home

A Bad Compromise

by TChris

The compromise between three Republican senators and the Bush administration over language in legislation governing the interrogation and trial of detainees turned back the worst of the administration's intentions, but that is no reason for the bill to win the support of any Democrat -- or, for that matter, any Republican who cares about justice. When the executive branch acts both as prosecutor and as judge and jury, the only safeguard against a sham proceeding is judicial review. If a court cannot perform the limited function that habeas corpus provides -- assuring that the proceeding comported with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- the executive branch will be given the unreviewable power to imprison the innocent indefinitely.

There are other flaws in the compromise, but its prohibition of judicial review is enough to earn a filibuster. Preserving the role of the judicial branch and the right to due process and habeas corpus should be the default position of Democrats, but there's no reason to expect even a majority of elected Democrats in the Senate or House to fight for the Constitution. Too many Democrats during the Bush years have displayed their unwillingness to stand up for first principles, at risk of being labeled "soft on terror." How sad it is that politicians don't fear being labeled "soft on human rights" or "soft on the Constitution."

The Senate Judiciary Committee will review the bill's suspension of habeas corpus on Monday. Expect Russ Feingold, at least, to remind the Senate that unchecked executive power is contrary to the fundamental structure of our government. Senator Feingold's protests notwithstanding, Democrats are unlikely to stop the legislation, leaving us to hope for a Republican fumble before the legislature's recess.

Republicans may tie the bill to a more controversial measure authorizing President Bush's once-secret warrantless surveillance program.

Procedural pranks of that nature could backfire, making it more difficult for the House and Senate to agree on a bill. The domestic spying legislation is a mess, and it's unclear that Republicans can muster sufficient support for a single bill. Rational conservatives oppose giving the president unlimited authority to spy on Americans without a warrant, a position that Democrats and some Republicans can expect their constituents to share.

< And You Thought McCarthyism Was Dead | Bill Clinton on Osama: The Fox Video >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: A Bad Compromise (none / 0) (#1)
    by Sumner on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    As far as legalese gobbledygook goes, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War is pretty damn clear. The administration's pettifogging hedge is the same as Clinton's dodge, "it all depends what the meaning of 'is', is." Except that the scale of iniquity is nowhere near equal.

    Re: A Bad Compromise (none / 0) (#2)
    by Andreas on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 06:06:00 PM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    With this agreement, the US Congress is preparing to give its official imprimatur to the use of barbaric methods historically associated with military and fascist dictatorships, as well as the repudiation of democratic principles that go back to the Magna Carta of 1215. The Bush administration is determined to obtain passage of the measure before Congress adjourns next week in advance of the November midterm elections. In the absence of any significant opposition from the Democratic Party, the agreement reached between the White House and a trio of Republican senators who opposed the administration's initial draft represents another milestone in the disintegration of American democracy. It demonstrates yet again the absence of any serious commitment to democratic rights within any section of the political establishment or either of the two major parties. ... Francis Boyle, professor of international law and human rights at the University of Illinois, told the World Socialist Web Site that whatever language the bill might contain, it cannot override international law. "Any member of the United States Congress who votes for this act will be authorizing war crimes in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Hague regulations of 1907, and the US War Crimes Act of 1996," he said. "They will therefore become war criminals themselves." Boyle noted that the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders rejected the argument that domestic law can be used as an excuse for violating international criminal law. "To find a piece of legislation as bad as this one," he added, "you would have to go back to the laws passed under Nazi Germany."
    Senate-White House compromise sanctions CIA torture of detainees By Joe Kay and Barry Grey, 23 September 2006

    Re: A Bad Compromise (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 08:41:23 PM EST
    Too many Democrats during the Bush years have displayed their unwillingness to stand up for first principles, at risk of being labeled "soft on terror." How sad it is that politicians don't fear being labeled "soft on human rights" or "soft on the Constitution."
    and i should vote for any of these people why?

    Re: A Bad Compromise (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldtree on Sat Sep 23, 2006 at 08:41:23 PM EST
    it's unconstitutional

    Re: A Bad Compromise (none / 0) (#7)
    by theologicus on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 07:15:33 AM EST
    How sad it is that politicians don't fear being labeled "soft on human rights" or "soft on the Constitution." Very good. But let's call things by their proper names: SOFT ON TORTURE

    Re: A Bad Compromise (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    Anyone who votes for this BS needs to be tried in the 2nd Nuremburg trials.

    Re: A Bad Compromise (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    lavocat: I agree completely, I have already written my 3 reps (all D's) to let them know that any vote in favor of torture costs them my vote. This is likely a futile gesture, but at some point we (i.e. the American people) need to draw the line and for me supporting this torture amendment is it.

    Re: A Bad Compromise (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 04:59:23 PM EST
    I love some of the sentiment I'm seeing right now: If Dems go along with this bill, I'll give the Republicans and the administration even more power by throwing my vote to them. Maybe vote Green, Libertarian, or just not vote at all. The problem with this attitude is that it has cost our country so much already. Al Gore would have been president, after all, if not for it. Maybe this bill will get passed, but maybe significant legislative hearings on the President's actions after Dems take over will spawn strong amendments to the law. Either way, it's not worth it to me to throw my vote this election. There needs to be some kind of check on this presidency; the Republicans have hardly earned the right to hold power any longer.

    Re: A Bad Compromise (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Sep 24, 2006 at 06:23:19 PM EST
    KC: And there you have it! The Dems are The Party of the Maybes. Maybe they'll have the nads to stand up for America, the Constitution, and the rank and file of their party. Maybe. And, then again, maybe they won't. So, I'm asked to cast my vote for a "maybe" simply because it's either the Dems or the Reps? Hmmm. This sort of Manichean logic sounds nauseatingly familiar - and is the primary reason I proudly voted NADER in the last two presidential elections. You want my vote? THEN EARN IT!!!!! Never again should the Dems take the large liberal wing of their party for granted. We're just one more presidential election away from ditching the Dems for good and forming a new party that actually addresses the needs of the 99% of America, instead of pandering to the 1% of America that doesn't need any more help (stealing what's left from the 99%). Don't go betting the house on the Dems coming to the rescue because their collective track record ain't that great. Just a sorry bagful of maybes.