America goes Nazi: tortured and murdered prisoners labeled "DETAINEES"... in name of Homeland Security and Defense of the Reich, of course.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Sad to say, our post from earlier this week is well worth re-posting, along with a citation from a new op-ed from the LA Times, just to mark how callow and pathetic has the discourse in America become, with both "opposition party" Demorats and "the major media" subscribing to the notion that prisoners in US custody tortured and/or murdered are deserving of no more attention or mention than the Orwellian label "DETAINEES."
Here's how LA Times editorialist Bruce Ackerman calls it:
<< This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize ANYBODY who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president ENORMOUS POWER OVER CITIZENS and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison. >>
The above is NOT hypothetical conjecture, indeed, "it" - the ability of the president and federal government to accuse someone of links to terror organizations - HAS ALREADY led to an increase in the Republican senate majority. In 2004, Republican senate candidate MEL MARTINEZ *RELENTLESSLY* campaigned on largely a single issue, that his opponent, Democratic candidate BETTY CASTOR, was "SOFT ON TERRORISM" because Castor had been President of the University of South Florida, at the time the Feds accused University of South Florida Arab-American professor Sami al Arian of "raising funds for the Hezbollah terrorist organization."
Here is the NEWSMAX right-wing spin on the whole bloody debacle:
<< According to a Mason-Dixon poll released on Thursday, "Martinez leads 46 percent to 41 percent among likely voters after exploiting liberal Democrat Betty Castor's chief weakness: her failure to strongly denounce or fire a suspected terrorist when she was president of the University of South Florida." >>
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/10/115040.shtml
What is important is that, under the "old" rules, Al Arian was arrested and tried and found NOT GUILTY, yet because his University Professor would not denounce him quickly enough, she (Democratic Senate candidate Betty Castor) lost a close election. Under "the NEW rules," NOT ONLY COULD Al Arian BE HELD *INDEFINITELY* - AND TORTURED to provide a FALSE CONFESSION! - but so too, theoretically, could ANYONE ELSE even REMOTELY linked to Al Arian... including his University's president!
THIS is America's new Naziesque take for the War On Terror, at least as far as the occupant of the White House, George W. Bush is concerned. Mr. Bush, we might recall, only 'won' his office by stealing the election from disenfranchised American voterss in 2000 general election ("disenfranchising" legal voters is akin to DEFRAUDING them of their votes), and almost certainly only "won" the 2004 election courtesy the "Surrender First!" campaign of his fellow Skull & Bones Yale fraternity member, Mass. Senator John Kerry, and yet MORE massive, systematic DISENFRANCHISEMENT of legal voters in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, and other states in 2004, this time in all probability with Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia no-audit, no-oversight, no-verification voting machines. "TRUST, BUT VERIFY!" was President Reagan's mantra during negotiations on missile treaties during the Cold War. "TRUST US - YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!" is the gleeful mantra of today's Republican vote-counters, voting machine companies, and office holders throughout the nation.
Well, now that we have arrived at Mr. Bush's precious "DETAINEE" bill, WHAT exactly does it mean for America's security?
Answer: NOT_MUCH. The ANTHRAX TERRORIST, 5 years after his murderous terror letters were mailed here in America in September of 2001, is still as FREE TO ROAM AMERICA as Osama bin Laden is FREE TO ROAM Jihadistan. And the president STILL prefers to dole out PORK to his connected contractors and Red-State voters, than to provide funding for PORT SECURITY or CHEMICAL PLANT SECURITY or for NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION or any of the other items that earned "D" and "F" **FAILING** grades from the 9-11 Commission Final Report - including SLASHING funding for New York, Washington DC, and other front-line, first line defenses!
