So we got a kiss and at the same time a knife in the back. Good job McCain. I bet when you were in Nam they didn't have to torture you before you sang your heart out. We have a word for people like you. TRAITOR!
Posted by Judith at December 17, 2005 09:44 AMC'on, this isn't a surprise.
Posted by gail at December 17, 2005 10:02 AMPessimist, perhaps you can help me out here. I remember some of the debates on this issue when first introduced, I remember Levin had a different amendment, then they had to compromise and agree on this one.
I remember that the Republicans didn't want any detainees to have access to US courts because they would 'clog' the court system. The compromise was to make it under Federal Jurisdiction rather than civilian courts.
When I read this amendment (and I admit, legaleze is not my forte) what I am reading is that 'evidence obtained during coercive techniques is NOT admissable.'
Doesn't this mean than that detainees are protected from evidence against them that was obtained illegally? Or am I reading it incorrectly? And, wasn't the WH arguing to let this evidence (obtained through tortue) be used against the detainees and they did not want the language in the amendment because this would imply that torture was being used?
Please clarify how you read this and I will drink some more coffee and read it again.
Thanks.
Posted by Anjha at December 17, 2005 10:08 AMAnjha
In Law Lords To Condi - Up Yours!, I wrote about how the British Law Lords - their rough equivalent to our Supreme Court - banned the use of evidence obtained through torture.
When I tried to check your link to see what you remembered about Levin's amendment, it seems to no longer be available, but I suspect Levin was after a similar goal.
The problem with the Levin-Graham amendment passed with the McCain bill is that (as Human Rights Watch explains it) Even as the U.S. Congress has passed a prohibition against the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, it is set to adopt legislation that would strip the judiciary’s ability to enforce the ban, ... would deny the five hundred-some detainees in Guantánamo Bay the ability to bring legal action seeking relief from the use of torture or cruel and inhumane treatment. And it implicitly authorizes the Department of Defense to consider evidence obtained through torture or other inhumane treatment in assessing the status of detainees held in Guantánamo Bay.
Martin Garbus has written an intense review of this new law: Torture is not banned or in any way impeded. Under the compromise, anyone charged with torture can defend himself if a "reasonable" person could have concluded they were following a lawful order.
And thus we sink into totalitarian tyranny. It is only a matter of time before American citizens will be tortured to extract information - and our 'justices' will decide that it is all legal.
Posted by pessimist at December 17, 2005 10:27 AMI noticed a post over at Josh Marshall's where he notes that Bush is giving as authority for the NSA wiretaps, the Congressional resolution in 2001 authorizing the force to destroy Al Queda. Josh noted that using that same logic this could allow Bush to override McCain's bill. Of course, that leads to the question of just how many more laws Bush has or will override.
Posted by mainsailset at December 17, 2005 10:51 AMfirst, your answer mainsailset is "Lots"..
My question is: Has McCain been used by Bush again, or was he in on it from the start, or is he just dumb?
It's been 4 years since 911.Plenty of time to bear down,grow some rocks,get tougher,get smarter ,get better at defending the U.S. within the constraints of a free republic.WITHOUT leaning on
draconian measures.
Thanks Pessimist. Thomas allows the links to expire, sorry.
So, I continue to read the damned amendment, with the considerations that you have written, and I have determined that I do not read law well.
It seems to me that the following (apologies for the big amount of info):
"(4) CLAIMS REVIEWABLE.--The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit may not, in a review under paragraph (1) with respect to an alien, consider claims based on living conditions, but may only hear claims regarding--
(A) whether the status determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal with regard to such alien was consistent with the procedures and standards specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals;
(B) whether such status determination was supported by sufficient evidence and reached in accordance with due process of law, provided that statements obtained through undue coercion, torture, or cruel or inhuman treatment may not be used as a basis for the determination; and
(C) the lawfulness of the detention of such alien."
allows the court of appeals to hear these cases. (This is how I read it anyway.)
However, there is this Exception:
"(2) EXCEPTIONS.--This subsection does not apply to the following:
(A) An individual charged with an offense before a military commission.
(B) An individual who is not designated as an enemy combatant following a combatant status review, but who continues to be held by the United States Government."
which seems clearly to nullify and be contradictory of the former. Seems that it means that as long as you are held 'just because' with no crime and no enemy combatant status then you are SOL. Unless, it means that if you have no status then you have access to any court. Which way do I read it?
