specter amendment "will be defeated, I think, in a bipartisan fashion, with a solid vote."

Administration officials have said that the controversial provision is warranted because "unlawful enemy combatants" are not entitled to the same rights as regular soldiers or U.S. citizens; because isolation and the threat of indefinite detention aid U.S. interrogations; and because habeas corpus petitions could obstruct or delay the military trials of detainees.

But human rights groups and defense lawyers have condemned the provision as unconstitutional. They said it could leave detainees "to rot" in jail.

------
Cool. Now if only the Senate can act and Bush can sign, we'll have Torture and the removal of Habeus Corpus enshrined in United States law... what is it The Constitution says? Oh, yes...

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Stupid pre 9-11 thinking. This is a glorius day for us all... I tell you, the Greatest Generation and those guys that founded the country have nothing on us!
________
Dems voting in favor...

Andrews (NJ-1)
Barrow (GA-12)
Bean (IL-8)
Bishop (GA-2)
Boren (OK-2)
Boswell (IA-3)
Boyd (FL-2)
Brown (OH-13)
Chandler (KY-6)
Cramer (AL-5)
Cuellar (TX-28)
Davis (AL-7)
Davis (TN-4)
Edwards (TX-17)
Etheridge (NC-2)
Ford (TN-9)
Gordon (TN-6)
Herseth (SD-AL)
Higgins (NY-27)
Holden (PA-17)
Marshall (GA-3)
Matheson (UT-2)
McIntyre (NC-7)
Melancon (LA-3)
Michaud (ME-2)
Moore (KS-3)
Peterson (MN-7)
Pomeroy (ND-AL)
Ross (AR-4)
Salazar (CO-3)
Scott (GA-13)
Spratt (SC-5)
Tanner (TN-8)
Taylor (MS-4)

Repubs voting against...

Bartlett (MD-6)
Gilchrest (MD-1)
Jones (NC-3)
LaTourette (OH-14)
Leach (IA-2)
Moran (KS-1)
Paul (TX-14)

 

I just want to make sure that everyone knows the primary reason this is being pushed so hard is because it would never come up for a vote in a Dem Congress and the Administration is working hard to get the provision that protects "US Nationals" from prosecution and law suits. If you think they are worried about some guy working for the CIA, you're mistaken. Bush has condescendingly referred to those people as "third-tier" and he could care less. No, it's to protect themselves, not the CIA guys. There's nothing else in this bill that matters because Bush has shown he would ignore anything he doesn't want to abide by anyway, so a little signing statement and VOILA!, torture or imprisonment or whatever. The one thing he can't get from a signing statement is immunity from prosecution and that's why we have the big push to get this done. He's essentially pardoning himself and Congress is ready to go along.

I remember when the Rule of Law meant something in this country and people got upset when Ford pardoned Nixon and when people were yelling at Clinton. The current silence is deafening.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

I've been saying the same thing for awhile. Democrats in the Senate should filibuster. I'm not holding my breath, but damn it, they should filibuster.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Neither do the terrorists or any other fascism/theocracy.

/depressed

 

Slightly different take... and scarier...
-----------

Rogue Presidency
by tristero
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Yes, the NY Times gets it. But it's not telling the whole truth.

The truth is that the United States government is presently holding, torturing, and even murdering countless numbers of people who have no chance in hell of obtaining a lawyer, let alone anything resembling a trial. The government is doing this under the direct orders of George W. Bush. There is no law, no bill, and no legislature who can stop him. If Congress were to pass a law unequivocably banning torture and send it to him, he'd use it for toilet paper. If the Supreme Court were to rule against Bush in the harshest and bluntest language, he'd yawn.

The truth is that there is a rogue presidency and there has been, since January, 2001 (earlier, if you count the stolen election). Certainly, everyone in Washington knows it, but no one dares to admit it. The bill legalizing torture merely enables Congress to pretend they still have some influence over an executive that from day one was governing, not as if they had a mandate, but as if Bush was a dictator. If, for some miracle, the bill didn't pass, every congress-critter knows Bush would keep on torturing.

Better to vote to pass and preserve the appearance of a working American government, the thinking goes. For the very thought that the US government is seriously broken - that the Executive is beyond the control of anyone and everyone in the world - is such a truly awesome and terrifying thought that it can never be publicly acknowledged. If ever it is, if the American crisis gets outed and Congress and the Supremes openly assert that the Executive has run completely amok and is beyond control, the world consequences are staggering. It is the stuff of doomsday novels.

And this brings up the dilemma of a post Nov. 7 world. Apparently, one if not both houses of Congress may be controlled by Democrats. Now what? You think Bush is gonna get impeached? Put on trial for war crimes? Forget it. You think they're gonna repeal the pro-torture law they're about to pass? You can almost certainly forget that, too. Remember: it is crucial to maintain the illusion that Congress still has some say, as it was in November of 2002 about the Bush/Iraq war.

