Conyers - H.R. 104 National Commission on Presidential War Powers & Civil Liberties

[1776Forever]

I am reposting this because it got mixed up with what I think Conyers wanted to stress from it:

Sleeper Bill of the Month: Our Own Truth & Reconciliation Commission
By Elana Schor - January 9, 2009, 3:00PM

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/sleeper_bill_of_the_month.php

It happens more often than you might think on Capitol Hill: a new bill is announced by a congressional office, with little fanfare and fewer co-sponsors than it deserves but a purpose so abundantly sensible that the plan cries out for more attention.

Such is the case with H.R. 104, a bill introduced on Tuesday by House judiciary committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and nine other lawmakers. The measure would set up a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties, with subpoena power and a reported budget of around $3 million, to investigate issues ranging from detainee treatment to waterboarding to extraordinary rendition. The panel's members would hail from outside the government and be appointed by the president and congressional leaders of both parties.

Sounds like a great idea. In fact, it sounds a lot like Senate armed services committee chairman Carl Levin's (D-MI) proposed interrogation-policy commission that has been kicking around since 2005. So why does such a good bill only have 10 co-sponsors?

The answer is complicated -- and neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have returned my calls to talk about it. But I'd wager that it has a lot to do with the Democratic majority's desire to turn the page on the Bush years and begin pressing on with an Obama agenda designed to showcase its ability to govern. Nothing wrong with that.

.........

Yes! :applause:

[midnight]

1. I thought we know how the detainess were handled, and

all the war powers abuses via downing street memos trying to skrit the truth. I thought all this was discussed? So what are the additional reasons to discuss these crimes. I'm not a lawyer, and don't have the forsight for the groundwork, but Conyers is smart and must know something else?

[mmonk]

2. I don't like it. Things get buried in commissions. Sorry, I have no trust in this.

There really isn't anything to debate either on these issues.

[1776Forever]

3. I am wondering from your and others comments - Don't you think this has to happen first?

Conyers says he is going to go to the new AG and get this worked out. Can charges be filed without a case to gather the evidence? I know the evidence is out there but don't you think it should be all put in a report first?

Just wondering. And if not how and who would do it?

[mmonk]

4. Maybe this thread helps in explaining my positions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4825197#4825745


If we don't have a another Dept of Justice that is corrupt, maybe legal attempts can go forward. All the evidence for these crimes have already been recorded. I do not trust Congress or Conyers's back and forth teasing and leading on that something meaningful will transpire given his performance.

[1776Forever]

5. Thank you - I read the post - it does make one feel very disappointed in Conyers.

I understand your and others viewpoints better now. I am glad I asked. I had no idea before I read the post.

[mmonk]

6. I've added this post in GD: Presidential. It spells out my distrust

in commissions given the history of commissions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8096328