Friday, September 29, 2006

the torture vote

both houses of congress have now passed the president's "military commissions" bill, which effectively legalizes torture and allows the president to determine that anyone he chooses (anyone, even US citizens) is an "enemy combatant", then hold them without habeas corpus and try them without letting them see the evidence. from the washington post:

Included in the bill, passed by Republican majorities in the Senate yesterday and the House on Wednesday, are unique rules that bar terrorism suspects from challenging their detention or treatment through traditional habeas corpus petitions. They allow prosecutors, under certain conditions, to use evidence collected through hearsay or coercion to seek criminal convictions.

The bill rejects the right to a speedy trial and limits the traditional right to self-representation by requiring that defendants accept military defense attorneys. Panels of military officers need not reach unanimous agreement to win convictions, except in death penalty cases, and appeals must go through a second military panel before reaching a federal civilian court.

By writing into law for the first time the definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant," the bill empowers the executive branch to detain indefinitely anyone it determines to have "purposefully and materially" supported anti-U.S. hostilities. Only foreign nationals among those detainees can be tried by the military commissions, as they are known, and sentenced to decades in jail or put to death.

At the same time, the bill immunizes U.S. officials from prosecution for cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees who the military and the CIA captured before the end of last year. It gives the president a dominant but not exclusive role in setting the rules for future interrogations of terrorism suspects.

Written largely, but not completely, on the administration's terms, with passages that give executive branch officials discretion to set details or divert from its protections, the bill is meant to provide what Bush said yesterday are "the tools" needed to handle terrorism suspects U.S. officials hope to capture.

i was curious to see how indiana's representatives voted on the torture bill, so i checked, and was not surprised to see that (for hoosiers, anyway), the vote was right down the party line. in the senate, bayh voted no and lugar voted yes. in the house, indiana's two democrats—pete visclosky and julia carson—both voted no. indiana's republican representatives all voted yes to torture.

this bill goes against everything america is supposed to stand for. republicans eagerly passed it. and while democrats overall, shamefully, did not do nearly enough to oppose the bill (some democrats even voting for it), indiana's democrats all voted no. now, which party is the party of "values" again?


Steph Mineart said...

I was just going to write something similar. This bill coupled with this scary line from the end of the NIE report:

"Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint… We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train and obtain logistical and financial support."

Given that Gary Welsh thinks I'm a "liberal extremist" -- I wonder how long before I get designated an "enemy combatant" as well?

syntax said...

this really makes me hope that the supreme court grows a conscience and throws this law the hell out of the books.

but i'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen.

it's a sad day.