His Letter:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 11, 2006
Dear Mr. xxx:
Thank you for contacting me about recent legislation that determines legal
procedures for military tribunals of enemy combatants.
As you may know, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
Hamdan v. Rumsfield that military commissions that had been set up by
executive order were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the U.S.
Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as human rights standards
relating to fair trials. By establishing tribunals unilaterally and
without authorization by Congress, the Bush Administration had exceeded
its legal authority; and the Supreme Court, in what I thought was an
excellent decision, ruled that no one in this country is above the law,
including the President in a time of war.
With my support, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a measure
aimed at fulfilling the requirements set forth in the Hamdan decision, and
which included such provisions as ones that would allow suspects to see
evidence against them and bar evidence obtained through torture or
coercion. In addition to seeking to follow the Supreme Court's ruling, I
feel that the United States must stand on higher ground by following the
rule of law and human rights standards under the guidelines of the Geneva
Conventions.
After negotiations between other senior members of the Senate Armed
Services Committee and the President, a compromise bill was brought before
the Senate as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930). I voted for
this bill because it provides a process that I believe responds to the
Supreme Court's Hamdan decision. The bill sets clear military tribunal
guidelines to try enemy combatants against the United States charged with
violating the laws of war. S. 3930 does not alter our responsibilities
under the Geneva Conventions, thanks to the negotiations done by Senator
John McCain (R-AZ) and others. Nevertheless, I would have much preferred
the bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee; and I voted
in support of an amendment that would have substituted that bill for S.
3930. I supported all amendments to S. 3930 because they addressed
specific concerns I had; these included S.Amdt. 5087, introduced by
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), which would have removed the habeas corpus
restrictions contained in the bill. I regret that all amendments were
rejected by the Senate.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court's decision did not affect
the government's ability to detain those classified as enemy combatants.
Those individuals are dangerous, and the last thing we should do is
release them. At the same time, we must ensure that we treat them in a
way that is in line with the Supreme Court's decision. Last year, I
strongly supported legislation (S.Amdt. 1977), introduced by Senator
McCain, that prohibits the use of "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment
or punishment of anyone - including enemy combatant detainees - held in
custody by the U.S. government. This amendment was attached to the Senate
version of the $440 billion Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year
2006 (H.R. 2863). The President signed H.R. 2863, which included S.Amdt.
1977, into law on December 30, 2005 (P.L. 109-148). I think it is
essential for the United States to clearly state that torture of detainees
is wrong and unacceptable and to adhere to that standard.
My official Senate web site is designed to be an on-line office that
provides access to constituent services, Connecticut-specific information,
and an abundance of information about what I am working on in the Senate
on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. I am also pleased to let you
know that I have launched an email news update service through my web
site. You can sign up for that service by visiting
http://lieberman.senate.gov and clicking on the "Subscribe Email News
Updates" button at the bottom of the home page. I hope these are
informative and useful.
Thank you again for letting me know your views and concerns. Please
contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work
in Congress.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR
JIL:adp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Response:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Senator Lieberman,
I appreciate your response and the thought you have put into your decision, but I still find the decision to vote for this bill a very poor decision.
I share your view that the "Bush Administration had exceeded its legal authority" by previously setting up military tribunals. I do not share your view, though, in passing this law that it was acceptable to retroactively pardon President Bush and his Administration for breaking the law as you have by agreeing to Section 8: Retroactive Applicability.
Furthermore, I appreciate your decision to support the S. 1977 McCain Amendment of last year which prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of detainees. Where I disagree with you, though, is that the definition of torture had to be further divided into a number of finite categories within the Military Commissions Act of 2006. If your claim is true that S. 1977 illegalizes torture already, then this makes the torture definitions within the new law superfluous and confusing to our military. On the other hand, if the new law supersedes the previous amendment, then it does not adequately protect against milder forms of torture such as WaterBoarding, sensory deprivation, and other things already reported to have happened. In either case, adding this section to the new law is ultimately not an effective way to deter torture as it is at worst torture-allowing and at best superfluous.
Finally, I disagree that the executive branch should have the authority to re-categorize civilians protected under Geneva Conventions as "unlawful enemy combatants." You may find such slogans as "They are dangerous" a convenient way to justify a philosophy of guilty until proven innocent, but your philosophy has already been proven wrong by empirical evidence. Foreign citizens have been released from detention centers in small numbers. As recently as August 24th of this year, Murat Kurnaz was released from Guantanamo and was decidedly not therefore an unlawful enemy combatant nor dangerous. No, instead he was a civilian protected under Geneva Conventions and he was badly abused.
In conclusion, sir, I completely agree with you that the "United States must stand on higher ground by following the rule of law and human rights standards under the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions." However, I do not think you have made the right decision in taking us toward that end. Your decision to support the Bush Administration offers no justice, no compassion, and no accountability.
Sincerely,
xxx
xxx
xxx
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
