home

Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Passes Its Own

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 11:56:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


Update: Great editorial from the New York Times on how fear-mongering has reached Congress -- scared to death of the November elections, they are in a stampede to throw due process out the window. Analysis here.

********
Via Raw Story, Bloomberg News reports the Senate Armed Services Committee rejected President Bush 's plan for trying terror suspects in military tribunals today and passed its own bill instead, with greater protections for the rights of the terror suspects.

Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed the Senate approach, warning that the Bush administration is risking the safety of U.S. troops and worldwide opinion by permitting harsh treatment of detainees.

Reuters is keeping track of all of the setbacks Bush has suffered in his war on consitutional rights in the name of the war on terror.

< Rep. Bob Ney to Plead Guilty | Pew Poll: Anti-Incumbant, Pro-Democrat Mood is High >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Passes Its Own | 19 comments (19 topical)
    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    I hate the way the Reuters article starts the list:
    Here are some other areas in which the Bush administration's war on terrorism has been dealt setbacks:
    That phrasing is right out of the Bushco playbook. Look at those misguided people, trying to stop Bush's just and important War!

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    Still bad. From Bloomberg:
    The measure approved today would bar civil suits against CIA agents or military personnel by detainees for injuries or death that cite Geneva Conventions protections. It would allow prosecution of U.S. interrogators for ``grave breaches'' of the conventions under the War Crimes Act.
    No violation of the Geneva Convention is minor. And, no one should have to rely on the executive branch conducting policies in violation of the Geneva Convention to protect themselves against such violations legally. If we don't want Americans to be sued for violating the Geneva Conventions, there is an easy solution. Don't violate them and train soldiers so that they don't violate them.

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 07:08:18 PM EST
    Clearly, the Bush plan is an attempt to alter certain provisions and force the international community to challenge the redefinition...all the while providing the legal cover for the continuation of questionable methods. The approach is consistent with numerous other administration maneuvers whereby it acts arbitrarily until such time as its actions are exposed, it then disputes the claims until such time as the evidence is conclusive...at which point it attempts to rewrite the underlying laws to excuse prior actions and similar future measures. Read more here: www.thoughttheater.com

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 07:15:09 PM EST
    Good for the principled Republicans who bucked their President. That doesn't happen often enough -- in either party. Powell is also trying to redeem himself. The Powell Doctrine was right. Too bad Bush and Powell didn't follow it when it came to Iraq.

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 08:06:14 PM EST
    Republicans, some of them at least, are starting to awaken to the realization that no matter how hard they try to avoid it, the November elections will in large part be a referendum on the bush presidency, and to the hard awareness that the only way to avoid being sucked under by the sinking of the ship is to get off the BS boat now, and start doing things that at least look like they make sense. What they do needs to be dissected and analyzed under high powered microscopes though. McCain showed us that with his tortuous machinations and "anti-torture" amendment. ---edger

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 07:46:05 AM EST
    edger - Are you concerned about winning an election or national security? Wait. Let me restate. Why are you more concerned about winning an election than national security?

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 07:54:38 AM EST
    Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats...
    Let me restate. Why are the 9 rethugs who didn't have enough sense to join the Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal more concerned about being blacklisted by rove and bushco than national security? --edger

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#10)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    Why are you more concerned about winning an election than national security?
    You are on the wrong blog with that false dichotomy. You need to ask that question of the Bush administration. There is no reason for wanting to win elections to be construed as ignoring national security. The first step toward improving our national security is to remove the fools from office who have ignored it, and currently that means Republicans who are far more concerned with flag burning amendments and abortion and ID cards for voters and bridges to nowhere than with the destruction of our military with a fool's mission in Iraq.

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    RePack - And replace them with the Party that had such a failed plan that 9/11 came? I think not, oh confused one. I think not.

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#9)
    by Darryl Pearce on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    ...isn't making something retroactively LEGAL as illegal as making something retroactively illegal?

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    PPJ is the master of confusion, as can be seen here, so don't try to top his record, RR. I think Leno had a better take on it:
    The latest polls just came out. It seems that President Bush's approval ratings dropped another 3%. In fact, he is so unpopular now, the Democrats are going to have to work really, really hard to screw up this election.
    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#13)
    by john horse on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 05:33:02 PM EST
    PPJ
    Why are you more concerned about winning an election than national security?
    I share your disgust with the tactics of George Bush to politicize the terrorism issue. According to the NY Times, the 14 prisoners brought to Guantanamo to stand trail was nothing but a "high-pressure timetable . . . related only to the election calendar."

