A commentary yesterday by Congressman Jim Saxton (R-NJ):
(1) It gives foreign terrorists more legal protection than our own citizens and more than an enemy prisoner of war receives under the Geneva Convention and international law.
In practical terms, Habeas means a Guantanamo detainee will have direct access to federal court to challenge his imprisonment. Without Habeas, the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), created by law just last year, determines if he’s an enemy combatant and the Court of Military Commissions decides if he committed war crimes. Both of those decisions are reviewable by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Al Qaeda member Khalid Sheikh Muhammad testified at his CSRT in March 2007 that he was behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden and admitted to being a primary participant and planner in 31 other operations to include the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the decapitation of Daniel Pearl; plans to bomb New York bridges, the New York Stock Exchange, U.S. military bases overseas; and to destroy 12 U.S. civilian aircraft in the “Bojinka plot.”
Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is an evil man. Despite this, he is afforded 28 rights under the current guidelines. This individual, who barbarically beheaded Daniel Pearl, has more rights than if he were a prisoner of war. But if the law is changed, he could bypass the established procedures of the CSRT and Court of Military Commission and directly challenge his detention in U.S. District Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and the Supreme Court. This direct access to federal court could tie up his case in endless litigation.
(2) The proposed change in the law would create an incentive for terrorists to not follow the rules of warfare and employ asymmetric tactics. This means, if this legislation is passed, instead of fighting U.S. forces as a combatant according to the Geneva Convention and international laws, it is in a foreign fighter’s best interest to not receive enemy prisoner of war status if captured by American personnel. After all, he would receive more due process and protection if eligible for a Habeas Corpus hearing. Why follow the rules if there is no consequence to breaking them… or worse yet… an incentive to not follow them.
(3) This proposed legislation would strengthen the detainee’s resolve. Foreign terrorists will see filing a writ of habeas as their duty. They’ll be trained to remain silent during interrogation in the expectation of relief in a federal court, and timely intelligence will suffer.
Can I question the patriotism of liberals (the Democrats and Republicans who support this) now?