Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.(nytimes,)
Johnson, Shays & Simmons Vote Yes, DeLauro & Larson vote No.
Dodd's Speech
Mr. President, on September 11, 2001, America was attacked by
ruthless enemies of this country. It is my strong belief that those
responsible for orchestrating this plot, and anyone else who seeks to
do harm to our nation and our citizens, must be brought to justice,
and punished severely.
These are extraordinary times, and we must act in a way that fully
safeguards America’s national security. That is why I support the
concept of military commissions -- to protect U.S. intelligence and
expedite judicial proceedings vital to military action under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. In my view, as we develop such
means, we must also ensure that our actions are not counter-
productive to our overall efforts to protect America at all levels.
As you know Mr. President, 430 detainees are being held in Guantanamo
Bay facilities as so called “enemy combatants.” The President has
claimed the authority to detain prisoners indefinitely without
formally charging them with a crime, to use questionable
interrogation practices which some experts say violate international
law banning torture, and to set up secret tribunals in which some
detainees could be convicted without ever seeing the evidence against
them, while others receive no trials at all. The Supreme Court ruled
in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld this activity is unconstitutional. But the
groundwork for this decision was laid in the Supreme court decision
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, two years ago, in which Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor declared “A state of war is not a blank check for the
President."
Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would
have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a
choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the
basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both. This
canard has been showcased in every recent election cycle.
I fully reject that reasoning. We can, and we must, balance our
responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice, while at the same
time protecting what it means to be America. To choose the rule of
law over the passion of the moment takes courage. But it is the right
thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due
process that are codified in our Constitution.
Our founding fathers established the legal framework of our country
on the premise that those in government are not infallible. America’s
leaders knew this sixty years ago, when they determined how to deal
with Nazi leaders guilty of horrendous crimes. There were strong and
persuasive voices, at the time, crying out for the execution of these
men who had commanded with ruthless efficiency the slaughter of six
million innocent Jews and five million other innocent men, women, and
children. After World War II, our country was forced to decide if the
accused criminals deserved a trial or execution.
Read more of Dodd's Speech
Updated: Lieberman Yes Dodd No Senate Passes the Military Commissions Act of 2006: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
48 comments:
This is why Dodd is running for President. I wished John Kerry hadn't run in 2004 (I wish Dodd had. It would have made 2008 an exciting reelection) and made things tougher for Northeasterners.
Any word on how Sen. Lieberman plans to vote?
funny, his would be colleagues Rep. Ford and Rep. Brown decided to tell Dodd and co. to pound sand.
Guess running a Club Fed for terorists might not sell in a statewide senate campaign
Most of America is still more afraid of Al Queda than Republicans. Sorry, Chris
Jeez ... I hate to have to point this ouy (AGAIN!) but comparisons with Nazi Germany are spurious - AT BEST. We are fighting STATELESS terrorism. I don't recall the Al Queda boys on the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers holding political trials before they drove those 767s in ... they just hammered 'em home. Dodd and his ilk are - as always - fighting the last war (or two) instead of groking where we are today.
These are hate-consumed, hate-motivated, hate-filled and hate-obsessed psycopaths who can ONLY be stopped by "martyrdom." I say we meet their needs in full, ASAP, on a wholesale scale, until something resembling sanity once again prevails among the barbarians now ascendant in Middle Eastern politics.
According to a diary at DailyKos, Sen. Lieberman failed to show the courage to uphold the rule of law over the passion of the moment. Sen. Lieberman chose to sacrifice "the basic tenets upon which our country was founded". Sen. Lieberman voted for S. 3930.
Lieberman voted for the torture measure.
Joe Lieberman: Pro-torture, pro-war.
anti- habeus corpus.
Them's some fine principles you got, Joe.
Sickening.
Safety and security isn't worth this. It just isn't.
This is a long way from over, to the Supreme Court we return...
and unlike Hamdan, CJ Roberts will not be recused from voting
and based on the acturial chart, possible the court gets another Roberts clone
By the way, will Chris Dodd stop reminding people his dad prosecuted Nazis...it's like he has no accomplishment of his own to discuss after 32 years in Washington
Anon 6:39,
You said "Most of America is still more afraid of Al Queda than Republicans. Sorry, Chris .