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/911reportcard.pdf
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
And over in IRAQ, over 60% of Iraqis now believe it is justified to try to kill Americans, and of that number, many thousands are willing to risk their lives to take a shot at it. [BBC video of a convoy shot-up after taking a turn into a dead-end]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/newsid_5390000/newsid_5390300/nb_rm_5390306.stm
From the video, we can see that "an ambush" is no more than locals - "Injuns" - running out to throw a IED (improvised bomb) and AK fire in front of an American Halliburton convoy that has wandered into a bad neighborhood. They must certainly know that in a few hours US firepower will level their homes and kill them or their neighbors.
THAT is the legacy of George W. Bush's TWO STOLEN ELECTIONS here in America.
============================================
(repost:)
America goes Nazi: tortured and murdered prisoners labeled "DETAINEES"... in name of Homeland Security and the Reich, of course.
We suppose it was inevitable. The Right-WIng NARRATIVE, unopposed by any REAL 'OPPOSITION' party or vocal, confrontational 'major media,' has prevailed.
Under the post-9/11 "PATRIOT" laws, and now the new "KGB/Gestapo TORTURE" law, American military and secret police officials are now free to operate as... the KGB and Gestapo once did, with blanket, total state immunity for all torture and murders resulting from torture or, whoops! premeditated executions.
We do have the small consolation that none of this would have been possible without the cooperation of the "AIPAC media" and the AIPAC "Democrats" - institutions like the Sulzberger owned New York Times, and people like Joe Lieberman and Harvard University Professor ALAN DERSHOWITZ. Alan Dershowitz once made a name for himself as a Human Rights advocate and defendant's rights defense counsel, but, blinded by the temptation of a "Greater Israel" or however the neo-cons define their goals, now subscribes to a human rights agenda that is just about indistinguishable from that once advocated by the KGB or Gestapo. IF that is a little too dramatic a comparison, how about the Russians operating during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Remember, we Americans were ON THE SIDE of the "MUJAHADEEN FREEDOM FIGHTERS" back then.
And make no mistake about it: for "MUJAHADEEN FREEDOM FIGHTERS" to go up against Red Army firepower was very often a suicidal proposition, just as suicide bombers are today.
"Detainees killed under interrogation" is the new American euphamism for the old Nazi standby, "Jewish terrorists shot while trying to escape."
And, of course, the much LARGER portion of that propaganda picture was (is) those tortured/murdered WHO DON'T EVEN MAKE the 'NEWS'.
We have no illusions as to the cruelty of men in combat, including American soldiers in 'modern' wars. The WWII testimonial book, "Another Battle, Another Town" documents that in close, brutal infantry combat, neither side (Americans nor Germans) was predisposed to take prisoners after seeing their own comrades brutally killed in close combat. A similar theme was portrayed in the movies "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers," with surrendering soldiers often shot down before they are taken in. And make no mistake, TORTURE was a huge part of the Vietnam war, as documented in countless books, articles, and movie dramas. TORTURE can be administered as easily as placing a gun barrel close to a prisoners head, and allowing the muzzle blast to rupture the prisoner's eardrums. Literally, even a child could administer this type of torture (especially with a modern low-recoil weapon like the M-16) without significant effort, without leaving a mark. The same with 'waterboarding' (using a see-saw like plank on a pivot to dunk a strapped-down prisoner's head under water) - almost effortless, leaves no mark - and other ingenious TORTURES.
BUT WILL BESTOWING BLANKET KGB/GESTAPO TORTURE POWERS on American servicemen and CIA agents IMPROVE their "intel" gathering ability? We doubt it. People in an occupied land tend to understand who is funding and commissioning TORTURE and imprisonment, and tend to resent or despise those distant taskmasters. And with the increasing ability of fundamentalist sects to to create distinct, isolated CELLS, no individual terrorist will know much that good, basic detective-work Intel couldn't gather without torture. During the Vietnam war, some US groups well knew that a large VC operation was 'in the air," but higher command refused to take heed of good local intelligence. (For anyone wanting to have a lick of familiarity with counter-terror ops, Seal Team Six's founder Richard Marcinko's book, "Rogue Warrior," details these and 1,000 other command failures.)
