The Bill: HR 6166 (The Military Commissions Act)
Date Passed: Sept. 27, 4:45 p.m.
About: Back in June, the US Supreme Court struck down the Bush administration's post-9/11 setup of military commissions to "try" suspected al-Qaeda members being held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This poked a large hole in the administration's legal strategy (or non-strategy) in prosecuting suspected terrorists.
It's easy to see that the reason the administration preferred this non-strategy, as opposed to actually prosecuting actual terrorists, was that they are trying to decimate terrorism through warfare. With war being innately chaotic and hellish, the administration just sort of had to say, "Fuck It," and round up all "terror suspects," be they goat herders, merchants, or farmers. Since they preferred to use military might, they then lacked the clarity with which to successfully prosecute actual perpetrators of terrorism.
With the Supreme Court ruling, then, what's a forceful and blunt world power to do?
Rather than seizing on that opportunity to change the course of the fight against terrorism, the always-stubborn administration "stayed the course" and instead worked up some legislation to ram through Congress. Did I mention that there's an election just over a month away?
The press keeps harping on the theme that this bill, which passed the House yesterday, and will likely hear a vote in the Senate today, has been significantly changed and "softened" since Bush first proposed it. The heroes of moderation have helped make the bill more palatable, they say.
While this is certainly true, it obscures the fact that the bill is dangerous, slippery, immoral, and possibly unconstitutional.
Under the bill, anyone declared to be an "enemy combatant," which can include the millions of non-citizens living inside the US, or even anyone who is "awaiting that determination," no longer has the right to challenge his or her detention in a court of law.
The bill is sweeping, and it has many other little nuggets which try to preserve the military commissions. For one, it will bar such commissions from hearing testimony that is obtained by interrogations involving "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment." Sounds decent, right? I guess if you can forget about the fact that this is so vague as to let those actions continue anyway, it's a step in the right direction. Right?
But, as always, there's a loophole. This bar is only backdated to Dec. 30 of last year. So what, you ask? It's a bill for the future, not for the past, right? Sure. But when you look at the bar in a different light, as one of protecting CIA officers who have been committing these atrocities of interrogation, it all becomes clear.
The bar has less interest in upholding proper interrogation technique or avoiding torture than it does in protecting CIA officers from criminal prosecution for, among other things, war crimes. You see, Dec. 30 of last year is the date when John McCain's Detainee Treatment Act passed into law, which included a "ban" on "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment" of any detainee. So all you CIA officers who were out there torturing "suspects" at Gitmo, at Bagram, at Abu Ghraib before last Christmas, you can breathe easy -- it's going to be OK, no one can prosecute you now.
This bill passed the House 253-168, largely along party lines. The press is saying that the Democrats who voted for it were doing so in an effort to not seem "soft on terror" with the mid-terms coming up. So why was Robert Andrews, who faces no GOP challenge this fall, New Jersey's only congressman to vote for the bill?
We don't know, but incidentally, the Center for Constitutional Rights has identified Bob Menendez as one of its "targeted Senators," or one who may end up voting for this legislation today. So give his office a call, why don't ya, and remind him that if he stands up for nothing, he's likely to get nothing in return.
Update: Unfortunately, Democratic Senators Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez voted in favor of this frightening legislation. Why don't you give them a call and politely express your outrage? Menendez can be reached at 202.224.4744 and Lautenberg is at 202.224.3224.
They Voted For It:
Robert Andrews (D-1)
Frank LoBiondo (R-2)
Jim Saxton (R-3)
Christopher Smith (R-4)
E. Scott Garrett (R-5)
Michael Ferguson (R-7)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R - 11)
They Voted Against It:
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-6)
Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-8)
Steven Rothman (D-9)
Donald Payne (D-10)
Rush Holt (D-12)
How They Voted is a regular City Belt feature breaking down how New Jersey’s congressmen voted on the bills we think are important.
Comments