You made Senator Dodd's point for him. Do you see how?
Turfy--
Please park you fake disgust at today's legislation. That is unless you've made a clean break with Joe Lieberman and his Neo-con buddies.
It shouldn't escape you that Ned Lamont would have quickly sided with Chris Dodd against this abominable Congressional action.
My point was that the Democratic party is more afraid of Karl Rove than anyone associated with bombings and beheadings
The American public has a more rational view of the world
Anon 7:14 - You fail to see that since 9/11, all of our actionshave played directly into the hands of the Islamic radicals. The way we defeat Islamic fundamentalism is by winning over the "Arab Street." More of the same on our end will only serve to radicalize more of the Middle East, to our ultimate detriment. Is it too much to ask for a deft foreign policy? Aren't all of these people Ivy Leaguers?
This bill passed 65-34. Republicans voted 54-1, with Chafee being the exception. Arlen Specter voted for the bill. Jeffords voted no. 12 Democrats -- more than a quarter of all the Democrats -- voted yes. Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.)
Of the 12 Democrats voting for the bill, 5 of them are from Blue states (NJ, NJ, CT, MI, DE). So it's not as if they didn't want to vote this way, but had to because of the electoral politics in their home state.
Rockefeller is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and he voted yes.
Instead of hating Republicans so much maybe they should join the Republicans in hating terrorists. Then again, the terrorist insurgents in Iraq are providing the Democrats with most of their campaign material so I guess it makes sense to hate Republicans instead.
Funny how the Democrats say exactly the same thing as Chavez of Venezuela and Ahmadinejad of Iran.
Congratulation to the Republican Party and Joe Lieberman.
You've now given George W Bush the same power over Americans Saddam had over Iraqis.
Check Mate,Osama wins.
Um, DR--
To throw anyone in jail without the right to a fair and speedy trial.
I think they used to call it "habeus corpus".
“Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would
have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a
choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the
basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both.”
So said Dodd in his talk. But as a mater of fact, if not a matter of law, he is wrong. The protections of the US Constitution apply only to citizen; to all others we owe courtesy – which means we may, if we so choose – often we do – extend them the courtesy of those protections.
However, if someone comes into my hose and burns it down, he has put himself outside the protection of my courtesy. That is what happened on 9/11. One of the terrorist planes on that day narrowly missed the Capitol building in Washington, and one cannot help but wonder whether Dodd, so courteous to Hugo Chavez and others who mean us harm, would feel differerently if the terrorists had been more successful.
The constitutional protestions Dodd wishes to extend to the declared enemies of his country mean that, in coloquial terms, “he’s begging for it.” One wants to be careful what one wishes for.
I'd like to hear a Dodd speech on how his own policies in the 1970's created the boat people
To throw anyone in jail without the right to a fair and speedy trial.
I think they used to call it "habeus corpus".
Does this bill apply to American citizens, or only to "illegal combatants" captured outside of our borders.
After the US captured German soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge during 1945, these prisoners were not afforded POW status and were executed within 24 hours, obviously without trial, since they wearing US army uniforms instead of Wehrmacht uniforms.
GMR - it applies to anyone deemed an enemy combatant, regardless of their citizenship or where they were captured...
The way to deal with the Arab Street is to win the war. To win the war you Kill and Destroy your enemy. We are fighting this war with our hands tied behind our back because fools like Dodd would rather appease and "understand" our enemy. The enemy started this war with the first WTC bombing, the Cole, and 9/11. We should obliterate the "Arab street"
This Bill applies to ANYONE the President declares an Enemy combatant,American citizen or not.
Disgruntled -
Check your facts. The bill would allow anyone, American or not, citizen or not, captured here, Iraq, or anywhere, to be held forever, without trial, without ability to see the evidence against them, and without being able to challenge their detention in court via habeas corpus (indeed, one reading of the bill would essentially end court oversight, so the detention order could not eben be appealed).
They want to destroy our freedoms? Mission accomplished...
Don Pesci -
Athough so far in your career you have seen no need to do so, you might consider having a frigging clue about what you are talking about before you spew inanities out of your blowhole.