And finally, a government and regime (the US administration) that LUSTS after TORTURE powers, has demonstrated that it has hardly any committment to enhancing our foreign language translation capacity, is indeed predisposed TO IGNORE good local 'intel.'
And don't forget, the brutal regime (Bush White House) that sneers at those who oppose the "KGB TORTURE BILL," is also the regime that has been TOTALLY INCOMPETENT at bringing THE ANTHRAX TERRORIST to justice. And some editorial commentators have written that IT WAS THE FEAR of the ANTHRAX ATTACKS, on top of the 9-11 attacks, that drove Congress over the edge to passing the "PATRIOT" unlimited arrest- and detention-powers bill.
Well, CHATTLE SLAVERY in the United States was quite impossible without PROXY WARS (the slave raids necessary to capture slaves), TORTURE (the terrorization and punishment of slaves), and the wholesale denial of any legal rights to an entire category of people, so Mr. Bush and his apologists (including, as we have just said, so many former "liberals" and "human rights advocates") aren't really breaking new ground on their precious "DETAINEES" bill, they have simply managed to take America's 150 years back to the era of state-sanctioned TORTURE.... Just as Osama bin Laden and the Islamist radicals seek to take the entire world back to over a millennium ago.
[note the typical New York Times template: the article is NOT about "AMERICA AUTHORIZES TORTURE" but is instead about a "he said, she said" political horserace. Joseph Goebbels might be jealous, but he would grudginly approve.]
=======================================
Detainee Bill Closer to Passage After House Vote
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 27, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/wire-detain.html
WASHINGTON (AP) _ The House approved legislation Wednesday giving the administration authority to INTERROGATE and prosecute terrorism detainees, moving President Bush to the edge of a pre-election victory with a key piece of his anti-terror plan.
The 253-168 vote in the House came shortly after senators agreed to limit debate on their own nearly identical bill, all but assuring its passage on Thursday.
Republican leaders are hoping to work out differences and send Bush a final version before leaving town this weekend to campaign for the Nov. 7 congressional elections.
For nearly two weeks the GOP have been embarrassed as the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Bush's plan would give him too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday, and Republicans are hoping approval will bolster their effort to cast themselves as strong on national security, a marquee issue this election year.
House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, all but dared Democrats to vote against the legislation.
''Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?'' he asked just before members cast their ballots.
Democrats opposed the bill by about a five-to-one margin, with many wanting to tone down the powers it would give to Bush and the limits it would impose on terror-war suspects' abilities to defend themselves during trials.
Said Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio: ''This bill is everything we don't believe in.''
The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling last June that Congress' blessing was necessary. While the bill would grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration's old system, it nevertheless would eliminate rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.
The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments _ but gives Bush broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators can legally use. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.
With elections just weeks away, the debate over the legal handling of terrorists was often partisan with some Democrats contending the bill would approve torture.
''All Americans want to hold terrorists accountable, but if we try to redefine the nature of torture, whisk people into secret detention facilities and use secret evidence to convict them in special courts, our actions do in fact embolden our enemies,'' said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.
Others vehemently opposed language that would give the president wide latitude to interpret international standards of prisoner treatment and bar detainees from going to federal court to protest their treatment and detention under the right of habeas corpus. Supporters of the bill have said eliminating habeas corpus was intended to keep detainees from flooding federal courts with appeals.
The bill also gives the president the ability to interpret international standards for prisoner treatment when an act does not fall under the definition of a war crime, such as rape and torture.
''It gives too much leeway to the president,'' said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. ''And I think when you tamper with the Geneva Conventions ... you hurt our ability to protect the troops.''
Republicans defended the measure as sound.
''Is it perfect? No,'' said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. ''Do we have an obligation to pass it? Yes.''
Republicans said time was critical so that terrorists could be brought to justice.
Lawmakers shrugged off multiple disruptions from citizens watching the floor debate from inside the Capitol.
