home

House Bill Contains Provision to Investigate Lawyers for Detainees

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:06:38 PM EST
Tags: detainees (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The House Armed Services Committee defense bill that will soon be considered by the full House contains a provision to investigate lawyers for detainees for misconduct:

The provision would require the Pentagon inspector general to investigate instances in which there was “reasonable suspicion” that lawyers for detainees violated a Pentagon policy, generated “any material risk” to a member of the armed forces, violated a law under the inspector general’s exclusive jurisdiction, or otherwise “interfered with the operations” of the military prison at Guantánamo.

The inspector general would be required to report back to Congress within 90 days after the provision became law about any steps the Pentagon had taken in response to such conduct by either civilian or military lawyers.

Would the Democrats be so knuckle-headed as to pass it? Would Obama sign the bill into law if it passed or veto it? [More...]

Democrats on the committee agreed to Mr. Miller’s proposal after several modifications. One change added the requirement of “reasonable suspicion” of wrongdoing before a lawyer would be investigated by the inspector general. Another enabled Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to halt such an inquiry if it would interfere with a related criminal investigation.

Detainee lawyers argue that even with such modifications, Mr. Miller’s amendment is broad enough to give pause to all lawyers representing Guantánamo detainees — including the far larger numbers who have sought judicial hearings for prisoners who contend that they are not terrorists and are being held by mistake.

Lawyers are not the enemy. Nor are we a danger. It's people like Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), the Congressman pushing the provision, who are willing to destroy our Constitution and its 200 year heritage. Today it's those with suspected ties to terrorists, tomorrow it will be those with suspected ties to drug traffickers, and the day after that, sex offenders. Pretty soon it will reach down to someone you care about. And it will be too late. Al Qaeda will laugh, all the way to the terrorist bank, as it continues to make deposits of the constitutional rights we've shredded in our misguided responses to our exaggerated fears.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Yoo On Kagan: Too Narrow A View Of Executive Power >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    House Bill Contains Provision to Investigate Lawyers for Detainees | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    That last sentence hit it dead on (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by cdub88 on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    Exactly what is wrong with people is that they don't see past the immediate implications of any law.

    It's especially prevalent in the Arizona law whereby people only look at the immediate "you can deport illegals" but don't see how cops can use that to target American citizens and exploit them.

    We pass all these laws without thinking about how they can be used down the road to allow for other invasions of privacy because our only thought at the time is immediate gain. It's sad really

    It is sad... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    and the cherry on top is we are terrible at revisiting laws once we realize the unintended harm.

    And the epidemic is getting worse...It took us what, 10 years or so, to figure out alcohol prohibition was a really dumb law that did more harm then good...and here we are still trying to get the equally harmful marijuana prohibition repealed.  We suck.  If they pass this unamerican garbage that hinders a vigorous defense, it will never be repealed.

    Parent

    Obama is consistent (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Andreas on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    Obama protects war criminals such as George Walker Bush, Richard Cherney, John Yoo and Jay Bybee. It therefore would be completely consistent for him to attack lawyers defending those who are imprisoned in Guantanamo.

    Hell HAS frozen over (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    It will be hell freezes over (an expression .. i don't believe in hell) when normal people like me will be locked up because of some mis-application of any terrorism laws.

    Really? Well then Beelzebub must have enjoyed his day of ice-skating. Let Maher Arar tell you all about it:

    Maher Arar is a 34-year-old wireless technology consultant. He was born in Syria and came to Canada with his family at the age of 17. He became a Canadian citizen in 1991. On Sept. 26, 2002, while in transit in New York's JFK airport when returning home from a vacation, Arar was detained by US officials and interrogated about alleged links to al-Qaeda. Twelve days later, he was chained, shackled and flown to Syria, where he was held in a tiny "grave-like" cell for ten months and ten days before he was moved to a better cell in a different prison. In Syria, he was beaten, tortured and forced to make a false confession.

    During his imprisonment, Arar's wife, Monia Mazigh, campaigned relentlessly on his behalf until he was returned to Canada in October 2003. On Jan. 28, 2004, under pressure from Canadian human rights organizations and a growing number of citizens, the Government of Canada announced a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar.

    On September 18, 2006, the Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Dennis O'Connor, cleared Arar of all terrorism allegations, stating he was "able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."

    Of course, the U.S. has yet to admit any wrongdoing or offer any compensation or apology to Mr. Arar.

    So...you were saying?

    Someone forgot some stuff (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 26, 2010 at 06:41:20 PM EST
    He was picked up while changing planes at JFK because he was on terrorist list provided by the Canadian government. He was offered to the Canadians but they refused him. He was given a deportation hearing in which no representative of Canada showed up nor did his attorney.

    In short, he was given full due process.

    Since he had dual citizenship, Syrian and Canadian and since Canada didn't want him he was deported to Syria.

    That Syria may have treated him terribly is not the fault of the US.

    If you want to whip up on the Canadians I will hold your coat. If you want to whip up on the Syrians I will cheer you on.

    But tell me DO, what should we have done? Release a man on a Canadian terrorist list into the US?

    Parent

    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lambert on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    Would the Democrats be so knuckle-headed as to pass it?

    Yes, of course.

    Would Obama sign the bill into law if it passed or veto it?

    Yes, of course. Why do you even ask?