|
Please Don't Miss and
|
|
Friday, 29 September 2006
|
|
Honor Roll: S3930 [Mil Tribunals, etc.]
Contributed by John Werntz After all the rancorous hoo-ha the Congress and the media have subjected us to, both the House and the Senate passed the compromise bill on establishing military tribunals and on permissible methods of interrogation of detainees. In both houses of Congress, the bill passed with thumping majorities--just over 60% in the House and by just short of two-thirds [65-34] in the Senate. In what follows, this post concentrates on the Senate vote, around 7 PM on 9-28-2006. The actual roll call yielded few surprises, but a couple of those were mildly interesting. This blogger will leave it to wiser heads, such as to work out the political ramifications. One leap in the dark, though, before continuing. The Supreme Court can count votes. IMHO the likelihood that SCOTUS will gratify The New York Times by striking down a law that is solidly backed by both branches that are answerable to the people is virtually nil. The title itself speaks volumes: A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war,and for other purposes." The "other purposes" comprise most of what we have been hearing about for months. According to liberal Democrats, amplified to 120 decibels by their media flacks, the Bush administration seeks to authorize torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in the effort to obtain actionable intelligence from detainees. The administration claims that it is merely trying to establish guidelines to enable interrogators to function effectively without crossing the line into criminality. The people's representatives have now agreed to support the administration. That should dampen the outcry, but of course it won't. The question of military commissions requires a bit of background. Going all the way back to 2003, a Guantanamo detainee named Hamdan challenged the system of military tribunals then in effect. The case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, wound its way through the courts eventually reaching the Supreme Court. Exactly three months ago, the justices ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Hamdan, in a 5-to-4 decision. The decision, written by Justice Breyer, was Delphic in its ambiguity. In its WebMemo #1143, dated July 5, 2006 the made a valiant effort to decipher it--
Done. Both houses of Congress have authorized military commissions to try detainees accused of war crimes. Although the bill was bitterly opposed by the Democratic leadership, there were enough Yeas from individual Democrats to create solid majorities, and lend a gloss of bipartisanship to the effort. As expected, the ineffable Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted Nay. The Maine Republicans split. Susan Collins voted Yea, but Olympia Snowe abstained. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, after bloviating for months about grave risks to our noble tradition of civil liberties, supported the president whom he had bashed mercilessly in the runup to the vote. Go figure. He took his lumps on an amendment to extend the right of habeas corpus to detainees, and then soldiered on in spite of that disappointment. The 12 Democrats who defied their leadership deserve congratulations. As expected, Joe Lieberman went along. Both New Jersey senators voted Yea, even the very liberal Lautenberg. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan may deserve a profile in courage considering the ethnic composition of her constituency. The real surprise to this blogger was the junior senator from West Virginia, Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Long a very vocal critic of the president, he parted company with his senior senator and voted with the majority. It would seem he was against the bill before he voted for it. Does that presage presidential ambition? The remaining Democratic Yea votes, whether they voted their conscience or their political future, merit honorable mention. After Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Rockefeller, and Stabenow they are, in alphabetical order-- Carper (DE), Johnson (SD), Landrieu (LA), Bill Nelson (FL), Ben Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), and Salazar (CO). Any reader who failed to break off to follow the link to should do so now to get the benefit of Ed's shrewd take on the vote, not to mention those of [some] of his commenters. |
|
Contributed by John Werntz on September 29, 2006 at 02:31 AM in , , , | Comments Posted by: Jay Rockefeller's ambitions may run more to staying out of Lewisburg, avoiding prosecution for serious charges relating to his repeated leaking of top secret information. Posted by: | Sep 29, 2006 10:22:40 AM Posted by: Rurik, Always glad to hear from my one reader. Rocky? Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that one. But I have a problem with it. No one in Justice has the guts to go after leakers. If they did, they'd get John Doe indictments of those who leaked the NSA program to the NYT. Armed with probable cause that felonies had been committed, they could then waltz on in to the newsroom, frog-march Risen & Lichtblau out in handcuffs, and slam them into the pokey as material witnesses. Keep them there until they cough up. Ain't never gonna happen. Posted by: | Sep 29, 2006 4:54:49 PM Posted by: hieronymous anonymous So I guess if the people throw the Republicans out of office, does that mean you were wrong? Maybe there is more to life than the wisdom of the mob mentality sometimes, which is why we have a legal system in the first place. Considering the numerous people who have been tortured already, such as that fellow from Canada, I am not sure what you mean by saying Bush is just trying to define the line between criminality and lawful interrogation. Especially considering that the exact methods of interrogation are still secret, considered classified, and basically, have no oversight from the Peoples Representatives you hold so dearly. Posted by: hieronymous anonymous | Oct 22, 2006 9:53:30 PM |