Sad to say, our post from earlier this week is well worth re-posting, along with a citation from a new op-ed from the LA Times, just to mark how callow and pathetic has the discourse in America become, with both "opposition party" Demorats and "the major media" subscribing to the notion that prisoners in US custody tortured and/or murdered are deserving of no more attention or mention than the Orwellian label "DETAINEES."
Here's how LA Times editorialist Bruce Ackerman calls it:
<< This dangerous compromise not only authorizes the president to seize and hold terrorists who have fought against our troops "during an armed conflict," it also allows him to seize ANYBODY who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president ENORMOUS POWER OVER CITIZENS and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison. >>
The above is NOT hypothetical conjecture, indeed, "it" - the ability of the president and federal government to accuse someone of links to terror organizations - HAS ALREADY led to an increase in the Republican senate majority. In 2004, Republican senate candidate MEL MARTINEZ *RELENTLESSLY* campaigned on largely a single issue, that his opponent, Democratic candidate BETTY CASTOR, was "SOFT ON TERRORISM" because Castor had been President of the University of South Florida, at the time the Feds accused University of South Florida Arab-American professor Sami al Arian of "raising funds for the Hezbollah terrorist organization."
Here is the NEWSMAX right-wing spin on the whole bloody debacle:
<< According to a Mason-Dixon poll released on Thursday, "Martinez leads 46 percent to 41 percent among likely voters after exploiting liberal Democrat Betty Castor's chief weakness: her failure to strongly denounce or fire a suspected terrorist when she was president of the University of South Florida." >>
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/10/115040.shtml
What is important is that, under the "old" rules, Al Arian was arrested and tried and found NOT GUILTY, yet because his University Professor would not denounce him quickly enough, she (Democratic Senate candidate Betty Castor) lost a close election. Under "the NEW rules," NOT ONLY COULD Al Arian BE HELD *INDEFINITELY* - AND TORTURED to provide a FALSE CONFESSION! - but so too, theoretically, could ANYONE ELSE even REMOTELY linked to Al Arian... including his University's president!
THIS is America's new Naziesque take for the War On Terror, at least as far as the occupant of the White House, George W. Bush is concerned. Mr. Bush, we might recall, only 'won' his office by stealing the election from disenfranchised American voterss in 2000 general election ("disenfranchising" legal voters is akin to DEFRAUDING them of their votes), and almost certainly only "won" the 2004 election courtesy the "Surrender First!" campaign of his fellow Skull & Bones Yale fraternity member, Mass. Senator John Kerry, and yet MORE massive, systematic DISENFRANCHISEMENT of legal voters in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Iowa, and other states in 2004, this time in all probability with Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia no-audit, no-oversight, no-verification voting machines. "TRUST, BUT VERIFY!" was President Reagan's mantra during negotiations on missile treaties during the Cold War. "TRUST US - YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!" is the gleeful mantra of today's Republican vote-counters, voting machine companies, and office holders throughout the nation.
Well, now that we have arrived at Mr. Bush's precious "DETAINEE" bill, WHAT exactly does it mean for America's security?
Answer: NOT_MUCH. The ANTHRAX TERRORIST, 5 years after his murderous terror letters were mailed here in America in September of 2001, is still as FREE TO ROAM AMERICA as Osama bin Laden is FREE TO ROAM Jihadistan. And the president STILL prefers to dole out PORK to his connected contractors and Red-State voters, than to provide funding for PORT SECURITY or CHEMICAL PLANT SECURITY or for NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION or any of the other items that earned "D" and "F" **FAILING** grades from the 9-11 Commission Final Report - including SLASHING funding for New York, Washington DC, and other front-line, first line defenses!
