The Graham amendment to strip habeas corpus from US detainees passed yesterday, but the fight isn’t over. Read here about what happened and what you can do about it.
John might be a rightwing nutjob and I may be an unhinged moonbat, but about this we agree completely. America doesn’t deserve to have its name tarnished by crap like this.
Anonymous
It’s veterans day……did anyone know that?
John Cole
I believe the correct term for me is unhinged wingnut.
John S.
Yes, I found that out when I attempted to go to the bank on my way to work this morning.
Damn bankers, they get all the good hours.
KC
Don’t forget, the Senate will be considering the issue of habeas corpus for American citizens too.
Pb
Tim F.,
You’re definitely a hinged moonbat. :)
John Cole
KC- There is more tothat than it seems.
Doug
This is the second time this congress has acted to restrict what U.S. Courts other than the Supreme Court can hear. Does anyone still think the Republican party is conservative?
Jcricket
Habeus Corpus? Sounds like french to me. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys!
I understand some of the logic behind Graham’s amendment, but yet again, we’re going to lose the battle for the hearts and minds. Especially when the rest of the world gets their news from the 2/3 of the baddies that we set free from all these places after holding them for years.
Let’s look at the situation: We deny all international agencies (Red Cross, AI, UN) access into our “prisons for terrorists” and we deny Congressional oversight and we deny any rights usually granted to US citizens and we deny that the Geneva Convention applies to anyone we lock up there.
So what’s left? We’re just supposed to trust that we’re treating everyone appropriately? That we never lock up people for the wrong reasons (name sounded like Osama)? That we’re not violating our obligations under whatever treaties do apply?
How can people not see that Graham’s amendement is simply fuel for the fire that we hold ourselves above all accountability. We’re saying there are no laws that apply to us and that any foreigner who runs afoul of our WOT efforts has no recourse, ever. With cases like Jose Padilla being an American citizen doesn’t even offer you any rights!
Pb
Jcricket,
I’m going to repurpose another post I made elsewhere, and put it here in response… I’m sure I’m just a pie-in-the-sky idealist, but here goes:
Let’s concede [the] point for the moment–that it’s not so bad to torture the bad guys. No doubt millions of Americans will agree–they don’t care if you torture a terrorist. In fact, some of them would be thrilled if you did. They’d probably pay to see it on Pay Per View.
Ok, fine, whatever. But how do we know that we’ve got the right guy? How do we know that he did do all those bad things? We wouldn’t want to torture the wrong guy by mistake–then we’d be the bad guys here!
That’s why–in America–we have this standard, this “presumption of innocence“. This is the opposite of what the bad guys do. It’s also why we can’t just lock people up indiscriminately–“habeas corpus“. Similarly, we have the Sixth Amendment (right to trial), not to mention the Eighth Amendment (protection against–amongst other things–“cruel and unusual punishment”).
Let’s presume innocence until guilt is proven. Let’s not lock people up in secret prisons. Let’s allow people to have fair and speedy trials. Let’s not torture people. These aren’t just my opinions, they are bedrock legal principles and moral values of America and of Western Civilization. This is how the good guys have to act to stay good.
So the next time someone tells you we should just torture suspected terrorists indefinitely in some secret hellhole with no possibility of reprieve, ask them “Why do you hate America?” — and mean it.
Stormy70
I think Al Qeida needs to do more to win hearts and minds than we do after they blew up a Muslim wedding party and the Palestinian intelligence General with their suicide attacks. The Jordanians took to the streets telling Zarqawi to burn in hell, and the Palestinians finally came across a suicide bombing they could condemn. I don’t think it is we who should be kissing ass for hearts and minds.
Steve S
Al Qaeda has won. The Republicans have turning our great nation over to them.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security – Ben Franklin
Pb
Stormy70,
I know I shouldn’t question your earnestness on this subject, but given those statements…
Wedding party.
Fallujah in the news.
I think we’ve got a lot to atone for over there–not even “kissing ass for hearts and minds”.
washerdreyer
Stormy70 –
It’s not a zero sum game, and it’s very strange to think otherwise. It’s not like these are the options on the table: “Oh, I don’t like Al Qaeda, therefore I love the USA.”
“Oh, I don’t like the USA, therefore I love Al Qaeda.”
Jcricket
PB, not sure why that was directed at me. I agree with you. Torture bad (for both practical and moral reasons). Indefinite detention bad. Lack of oversight bad. Claiming everyone we capture is the worst of the worst and then releasing 2/3 of them years of detention later without apologizing, real bad.
Oh, and I agree with washerdryer. Let’s not set the bar too low here. Just because Al Qaeda isn’t “one big party” doesn’t give us a free pass to do whatever-the-fuck we want. There are lots of reasons why antagonizing the rest of the world is a bad thing, both short and long-term.
don surber
So you are ashamed of Lincoln now?
Outraged?
America deserves better?
Yea, I am real apologetic for overthrowing Saddam Hussein — NOT!
Y’all keep choking on your gnats while you swallow those watter buffalos. I am enjoying the show
Pb
Jcricket,
It was directed at you because you had the first substantive comment directed at such issues that I saw. And I figured that you would agree. Personally, I think that all right-thinking Americans should agree, but in fact many don’t. I don’t get it, but I guess “two Americas” is in effect, and I don’t know the one they’re coming from.
Pb
don surber,
Lincoln? Never met the guy.
Are you ashamed when your country bombs a wedding party, lies about it, and then gets called on it? I am. And that was just one small example.