This bill would allow ANYONE deemed an enemy combatant, including American Citizens captured here or overseas, to be held forever without access to the courts or the evidence against them.
TBlue - You forgot to mention that, a the end of all that, he was released because he didn't have a damn thing to do with terrorism. Sorry.
Trueblue--Fortunately the majority of CT voters are smart enough to realize the utter stupidity of electing Ned Lamont. R's, D's, and I's make a majority. Not far left blogs. And how is Ned doing with that fundraising? Gee he put up another $750,000--guess the people power ain't coming thrugh!!
TB--So it's allright to categorize R's as brain dead or something to that effect, and little Ned can spend all his money saying how horrible and evil Bush is, yet one poster says something bad about D's and your feelings get hurt. So sad.
the facts are that Ned and the Nutroots spent the summer alienating R voters and moderates. That was stupid. And the chickens are coming home to roost.
From the blowhole.
Anon 10:48 :“This bill would allow ANYONE deemed an enemy combatant, including American Citizens captured here or overseas, to be held forever without access to the courts or the evidence against them.”
In order to be a COMBATANT one would have had to engage in COMBAT against the United States, here or abroad. The law permits the president to treat COMBATANTS as combatants. If George Washington could have laid hands on Benedict Arnold – an enemy COMBATANT when he turned spy – he would have hung him, even though he wasn’t wearing British military clothing at the time he was apprehended. Nathan Hale, an enemy COMBATANT was hung by the British.
Calm down. The bill has just been passed. If Sen. Dodd thinks it is defective then – as a non COMBATANT senator – he can avail himself of his constitutional right and offer amendments to the bill. I certainly would defend his right to do so.
Don Pesci -
Are you joking? The people you are talking about are going to be called enemy combatants without trial, without evidence being shown, and without a chance to show that they aren't, in fact combatants. If they aren't actual combantants, how will they show that they aren't and ever be released from detention?
We just codified guilty until proven innocent. Oh wait, no we didn't, because there is no access to courts in this bill. We just codified guilty.
A bill that allows the president, any president, to determine what torture is and removes all access to the courts is as unamerican as if it stripped everyone's property rights.
Please see the Canadian refrenced above who was detained, renditioned, tortured, and then released after it was determined that he had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. Ooops.
Also, NTAC, you didn't at all address the substantive criticism of the previous post - namely, that you got on your oversize soapbox to say that the constitution only protects citizens and were completely bughouse wrong in implying that this bill only affects non-citizens. It applies to citizens and non-citizens alike.
bluecoat said...
United states military lawyers - past and present - asked for modifications to this bill along the lines of what Dodd called for; just thought I'd point that out.
12:09 PM, September 29, 2006
along with a half-dozen or so former Chiefs of Staff, a couple of dozen retired high-ranking intelligence officers....
But Joe voted his convictions. Boy, he truly is admirable. It's not like this is something threatening to the Constitution or basic morality like, say, a video game or rap lyrics.
One of the lessons of history not cited by Dodd in his floor speech is contained in the following document:
Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Abraham Lincoln
September 24, 1862
Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A PROCLAMATION
Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;
Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:
Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
Note the reason given for the suspension of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln, not generally regarded as an enemy of the US Constitution: The persons to which the suspension applies “are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law.” That reason would apply to “enemy combatants.”
TrueBlue
You and I are talking past each other. Dodd mentioned the "so called" enemy combatants at Guantanamo in his floor speech. My remarks are an examination of that specific speech. Perhaps you can tell us how many of the “so called” enemy combatants there were American citizens. I would hazard a guess and say: none. Since most of them were taken on the field of battle, how many of them may we safely regard as “so called” enemies?
Dodd does this stuff all the time and no one picks him up on it. You should not suppose that I grieve any less than you over Canadian citizens unjustly accused and then sent to torture facilities outside the United States. My view on torture is the same as Albert Camus. It never should be allowed, under any circumstances for the reasons he stated in his notebooks.
Back to Dodd. The senator holds up the Nuremburg trials as a model that the US should use in the present instance. He does not mention that these trials occurred after Germany’s defeat. If you do not think the timing of the trials are important, consider this question: What do you suppose Hitler would have done to the many American citizens residing in areas he conquered if the US, having captured Ghering, decided to prosecute him publicly before Germany was defeated? Trials are fine for war criminals once the war has been concluded. I think you may agree that the public trial of Saddam Hussein in Iraq – a hideous waste of time – hasn’t helped to convince the terrorists in Iraq that democratic forms are preferable to jihad.