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/911reportcard.pdf
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
And over in IRAQ, over 60% of Iraqis now believe it is justified to try to kill Americans, and of that number, many thousands are willing to risk their lives to take a shot at it. [BBC video of a convoy shot-up after taking a turn into a dead-end]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ifs_news/hi/newsid_5390000/newsid_5390300/nb_rm_5390306.stm
From the video, we can see that "an ambush" is no more than locals - "Injuns" - running out to throw a IED (improvised bomb) and AK fire in front of an American Halliburton convoy that has wandered into a bad neighborhood. They must certainly know that in a few hours US firepower will level their homes and kill them or their neighbors.
THAT is the legacy of George W. Bush's TWO STOLEN ELECTIONS here in America.
============================================
(repost:)
America goes Nazi: tortured and murdered prisoners labeled "DETAINEES"... in name of Homeland Security and the Reich, of course.
We suppose it was inevitable. The Right-WIng NARRATIVE, unopposed by any REAL 'OPPOSITION' party or vocal, confrontational 'major media,' has prevailed.
Under the post-9/11 "PATRIOT" laws, and now the new "KGB/Gestapo TORTURE" law, American military and secret police officials are now free to operate as... the KGB and Gestapo once did, with blanket, total state immunity for all torture and murders resulting from torture or, whoops! premeditated executions.
We do have the small consolation that none of this would have been possible without the cooperation of the "AIPAC media" and the AIPAC "Democrats" - institutions like the Sulzberger owned New York Times, and people like Joe Lieberman and Harvard University Professor ALAN DERSHOWITZ. Alan Dershowitz once made a name for himself as a Human Rights advocate and defendant's rights defense counsel, but, blinded by the temptation of a "Greater Israel" or however the neo-cons define their goals, now subscribes to a human rights agenda that is just about indistinguishable from that once advocated by the KGB or Gestapo. IF that is a little too dramatic a comparison, how about the Russians operating during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Remember, we Americans were ON THE SIDE of the "MUJAHADEEN FREEDOM FIGHTERS" back then.
And make no mistake about it: for "MUJAHADEEN FREEDOM FIGHTERS" to go up against Red Army firepower was very often a suicidal proposition, just as suicide bombers are today.
"Detainees killed under interrogation" is the new American euphamism for the old Nazi standby, "Jewish terrorists shot while trying to escape."
And, of course, the much LARGER portion of that propaganda picture was (is) those tortured/murdered WHO DON'T EVEN MAKE the 'NEWS'.
We have no illusions as to the cruelty of men in combat, including American soldiers in 'modern' wars. The WWII testimonial book, "Another Battle, Another Town" documents that in close, brutal infantry combat, neither side (Americans nor Germans) was predisposed to take prisoners after seeing their own comrades brutally killed in close combat. A similar theme was portrayed in the movies "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers," with surrendering soldiers often shot down before they are taken in. And make no mistake, TORTURE was a huge part of the Vietnam war, as documented in countless books, articles, and movie dramas. TORTURE can be administered as easily as placing a gun barrel close to a prisoners head, and allowing the muzzle blast to rupture the prisoner's eardrums. Literally, even a child could administer this type of torture (especially with a modern low-recoil weapon like the M-16) without significant effort, without leaving a mark. The same with 'waterboarding' (using a see-saw like plank on a pivot to dunk a strapped-down prisoner's head under water) - almost effortless, leaves no mark - and other ingenious TORTURES.
BUT WILL BESTOWING BLANKET KGB/GESTAPO TORTURE POWERS on American servicemen and CIA agents IMPROVE their "intel" gathering ability? We doubt it. People in an occupied land tend to understand who is funding and commissioning TORTURE and imprisonment, and tend to resent or despise those distant taskmasters. And with the increasing ability of fundamentalist sects to to create distinct, isolated CELLS, no individual terrorist will know much that good, basic detective-work Intel couldn't gather without torture. During the Vietnam war, some US groups well knew that a large VC operation was 'in the air," but higher command refused to take heed of good local intelligence. (For anyone wanting to have a lick of familiarity with counter-terror ops, Seal Team Six's founder Richard Marcinko's book, "Rogue Warrior," details these and 1,000 other command failures.)
