I Can't Wait For This Signing Statement
Congress has begun hearings as a start to drafting legislation on the handling and trial of detained terrorist suspects. As I anticipated, the regime has already started pushing for something quite like the present system, figuring that if the passive Congress gives its imprimatur, the Supreme Court will back down from its stern holding in the Ramdan case. At least this time, the press is watching. From an editorial in today's Washington Post:
IT'S GOOD THAT the Bush administration says it will apply Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaeda detainees in the war on terrorism. How good depends on precisely what the administration means, which isn't clear. And even more important is not whether the administration acknowledges Geneva in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling requiring as much but how it engages with Congress in response to that ruling.
Does it work with the legislature to create fair trials, authorized by law, or does it try to muscle Congress into rubber-stamping the flawed system it created on its own? Does it seek legislation to undo the court's holding that Geneva applies, or does it work with the legislature in good faith to make sure that American forces have clear rules that honor both this country's values and its international treaty obligations? [Emphasis added]
That's a pretty good list of questions for Congress to consider. However, after reading and listening to/about some of the testimony given to Congress yesterday and comments made by Pentagon and White House officials since the Hamdan decision, it's clear that the Emperor and his minions are hoping that not much will change.
Apparently the regime is sticking to its original plan for tribunals that bear no resemblance whatsoever to the American concepts of justice. The regime wants Congress to set up a special class of defendants, one that is peopled by those who are not entitled to view all the evidence being brought against them, who are not entitled to counsel right from the start, and who are not entitled to be present during proceedings. In other words, the charge being brought against members of this class, that of being "terrorists," is already presumed to be true, thus depriving the members of the class of any rights to a fair trial in which to dispute the charge. This is a truly elegant example of Catch-22, but I don't think this is what the Supreme Court had in mind.
IT'S GOOD THAT the Bush administration says it will apply Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaeda detainees in the war on terrorism. How good depends on precisely what the administration means, which isn't clear. And even more important is not whether the administration acknowledges Geneva in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling requiring as much but how it engages with Congress in response to that ruling.
Does it work with the legislature to create fair trials, authorized by law, or does it try to muscle Congress into rubber-stamping the flawed system it created on its own? Does it seek legislation to undo the court's holding that Geneva applies, or does it work with the legislature in good faith to make sure that American forces have clear rules that honor both this country's values and its international treaty obligations? [Emphasis added]
That's a pretty good list of questions for Congress to consider. However, after reading and listening to/about some of the testimony given to Congress yesterday and comments made by Pentagon and White House officials since the Hamdan decision, it's clear that the Emperor and his minions are hoping that not much will change.
Apparently the regime is sticking to its original plan for tribunals that bear no resemblance whatsoever to the American concepts of justice. The regime wants Congress to set up a special class of defendants, one that is peopled by those who are not entitled to view all the evidence being brought against them, who are not entitled to counsel right from the start, and who are not entitled to be present during proceedings. In other words, the charge being brought against members of this class, that of being "terrorists," is already presumed to be true, thus depriving the members of the class of any rights to a fair trial in which to dispute the charge. This is a truly elegant example of Catch-22, but I don't think this is what the Supreme Court had in mind.
posted by Diane at 4:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home