War on Terror

interrogation videotapes, Political wind, War on Terror, waterboarding

Why 10 House libs voted to not ban waterboarding

by  • 

Last night, Mark Levin pointed out that, “Your House of Representatives [has been] very, very busy looking out for the enemy.”

The House approved legislation yesterday that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, drawing an immediate veto threat from the White House and setting up another political showdown over what constitutes torture. The measure, approved by a largely party-line vote of 222 to 199, would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow Army rules adopted last year that explicitly forbid waterboarding. It also would require interrogators to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. The rules, required by Congress for all Defense Department personnel, also ban sexual humiliation, “mock” executions and the use of attack dogs, and prohibit the withholding of food and medical care.
…
The White House vowed to veto the measure. Limiting the CIA to interrogation techniques authorized by the Army Field Manual “would prevent the United States from conducting lawful interrogations of senior al Qaeda terrorists to obtain intelligence needed to protect Americans from attack,” the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.

Key Republicans also opposed the measure. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the House intelligence committee’s ranking GOP member, said applying the unclassified Army Field Manual to all interrogations would give terrorist groups full knowledge of U.S. interrogation techniques. “Too many details on the counterterrorism programs that have kept America safe since 9/11 have already been illegally leaked,” Hoekstra said. “Congress should not be in the business of voluntarily giving al-Qaeda or any of our adversaries our playbook.”

Mark then asked, “What the hell does Barney Frank know about interrogating somebody?”

As noted, the House vote was 222 to 199, with five Republicans, Roscoe Barlett (R-MD, 6th), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD, 1st), Timothy Johnson (R-IL, 15th), Walter Jones (R-NC, 3rd), and Chris Smith (R-NJ, 4th), joining 217 Democrats to approve the measure.

Yet I wondered why this group of very liberal Democrats voted against the bill:

Danny Davis (D-IL, 7th), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH, 10th), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX, 18th), John Lewis (D-GA, 5th), Jim Marshall (D-GA, 8th), David Scott (D-GA, 13th), Jose Serrano (D-NY, 16th), Pete Stark (D-CA, 13th), Maxine Waters (D-CA, 35th), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA, 6th), opposed the bill.

In the Congressional Record, I discovered that the Senate-House conference removed Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s amendment that would, “require a report to House and Senate Intelligence committees describing any authorization granted during the past 10 years to engage in intelligence activities related to the overthrow of a democratically elected government.”

In addition, the conferees dropped a House provision that would have made the, “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted to gather foreign intelligence information.”

In other words, H.R. 2082 (the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008) did not undermine our national security enough. Those ten Democrats wanted to legislate the revealing of our nation’s secrets and to leave it solely up to un-elected judges to decide when to electronically spy on the enemy.

Debra Burlingame, Guantanamo, Lawfare, War on Terror

Guantanamo detainees receive unprecedented rights under Military Commissions Act

by  • 

During a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on legal rights for Guantanamo detainees, Code Pink was there holding up signs and at least one mock detainee, wearing a black hood and orange jumpsuit, was seen changing seats as the witnesses spoke. That was the visual background for this Washington Times report:

Nearly 100 foreign enemy combatants to be tried at Guantanamo Bay will have more rights than Nazi war criminals who faced the Nuremberg tribunal, a Senate panel was told yesterday.

Detainees in the war on terror will have the presumption of innocence and an automatic appeal, the latter not even afforded to U.S. citizens, said Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, legal adviser to the Convening Authority for the Office of Military Commissions. “No such presumption existed,” said Gen. Hartmann in reference to Nuremberg while speaking to the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security. “There were no rules of evidence, and virtually any evidence was freely admitted. “That was painfully apparent to those who were found guilty and received the death penalty — they were hung within hours and days of the completion of the sentence announcement,” he said.

Steven A. Engel, Justice Department deputy assistant attorney general, said that extending the peacetime notion of habeas corpus to military prisoners would be “unprecedented.” “In the nearly 800 years of the writ’s existence, no English or American court has ever granted habeas relief to alien enemy soldiers captured and detained during wartime,” Mr. Engel said.

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, Maryland Democrat, disagreed with the federal officials and said “these individuals are basically criminals” and that criminals have the right to habeas corpus.

In his opening statement, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) provided details about the (at least) 30 former detainees who have returned to the battlefield to continue their murderous ways:

Senator Kyl then asked BG Hartmann and Mr. Engel about the unprecedented trial rights under the MCA:

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) questioned Debra Burlingame about the effects of the firms conducting public relations on behalf of alleged terrorists (you can read her prepared testimony here):

You can read Mr. Richard Levick’s own words about his firms’ public relations efforts on behalf of alleged terrorists.