Activism Change

ot:Bolshevism in action

Question:

Today, the Congress has forever stained its reputation and that of the United States of America. It is now a foregone conclusion that the execrable detainee bill will be adopted without amendment. There will be no filibuster, as Democrat Senate Leader Reid agreed with Senate Leader Frist to allow a vote on the bill after dispensation of the proposed amendments debated yesterday and today. Senator Reid made a terrible tactical decision in making this agreement. These amendments had no chance of passing. They had value in highlighting the outrageousness of this bill and in thus justifying a filibuster. But without a filibuster, the exercsie was an empty one. We admire Harry Reid’s leadership but, in this monumental moment, his instincts and judgment failed him. And his place in history will be marked by this terrible day. That said, let us not forget who authored this travesty; who stands for torture, for a dictatorial Presidency and against the Constitution and the rule of law–the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress. The David Broders of the world exhult at the "independence" of such cowards as McCain, Warner, Graham and Dewine. But this is a farce. The votes on habeas corpus, the President’s power to arbitraily define torture and to detain indefinitely–merely on his word, without judicial recourse–anyone, including, American citizens, show these men to be the rankest of cowards–and the worst kind too. For they pretend to be otherwise. And the Broders of the world, the immoral and amoral Beltway Establishment, pretend it is true. To their credit, the vast majority of Democratic legislators stood against torture, with their words and their votes. And history will remember that. But the Democratic Senators did not fight to the end, and that too history will remember. Senator Barack Obama eloquently stated today: I may have only been in this body for a short while, but I am not naive to the political considerations that go along with many of the decisions we make here. I realize that soon, we will adjourn for the fall, and the campaigning will begin in earnest. And there will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be called everything from cut-and-run quitters to Defeatocrats to people who care more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans. And I know that the vote before us was specifically designed and timed to add more fuel to that fire. And yet, while I know all of this, I’m still disappointed, and I’m still ashamed. Because what we’re doing here today – a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused – should be bigger than politics. This is serious. . . . Instead of allowing this President–or any President—to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered. Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused. And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus–the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance–one single chance–to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with. . . . But politics won today. Politics won. . . . And the disgrace of the nation will live in history. History will not absolve the President or the Congress on this shameful day. History will not absolve the United States of America. Today we betrayed our values in an exercise of cynical political calculation and blatant fear.

Response:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_09_24_atrios_archive.html#11594600569… Senator Feingold Mr. President, I oppose the Military Commissions Act. Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. It is about time. This Administration has too long been distracted by the war in Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country. But Mr. President, we wouldn’t be where we are today, five years after September 11 with not a single Guantanamo Bay detainee having been brought to trial, if the President had come to Congress in the first place, rather than unilaterally creating military commissions that didn’t comply with the law. The President wanted to act on his own, and he dared the Supreme Court to stop him. And he lost. The Hamdan decision was an historic rebuke to an Administration that has acted for years as if it were above the law. Finally, only because he was essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme Court, the President has agreed to consult with Congress. I would have hoped that we would take this opportunity to pass legislation that allows us to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately, have the potential to demonstrate to the world that our democratic, constitutional system of government is our greatest strength in fighting those who attacked us. And that is why I am saddened that I must oppose this legislation. Because, Mr. President, the trials conducted under this legislation will send a very different signal to the world, one that I fear will put our own troops and personnel in jeopardy both now and in future conflicts. To take just a few examples, this legislation would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and hearsay, would not allow full judicial review of the conviction, and yet would allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death. That is simply unacceptable. We would not stand for another country to try our citizens under those rules, and we should not stand for our own government to do so, either. Senator Dodd: Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded — but not both. This canard has been showcased in every recent election cycle. I fully reject that reasoning. We can, and we must, balance our responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice, while at the same time protecting what it means to be America. To choose the rule of law over the passion of the moment takes courage. But it is the right thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due process that are codified in our Constitution. Our founding fathers established the legal framework of our country on the premise that those in government are not infallible. America’s leaders knew this sixty years ago, when they determined how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of horrendous crimes. There were strong and persuasive voices, at the time, crying out for the execution of these men who had commanded with ruthless efficiency the slaughter of six million innocent Jews and five million other innocent men, women, and children. After World War II, our country was forced to decide if the accused criminals deserved a trial or execution. This history is particularly personal to me. My father, Thomas Dodd, worked alongside Justice Robert Jackson in prosecuting these trials at Nuremberg. He viewed Nuremberg as one of the most pivotal moments in our history – where America chose to uphold the rule of law rather than succumb to rule of the mob. Let me be clear: these enemies of the United States were not given the opportunity to walk away from their crimes. Rather, they were given the right to face their accuser, the right to confront evidence against them, and the right to a fair trial. Underlying that decision was the conviction that this nation must not tailor its most fundamental principles to the conflict of the moment — and the recognition that if we did, we would be walking in the very footsteps of the enemies we despised. . . . As Justice Jackson said at Nuremberg, "we must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well." Mr. President, to rubber-stamp the Administration’s bill would poison one of the most fundamental principles of American democracy. I urge my colleagues not to allow that to happen.

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

Related Posts

• Gasoline Brands
• FAQ
• Water war leaves Palestinians thirsty
• Iraq declares alliance with ...
• Drug cheating speculations re Irish and others
• Burma Activists
• Senate supports Ralph Nader
• JOIN PROTEST SEPTEMBER 18th IN NYC (Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations)
• SELL this FBI NOC LIST and MAKE MILLIONS like TOM CRUISE did in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
• GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT BY THE UNITED NATIONS