If, for some reason, Congress does decide to move against Bush in some substantive way, there will be hell to pay. Those of us who well remember Watergate remember that while it was genuinely thrilling to have Nixon caught, disgraced, and removed, it was also a time of extreme tension. Would Nixon tough the impeachment trial out, causing the country incalculable harm? It looked for quite a long time that he would. About Bush, there is no doubt.

Since the day after the 2000 election, Bush and his goons have been playing chicken with the very structure of the United States Government, double-daring anyone to try and stop them. If Congress does try - and I'm not talking little things like wrecking Social Security, that'll happen and a dictator can afford to let things like that wait a while, I'm talking atomic bang bang and thumbscrews - he will force the private Constitutional crisis into the open. And there is no guarantee that Bush will lose.

And that is the truth. The Congress has been given an awful choice: Vote to approve torture and the suspension of habeas or show the world that yes, you really do have no genuine power to check Bush.

Of course, all of Congress should vote against the bill anyway. But they won't. And to themselves, they will justify the vote as saying they made a hard choice but made the best one they could for their country.

Me, well...I've gone on record numerous times about how much I dread radicalism and serious national crises (which are two reasons Bush scares the hell out of me). The prospect of an open Constitutional confrontation, Bush vs. the Congress plus the Supremes...Jesus Christ. Perhaps I should understand the Congress had no real choice?

Absolutely not. The time truly is long overdue where there simply is no choice but to say "enough." It should have been enough over the stolen election, or the neglect that led to 9/11, or Schiavo, or the filibuster.* But voting to permit the US government to sidestep Geneva? To suspend habeas? What the heck is Congress thinking, for crissakes??? Has fascism moved so slowly that only a few bloggers can perceive the inevitable progression? I don't think so.

There's no question about it. Any person in Congress who votes for this - listening, Hillary? - will never get my vote again. Ever, not even for dogcatcher, let alone president. If there is going to be a public Constitutional crisis over Bush's rogue presidency - and there will be sooner or later, guaranteed - bring it on now.
---------

Note: I changed a bad word to "heck."

 

So the three GOP Senate "heroes" vote against a vital amendment. It sickens me as well. ****ing hypocrites.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

This is all very dangerous. I have no qualms saying that this is more of a threat to our nation than anything done to us on 9/11.

I can't believe our great nation is going down this road. I can't believe all these people are allowing it to happen.

 

I hope this causes their hell to be a little hotter as they take notice of the margin.

 

YEAs ---48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---51
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Not Voting - 1
Snowe (R-ME)

Snowe... what a coward! With her and Nelson... why is a Dem voting against this? It would have been 50-50 and Cheney would have had to vote.

 

We are a democracy, and the people have chosen this course, not the politicians mind you. You're right that the people are allowing it to happen, as in the majority of the U.S. voting population.

We stand in the minority...but now we all must be on alert. If someone wants to make you disappear all they have to do is arrest you on a terror related issue, and you will never see the light of day, nor judge or jury, nor lawyer or family.

It looks like we're becoming more like Saddam's Iraq then Jefferson's America.

 

And by the way, Cloture passed 94-0. WTF? There weren't 41 Senators against this travesty?

 

Cafferty: President Bush is trying to pardon himself. Here’s the deal: Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies, in some cases punishable by death. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They’ve been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution they’re trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week before Congress adjourns. The reason there’s such a rush to do this? If the Democrats get control of the House in November this kind of legislation probably wouldn’t pass.

You wanna know the real disgrace about what these people are about to do or are in the process of doing? Senator Bill Frist and Congressman Dennis Hastert and their Republican stooges apparently don’t see anything wrong with this. I really do wonder sometimes what we’re becoming in this country.

 

"We have been known as the nation of Nuremburg. I fear that we will now be known as the nation of Guantanimo." — Sen. Christopher Dodd

Yep.

 

OK, Kennedy has offered an amendment that would detail what specific torture acts would be objectionable if done to our troops. If Repubs vote against it, they are saying torture can be used on our troops. If they vote for it, they are saying we'll do things to others that we wouldn't allow to happen to our troops. Goes to the hypocrisy, eh?

Amendment is tabled to be considered later.

According to Tom Oliphant, the Dem strategy is to kick this to the courts where it would be struck down. If so, that's stupid. John Paul Stevens is 86 and could keel over anytime. What if it gets to the SC after it's added one more Scalia?

Should have filibustered.

 

OK, maybe that wasn't the cloture vote that is tied to this bill. Some confusion. Maybe a filibuster is still an option.

 

Byrd offering an amendment for a sunset provision. Repubs are nonsensical in their opposition... "It will send the wrong message overseas," says Warner.

 

Warner again in opposition to a 5 year sunset... "Terrorists will just wait 5 years to get caught."