Could Lieberman and Chafee just swap and get it over with?
Bluecoat
Woodward … Woodward; sort of rings a bell. Oh yeah, he was the intrepid reporter who maintained a courageous silence while special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald mis-prosecuted the Valerie Plame case. You remember that one Bluecoat, right? Plame, the wife of Joe Wilson, supposedly was outed as an undercover CIA agent by someone high in the Bush administration – possibly the devilish Karl Rove, who may have slipped the information to Robert Novak, or maybe the big enchilada himself, the liar in chief, George Bush.
As it turned out, Richard Armatige, second in command to Colin Powell and a critic of Bush’s misadventure in Iraq, slipped the information to – Mr. Woodward. The whole sordid story might easily be made into a book, but not, one supposes, one written by Woodward. You, however, might have read about it here http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2006/07/yellowcake-anyone.html or here http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2006/08/rove-cheney-innocent-powell-armatige.html or here http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2006/08/end-of-affair.html or here http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-lies-and-lying-liars-who-tell-them.html
Bluecoat
Why would a change of venue make the trial any less a farce?
I love how the non-lawyer posters always have an opinion about how the legal/military justice systems work in this country.
Have any of the Republican-haters on this website thought to do a comparison of this bill to the anti-terror laws of other nations, including those of our traditional European allies like France, Italy, Britain, etc? I didn't think so.
Funny how some conspiracy theories float right over the heads of the lefties. Woodward's new book -- a dull slog of rehashed material designed mostly to get him back in the good graces of the libs after his previous two books flatering to the Bush administration -- might be selling more briskly had Fitzgerald nailed Rove or even Bush for outing Plame. But it was not to be, because the leaker was not Rove, but Armatige, an opponant of the war in Iraq and Colin Powell's second in command. Powell is the subject of a flattering new bio written by another Post reporter, not Woodward. Ah well, at least the Post sold a few newspapers while the Plame farce was hot. Way to go Post.
Anon 11:27 pm - Those countries do not possess (or perhaps I should say "did not possess") the constitutional protections against governmental excesses that we enjoy/enjoyed. Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?
Anonymous said...
Have any of the Republican-haters on this website thought to do a comparison of this bill to the anti-terror laws of other nations, including those of our traditional European allies like France, Italy, Britain, etc? I didn't think so.
11:27 PM, September 29, 2006
Typical Republican.... bashing the US Constitution and wishing we could be more like the French. If you love all those foreign countries so much, Traitor, I'll buy you a one-way ticket to Britain (a cowardly traitor like you doesn't deserve French or Italian food).
“and I am sure you know that once Richard Armitage knew he had done what he had done he fessed up and even testified before the grand Jury without a lawyer by his side while remianing quiet about his involvement at the request of Fitzgerald.”
I know nothing of the sort. Armatige spent a good amount of time watching Fitzgerald’s parade go by. Robert Novack, the reporter to whom Armatige slipped the information in what Armatige said was an inadvertant chatty remark, has a much different view of the matter. See here: http://www.suntimes.com/news/novak/52338,CST-EDT-NOVAK14.article
bluecoat
In the link to the post cited about, Novack pointedly answers your charge that Armatige was being silent because he was under orders to do so by Fitzgerald:
"When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silence three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."
Gotta break through the bubble every so ofen, bulecoat; get out into the wide world; have a look around. The fresh air will do you good.
"Joe Lieberman: Pro-torture, pro-war. anti- habeus corpus.
Them's some fine principles you got, Joe."
Worked for Lincoln.
Bingo! Finally a good question bluecoat. Stevenson would be proud of you. And by the way, this is a public bar. Pesci ain't going anywhere. The problem with you guys is: When someone you disagree with gets a little too close to the truth, you want him to go away -- and take the truth with him. Stevenson's bluecoat loved the truth; it was wine to him -- and honor -- enough to die for it. I'm a little disappointed in ye.
Post a Comment