Senate OKs bill for detainee trials, interrogations

[elbales]

From cnn.com:
Senate OKs bill for detainee trials, interrogations
POSTED: 9:35 p.m. EDT, September 28, 2006

• NEW: Senate passes bill authorizing interrogations, tribunals for terror suspects
• Measure to give terror suspects habeas corpus rights rejected
• House approved bill along mostly party-line vote Wednesday.
• Democrats say bill gives president too much authority, endangers troops

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill Friday, sending it to the White House.

The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit blatant abuses of detainees but grant the president flexibility to decide what interrogation techniques are legally permissible.

Mostly I will leave this to speak for itself. But a few observations:

This could be interpreted to apply to American citizens. Chew on that for a bit.

There's precedent for the suspension of habeas corpus--Lincoln did it during the Civil War, for one--though I hope if this law gets challenged because an American was denied the right, the law (or at least that part of it) gets struck down because Lincoln did it during a declared war, and Bush is doing it during a war that's so well defined it's like nailing Jell-o to a tree. But habeas corpus doesn't apply to captured foreign soldiers, anyway; that's why we have the Geneva Conventions.

Oh yeah. Those. They're pretty cool; they keep enemy armies from torturing our soldiers. So naturally, Congress guts them. Asshats.

Our government has just done very bad things to one of the pillars of international law. We've just abrogated the only thing that keeps countries like, say, China from doing whatever the fuck it wants to captured soldiers.

H just made a really good point to me. I paraphrase:

Okay, so, in two years Bush is out on his ass. But here's this craptastic law on the books. Maybe a Democratic (please god) Congress will have the guts to repeal the law; likely not. So this law sits there, whether or not we do anything with it. Let 5-10 years go by. Now China decides to invade Taiwan--declares war. The US goes to declare war on China. China stands up and points to this law and says, Right, you said you can pick and choose which parts of the Geneva Convention will apply? Fine, we say the same thing. So go ahead, go to war with us. What do you think will happen to your soldiers if we capture them? Oh, and we think we'll rearrange the Asian political landscape a bit more while we're at it.

Go ahead, punk, says China. Make our day.




Just one more reason to despise everything the Republican Party currently stands for.

Comments

[emidala.livejournal.com]

perhaps the thought of a treehouse hotel will take your mind off the evils of all things? :)

♥

[elbales]

♥

[akk]

I thought the US Supreme Court decided that military commissions instead of due procedure at a court of law for the detainees was unlawful.

"blatant abuses"... what is a "blatant abuse"? If GWB decides that... *shudder*

"It's difficult to write funny stories when life imitates Barb Wire!" ~AKK

[elbales]

The Supes decided they were unlawful under the current US law. But they said--just, you know, to be helpful and all!--that Congress could always pass laws to make them lawful.

Which just goes to show you that even stupid assholes can become US Supreme Court Justices! Especially under stupid assholes who have already become US Presidents! Equal opportunity for stupid assholes, yay!

[akk]

Proctologist must be a boom profession in the US these days. :(