Thursday, November 16, 2006

Dodd Introduces Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act

Press Release in Full:

November 16, 2006

Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.
“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”
The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:

* Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
* Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants
* Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
* Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable
* Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
* Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight
* Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.



Anonymous said...

It's sad to see a man in his sixties obsessed by what his father did two generations ago.

Obviously, younger Dodd has accomplished nothing he deems worthwhile in almost four decades of public life

I defer to someone who actually understands intel, Rep. Simmons, on how to effectively deal with terrorists. I'll defer to Dodd how to effectively deal with Sunday TV talk shows

Bobby McGee said...

Dodd seems to always be on the right side of these issues.

Anonymous said...

Dodd- Please run in '08, I need a good laugh.

"This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges."

Oh? And why is that? To many damn lawyers along with the Communist founded ACLU perhaps?

Shadow said...

That first quote by Dodd is just outstanding.

We can't win hearts and minds in the Middle East if we allow our morals to deteriorate, and we can't bring our enemies to justice if bad laws cause us to end up releasing them.

This should all be common sense to a hamster, but you usually don't hear it said this succinctly from a national platform.

Anonymous said...

"Oh? And why is that? To many damn lawyers along with the Communist founded ACLU perhaps?"

No, because it is unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

It was refreshing to see Congressman Simmons bow out so gracefully.... if only his sour grapes supporters could follow his lead.

Bobby McGee said...

Communist ACLU. That's hilarious. Aren't communists for restricting people's civil liberties?

cgg said...

FYI comments that insult anyone's race, culture, or religion will be deleted.

Anonymous said...

"Communist ACLU. That's hilarious."

I suppose in a sad way.

You think I'm kidding?

Not that I'm a fan of Wikipedia but here is some founder background-

Baldwin openly sought the utter destruction of American society. Fifteen years after the founding of the ACLU, Baldwin wrote:

"I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. "

Don't take my word for it- Simply Google ACLU & Communism.

Anonymous said...

"No, because it is unconstitutional."

Battlefield combatants & foreign terrorists are not afforded Constitutional protections.

Anonymous said...

based on what Don Williams is proposing, seems the Democrats want to expand constitutional rights for terror suspects and limit them for political campaigns

Hey, that nasty campaign flier is a real threat to the public...hey, a Democrat might get hurt

Shadow said...

Not the same protection as citizens, no. But there must be A process. If we just throw people in a cell indefinitely without any oversight, we're mimicking the behavior of the very nation states we want to see move closer to democracy.

And furthermore, the war on terror is not against a country, where the soldiers are its citizens, and it's not a war with a forseeable end in the traditional sense, as there is no nation state to surrender to us. So the implications of identifying and holding on to enemy combatants takes on a whole new dimension. Misidentification is also easier with a much broader pool of countries from which the combatants hail, and in the case of a misidentification, it's not like someone would just have to sit in their cell a couple more years until the war is over.

Make no mistake about it, the vast majority of people we have in captivity are our enemies and are lucky not to have had their heads blown off on the battlefield. But to assume we have a perfect track record is ignorant to the inherant margin of error in any justice system. What do the one or two innocent guys in captivitity get in this country for protection, and how will we ultimately be judged regarding their treatment by over a billion Muslims whose hearts and minds we are trying to win over in this war on terror?

That's not the ACLU, that's not communism; it's democracy, it's America, and I would not change it for anything. The current laws are unconstitutional, which is why we need new laws so we can bring actually bring the terrorists to justice, instead of sacrificing the legal means to do so as we have been, and being stuck with guys who we can't prosecute and who their own home countries don't want back either.

Mirror - - Veteran said...

What is not understood here is that the rules of engagement involve our soldier's lives. If we adopt arbitary and brutal prisoner handling proceddures, then our future opponents will be free to treat OUR captured soldiers in the same fashion. Soldiers do the fighting and dying and any discussion on this issue must start and end with them as the main consideration.