As for the rest of your comment… I have no idea what you’re talking about. As I said, whatever America you might purport to be coming from, I don’t recognize it.
nycmoderate
Here’s my question to anyone still reading the comments at this point. Doesn’t Graham’s sponsorship of this, and McCain’s vote in favor of it, to some degree negate all the anti-torture vitriol? [I’m tired, so please forgive, bad wording or spelling.]
They don’t trust the Administration (inc. DoD, CIA, etc) to not toture the detainees, but they do trust them to control all of those same people’s rights to any attempt at proving their innocence? How does that work exactly?
I used to not doubt McCain’s sincerity on this issue (tho on others, especially since he seemingly signed his pact with the devil Rove during the last campaign). I want to not doubt it. But this vote leaves me with little choice, unless someone can explain how those two things can possibly go together.
ppGaz
I don’t think even the Taliban could have come up with National Security Letters.
All Your Rights Are Belong To Us
narciso79
Read Eisentrager (where they hid German POW’s in China) and Qurin, and come back. Those rights do not belong to
“unlawful combatants” Read in re Milligan and Merryman;
one who unlawfully detained, was released; the other was
upheld. Rasul, and Ghadi and the other detainee case, was so ahistorical and illinformed; (you can’t blame this on Harriet Miers) they should have erased from the laptops; along with the Kelo decision; that belonged in George 111 or Cromwell, not anywhere near an American court. Maybe it will take another try by the Al Quahtani’s, (who supplied the 20th highjacker and a passel of Iraqi suicide bombers;
to make a another attacK: and we’ll see the results; But then it will have been too late; as Amman found out this week.
Pb
nycmoderate,
Maybe McCain is of the opinion that these people are not entitled to POW status, but also shouldn’t be tortured. I’d like to know where he stands now on the case of Jose Padilla, though–it seems he was questioning the administration on that front almost two years ago; has he changed his mind?
Stormy70
The Muslim world has more to atone for, since it is they who have financed and excused political terrorism against their enemies. Now it has spread and infected a large portion of their young men, who think dying for sexual paradise is a great option in life. This has gone on for decades, and in places like India and Taiwan, it has flown under the radar of the West. Africa was conquered by the Islamic sword, and Darfur tried to kill all their black Muslims when the war with the Black Christians was resolved.
I think modern day Muslim’s that excused this terrorism in the past need to start condemning it in no uncertain terms. The Jordanians protesting in the street is a nice sign.
Jcricket
Sure, Stormy, I agree with you that the Muslim world has a lot to atone for. Suicide bombing, “honor killings”, the acceptance of rape as acceptable “revenge” against women whose relatives commit some kind of infraction, the way gays are treated, mistreatment of dissidents, etc. No disagreement there. The Muslim world’s tendency to justify everything either with Sharia or by blaming it on the Israelis is pathetic. And those who refuse to condemn those actions should also be called on it.
However, If we use the actions of some Muslims to justify betraying our own promises and values, how is that OK? I’m not comparing the two sets of actions. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
It’s not in our interest to pass laws whose sole purpose is to “strip rights of Guantanamo prisoners“.
What I’m really worried about are those moderate muslims and moderate muslim nations who we need as allies. When they read something like the following:
Couple this with the fact that we keep releasing 2/3 of the prisoners, after years of isolation, with little explanation/apology, and a “thinking person” outside of the US might reasonably conclude that we’re wrong a lot and don’t want to be held accountable. So, if someone’s wrong a lot, you start doubting their motives on all sorts of things. Just think of the effect when you go to a restaurant and have a negative experience. Customer Service experts say you will 10 of your friends, thus magnifying the effect of your bad experience by an order of magnitude. What do you think happens to the hundreds or thousands of people we release after being detained for multiple years, interrogated, possibly tortured, kept isolated, etc? Do you seriously think they go back to their countries and say, “Well, I wasn’t a US citizen or uniformed combatant, so I understand how Donald Rumsfeld and Lindsay Graham feel, and support their decision to detain me in the manner they did”
What do you think happens to the other un-decideds in the muslim world when they watch us do this? What happens to a potential recruit for Al Queda, growing up poor in Pakistan, who once might have idolized America for all it represents. If we represent nothing to them but supporting their dictatorial rulers and lip-service to any freedom we claim is available in the US, why will they support us?
If you’re a country we think is harboring terrorists, would you cooperate with us knowing we’ll round up 100s of your citizens and hold them on flimsy pretenses (that we will refuse to share) and provide the prisoners with no recourse for years. I suppose the solution, you might say, is to keep it all secret. But that just makes it worse (as you can see from recent relevations).
nycmoderate
Pb:
And I might be willing to concede that they are not lawful, uniformed combatants as defined by the Geneva Conventions*. However, the Graham Amendment doesn’t classify them as non-POW’s. It strips US courts of the ability to hear any habeas claim, future or pending.
It empowers the Secretary of Defense to create the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals for determining the status of detainees at Gitmo. The Tribunal must then determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether any information was obtained by “undue coercion”. The Tribunal is to be headed by an officer of the US government, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It then says, “[n]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider” any writ of habeas from any Gitmo detainee.
Please notice that this could very well mean that Rumsfeld gets to create the Tribunal, head it himself, determine the meaning of “undue coercion” himself, determine whether there was any, and then decide whether the detainee is to be released or not.
That’s my problem. Because these are the very same people that created the torture policies in the first place.
*That’s where the definition came from, yes? I sometimes get names mixed up. But in any case, the point still holds.
Steve S
Perhaps it’s time we reinstitute the institution of slavery?
Then we’d get some work out of these detainees. Plus it’d help bring down the cost of labor in America.
Surely that’d be a good thing for business.