Being that it does not make clear sense to me, I should read the synopsis of lawyers on the issue rather than attempt to determine its meaning.
Either way, all legaleze aside, the fact that the US is involved in any detention of anyone without having to offer proof of why they are detained and without offering the detainee access to a lawyer or even to be given access to the charges against them, seems clear to me to be illegal. Not only that, but morally wrong.
To even be having these discussions and adding amendments that deal with the US torturing and holding people with no charges is proof positive of the complete decay of anything that once made America great.
I thank you Pessimist for your explanations, links and patience with me.
Posted by Anjha at December 17, 2005 11:34 AMas Jack Cafferty said the other day:
Who cares about whether the Patriot Act gets renewed? Want to abuse our civil liberties? Just do it.
Who cares about the Geneva Conventions. Want to torture prisoners? Just do it.
Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it.
Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMDS is accurate. Want to invade Iraq? Just do it.
Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.
And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phone conversations? Just do it.
What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke. What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.
Posted by ann at December 17, 2005 11:35 AMAnd it implicitly authorizes the Department of Defense to consider evidence obtained through torture or other inhumane treatment in assessing the status of detainees held in Guantánamo Bay.
But Bush already said: We do not torture. Don't tell me he *gasp* lied.
Posted by ann at December 17, 2005 11:36 AMOn the raw story, Collin Powel who is in UK;” Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated that Europeans are being disingenuous when they deny knowledge of the rendition of terror suspects.” ( BBC)
Today instant messages with my sister was mentioning that the news there, had said as much that Condi lies easily, while the government does not say very much. Many countries populations think that their politicians are just crooks. Once a man of good intention runs he quickly become corrupt.
The guardian has an article about the tortures England did after WW2 on former SS but also innocent Germans. It is their week end story.
Torture has always exist, the inquisition was a time when the Rome catholic church was the most culpable in the arts, if you did not believe their way, torture was used to get them to change their believes or die by be burn at the stakes or be quartered. We are going backward in decency. Why are our leaders so partial to inflict pain? Do we not have truth serum?
Having free speech TV, I have the privilege to watch real news. I am thankful to have the dish for over 10 years, as I was upset that cable became a monopoly in my State. There was a trade by 2 co’s that gave monopolies for the cable in 2 states. Prices have gone through the roofs for those sharks. You should be demanding that if you are force to pay for (FAUX) FOX NEWS, you should also have the right to get another view. CNN is not the opposite of FAUX. . Demand to have “Free speech TV” access. You will see the difference.
condi rice only cares about condit rice.. she is a disgrace to all women on America. I hope we find out she is an ET from hell. she sure acts like it and has wasted her life on evil. what a waste.
Posted by sara swati at December 17, 2005 11:03 PMThis is not really a surprise...
Bu$hco had painted itself into a corner with the detainees at GITMO...they've been tortured and this would come to light if they gave into pressure to charge the detainees and try them. They needed an "out" to relieve that pressure so no one could ever prove evidence of torture. The souls in GITMO, whether guilty of heinous crimes or simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time...will never know freedom for the rest of their lives...
Posted by Roy Batty at December 18, 2005 04:18 AMSara - Condi Rice has more intelligence in her pinky finger than you have in your whole brain.
Gee, those poor poor terrorists over there at Club Gitmo.
Thanks for clarifying almost on a daily basis which side you liberals are on - and it ain't the US side.
Posted by David at December 18, 2005 10:12 AMThanks for clarifying almost on a daily basis which side you liberals are on - and it ain't the US side.
As Lindsey Graham said last week, "I don't want to have a discussion about who's a patriot." Even he is clear-minded enough to recognize that if you speak out against the government, you are not speaking out against the country. Bush does not = USA. We, all of us, Rep, Dem, Independent or apathetic = USA.
Posted by ann at December 18, 2005 11:44 AMPoor Davic doesn't understand what a liar she is and that she condones torture. She's a fascist pig. If you're so pro status quo, get yee to Iraq. We should send all right wingers to Iraq, after all, it's their war.
Posted by sara swati at December 18, 2005 05:20 PM