Anti-terror bill to have little impact on terror, major impact on US law

[BurtWorm]

NYT editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/opinion/15fri1.html

Stampeding Congress

We’ll find out in November how well the White House’s be-very-afraid campaign has been working with voters. We already know how it’s working in Congress. Stampeded by the fear of looking weak on terrorism, lawmakers are rushing to pass a bill demanded by the president that would have minimal impact on antiterrorist operations but could cause profound damage to justice and the American way.

Yesterday, the president himself went to Capitol Hill to lobby for his bill, which would give Congressional approval to the same sort of ad hoc military commissions that Mr. Bush created on his own authority after 9/11 and that the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional. It would permit the use of coerced evidence, secret hearings and other horrific violations of American justice.

Legal experts within the military have been deeply opposed to the president’s plan from the beginning, and have formed one of the most influential bulwarks against the administration’s attempt to rewrite the rules to make its recent behavior retroactively legal. This week, the White House sank so low as to strong-arm the chief prosecutors for the four armed services into writing a letter to the House that seemed to endorse the president’s position on two key issues. Congressional officials say those officers later told lawmakers that they did not want to sign the letter, which contradicts everything the prosecutors, dozens of their colleagues, former top commanders of the military and a series of federal judges have said in public.

The idea that the nation’s chief executive is pressing so hard to undermine basic standards of justice is shocking. And any argument that these extreme methods would be used only against the most dangerous of international terrorists has been destroyed by the handling of hundreds of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, many of whom appear to have been scooped up in Afghanistan years ago with little attempt to verify any connection to terrorism, and now are in danger of lingering behind bars forever without a day in court.

To lend his lobbying an utterly false sense of urgency, President Bush announced last week that he had taken 14 dangerous terrorists from the secret Central Intelligence Agency prisons where he had been holding them for years and sent them to Guantánamo to stand trial. But none of the prisoners is going anywhere, and the current high-pressure timetable is related only to the election calendar.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Please tell your Senators that you believe in public trial by jury...

...not secret trial by people appointed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

We have courts in the US. It is neither necessary nor desirable to create kangaroo courts in Cuba.

Contact info for Congress at:
www.vote-smart.org

[hfojvt]

2. a point of inquiry

Did SCOTUS say that the military courts were unconstitutional, or did they say it was unconstitutional for the President to create them?
This: "his bill, which would give Congressional approval to the same sort of ad hoc military commissions that Mr. Bush created on his own authority after 9/11 and that the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional."
seems to imply the former - that the 'ad hoc military comissions' are unconstitutional.

If that is the case, then isn't the bill a moot point? Congress does not have the authority to pass unconstitutional laws. They can try to amend the constitution to make the 'ad hoc military commissions' constitutional, but a law that tries to make legal what a recent SCOTUS decision declared unconstitutional, unless it answers SCOTUS' objections, should immediately be struck down by SCOTUS. Shouldn't it?

[kedrys]

4. It certainly should

My hunch on this one is that the underlying drive for the bill hinges on the White House squatters knowing that there's a very good chance they'll lose the Senate or the House, or both, and they want to make sure that *they* won't be prosecuted for their war crimes. FWIW.

[redqueen]

10. Seems to me this is a move to avoid impeachment,

nothing more.

[Eric J in MN]

6. From the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html

"Brushing aside administration pleas not to second-guess the commander in chief during wartime, a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions."

If Congress authorizes them in a way which complies with the Geneva Convention (according to the Supreme Court), apparently the Supreme Court would uphold them.

Personally, I'm against secret trials, and the bill would let a military judge decide to make an entire trial secret, with no one to appeal that decision to.

Please contact Congress against creating kangaroo courts in Cuba.

[grizmaster]

7. The SCOTUS said trials could be based on UCMJ

or our own civilian trial system. And that at a minimum the trial method should pass accepted international standards (which the UCMJ does).

So to answer directly, using military court rules would be considered acceptable by the SCOTUS.

[annabanana]

3. "to strong-arm the chief prosecutors "

"those officers later told lawmakers that they did not want to sign the letter,"

Get those men on record! How did they get "strong-armed"? What did they say to which lawmakers?

Why is there no NEWS in our "news"?

edit:nom

[Eric J in MN]

5. Makes it sound like the kangaroo court system would...

...be a great form of justice, for Bush to strong-arm military lawyers to try to get it passed. (Sarcasm.)

[civildisoBDence]

8. The Bush-hogs are responding to resistance from their own party

by becoming more extreme in their arrogant disregard for the rule of law.

Good!

Newsprism

[dogday]

9. This sentance says it all......

The idea that the nation’s chief executive is pressing so hard to undermine basic standards of justice is shocking