And finally, a government and regime (the US administration) that LUSTS after TORTURE powers, has demonstrated that it has hardly any committment to enhancing our foreign language translation capacity, is indeed predisposed TO IGNORE good local 'intel.'
And don't forget, the brutal regime (Bush White House) that sneers at those who oppose the "KGB TORTURE BILL," is also the regime that has been TOTALLY INCOMPETENT at bringing THE ANTHRAX TERRORIST to justice. And some editorial commentators have written that IT WAS THE FEAR of the ANTHRAX ATTACKS, on top of the 9-11 attacks, that drove Congress over the edge to passing the "PATRIOT" unlimited arrest- and detention-powers bill.
Well, CHATTLE SLAVERY in the United States was quite impossible without PROXY WARS (the slave raids necessary to capture slaves), TORTURE (the terrorization and punishment of slaves), and the wholesale denial of any legal rights to an entire category of people, so Mr. Bush and his apologists (including, as we have just said, so many former "liberals" and "human rights advocates") aren't really breaking new ground on their precious "DETAINEES" bill, they have simply managed to take America's 150 years back to the era of state-sanctioned TORTURE.... Just as Osama bin Laden and the Islamist radicals seek to take the entire world back to over a millennium ago.
[note the typical New York Times template: the article is NOT about "AMERICA AUTHORIZES TORTURE" but is instead about a "he said, she said" political horserace. Joseph Goebbels might be jealous, but he would grudginly approve.]
=======================================
Detainee Bill Closer to Passage After House Vote
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 27, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/wire-detain.html
WASHINGTON (AP) _ The House approved legislation Wednesday giving the administration authority to INTERROGATE and prosecute terrorism detainees, moving President Bush to the edge of a pre-election victory with a key piece of his anti-terror plan.
The 253-168 vote in the House came shortly after senators agreed to limit debate on their own nearly identical bill, all but assuring its passage on Thursday.
Republican leaders are hoping to work out differences and send Bush a final version before leaving town this weekend to campaign for the Nov. 7 congressional elections.
For nearly two weeks the GOP have been embarrassed as the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Bush's plan would give him too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday, and Republicans are hoping approval will bolster their effort to cast themselves as strong on national security, a marquee issue this election year.
House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, all but dared Democrats to vote against the legislation.
''Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?'' he asked just before members cast their ballots.
Democrats opposed the bill by about a five-to-one margin, with many wanting to tone down the powers it would give to Bush and the limits it would impose on terror-war suspects' abilities to defend themselves during trials.
Said Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio: ''This bill is everything we don't believe in.''
The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling last June that Congress' blessing was necessary. While the bill would grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the administration's old system, it nevertheless would eliminate rights usually granted in civilian and military courts.
The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments _ but gives Bush broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators can legally use. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.
With elections just weeks away, the debate over the legal handling of terrorists was often partisan with some Democrats contending the bill would approve torture.
''All Americans want to hold terrorists accountable, but if we try to redefine the nature of torture, whisk people into secret detention facilities and use secret evidence to convict them in special courts, our actions do in fact embolden our enemies,'' said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.
Others vehemently opposed language that would give the president wide latitude to interpret international standards of prisoner treatment and bar detainees from going to federal court to protest their treatment and detention under the right of habeas corpus. Supporters of the bill have said eliminating habeas corpus was intended to keep detainees from flooding federal courts with appeals.
The bill also gives the president the ability to interpret international standards for prisoner treatment when an act does not fall under the definition of a war crime, such as rape and torture.
''It gives too much leeway to the president,'' said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. ''And I think when you tamper with the Geneva Conventions ... you hurt our ability to protect the troops.''
Republicans defended the measure as sound.
''Is it perfect? No,'' said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. ''Do we have an obligation to pass it? Yes.''
Republicans said time was critical so that terrorists could be brought to justice.
Lawmakers shrugged off multiple disruptions from citizens watching the floor debate from inside the Capitol.
posted by verifi at 3:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home