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    There's much animosity in the Arab/Muslim/Middle East world towards the United States. Ameliorating it is necessary. The only way to significantly reduce the anger would be war crime trials for many of the people in this administration. Publicly bringing to justice Bush, Cheney, Feith, Hadley and others would demonstrate to the world the United States does reject the type of criminal conduct typified by the president and his supporters. If Bush is allowed to die a natural death there will never be peace between the West and the Middle East. He must very publicly swing from a rope for the healing to begin.

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 09:12:47 PM EST
    And replace them with the Party that had such a failed plan that 9/11 came?
    Why does ppj want to replace bushco with repubs? He can't be referring to clinton and dems, the ones who caught the perp on their watch and the ones who stopped the millenium plot. clinton had what, a month in office before the WTC bombing? bush had 8 months before 9/11 and insisted on ignoring and demoting Clark and ignoring the CIA briefer on 'OBL Determined to attack.'

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 04:31:57 AM EST
    Ask not for whom the bomb ticks, Mr. and Ms. America. Right now, across Los Angeles, timers on dozens of toxic nerve-gas canisters are set to detonate in just hours and send some two million Americans to their deaths in writhing agony.
    It's worthy of a read.

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    Sailor writes:
    bush had 8 months before 9/11 and insisted on ignoring and demoting Clark and ignoring the CIA briefer on 'OBL
    Really? Thanks for bringing the subject up. The following is from Richard Clarke, well known terrorist guru from the Clinton admin.
    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring (2001)to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
    So what he is saying is that the Bush admin kept the existing Clinton strategy in place and was starting to add to it.
    Over the course of the summer -- last point -- they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold
    So here we have them changing it. At the end of the summer, so up until then, they were following it. And what was that date?
    QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president? CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
    Link You see Sailor, the facts are not on your side. And you know it. Now. Shall I quote Dr. Rice's comments about the 7/5/01 meeting when the FAA, CIA, FBI, et al received the warning about the attack, or was George Tenet lying? So tell us again how Bush was ignoring Clinton's plan, and doing nothing. Tell us, Sailor. Right into the teeth of facts supported by direct quotes. Is everyone lying but you? John Horse - According to the NYT we should expose every strategy, every technical advantage, every secret in this war. Now, your point is? Oh, I know. The US is evil and doing mean and nasty things because you know that when the terrorists attack and kill innocent people, threaten to destroy Israel and the US, they're just kidding, right? I mean, why should we be upset over a series of terrorist attacks and attempts?

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    ppj writes: "Really? " ppj, provide links to where Clarke wasn't demoted and bush didn't tell the briefer 'OK, you've convered your a$$' Also provide links where after hearing the briefing bush didn't stay on, and even extend his vacation. ppj once again demonstrates he'd rather cherrypick lies from Faux News than actually see the truth and link to that:
    President Bush's former counterterrorism chief testified Wednesday that the administration did not consider terrorism an urgent priority before the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite his repeated warnings about Osama bin Laden's terror network.
    John Horse - According to the NYT we should expose every strategy, every technical advantage, every secret in this war.
    I call BS, the NYT never said that and only a person who lies would say that they did. Provide links or or at least stop lying.

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#18)
    by john horse on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    Sailor, Not only did our friend PPJ mistate the NYT editorial but he also mistated my point. I responded to his point that he was sick of people who care more about "winning an election than national security" by using some slitghtly humorous jui jitsu (use someone's own point against them) against him to provide an example of Bush doing so. However, instead of responding to my point PPJ now has to resort to putting words into my mouth and have me say things I didn't say and don't believe.

    Re: Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Pas (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    Sailor - Please, stick to facts. What I have given you is what Clarke said, with links. If he was demoted, it didn't seem to bother him when he said this:
    QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the -- general animus against the foreign policy? CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me. JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct? CLARKE: All of that's correct.
    Link You know Sailor, arguing with you has all the sport of catching fish from a barrel. Sailor, I keep providing links and you keep calling me a liar. Do you understand how dumb you look? No? Figures. Keep it up.

    Sen. Committee Rejects Bush Tribunal Plan, Passes Its Own | 19 comments (19 topical)