Skip to comments."Golden Rule" Pelosi: 'Permitting Indefinite Detention is Contrary to Our History and Values'
Posted on 09/28/2006 4:03:19 PM PDT by Libloather
Pelosi: 'Permitting Indefinite Detention Under Conditions that Cannot be Challenged in Court is Contrary to Our History and Values'
Wed Sep 27, 3:45 PM ET
To: National Desk
Contact: Brendan Daly or Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616, both for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor this afternoon in strong opposition to H.R. 6054 -- Military Commissions Act. Three major amendments offered by Democratic Members were rejected by the Rules Committee. Below are Pelosi's remarks:
"It's been five years since 9/11, yet not one person who has been directly responsible for 9/11 has been prosecuted and punished. There's something wrong with this picture. And this bill today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States, also could produce convictions that may well be overturned because the bill does not heed the instructions from the Supreme Court -- a Supreme Court friendly to this Administration - which has directed it to go back to the drawing board.
"Democrats, as well as Republicans, bring to this debate an unshakeable commitment to the proposition that terrorists who attack Americans must be caught, convicted, and punished in a judicial process that will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. We want them in jail, we want them punished, whatever that punishment is. We don't want it overturned, and that is what this debate is about today.
"The American people want those responsible for 9/11 to be prosecuted without further delay. It is five years later, and they want convictions to stick so that justice will not be further postponed.
"It is inexplicable. How do you explain to people that five years later, this has not happened? Not a single one of the planners even has been brought to trial. This bill does not help us achieve the goal of bringing anyone to trial. It is badly flawed. It threatens the safety of our troops, our ability to prosecute terrorists effectively, our ability to protect the American people, and to honor our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
"Rather than welcoming suggestions for improvements, Republicans refuse to hear them at all. The only recourse we have is to defeat this rule so that we can offer amendments to address some of the bill's most glaring deficiencies in the areas of habeas corpus, standards of the Geneva Conventions, and the appeals process.
"If we do not, I believe that we are headed for a repeat of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld -- a Supreme Court defeat for the President and a decision that sends us back to square one in terms of bringing those responsible for 9/11 to trial.
"By seeking to strip federal courts of habeas corpus review, this bill is practically begging to be overturned by the courts. Habeas corpus is one of the hallmarks of our legal system and our democracy. It is the last line of defense against arbitrary executive power. On that subject we had an amendment proposed by Congressman Marty Meehan that was rejected by the Rules Committee. Hopefully, we can reject the previous question so that we can bring that up.
"Permitting indefinite detention under conditions that cannot be challenged in court is so contrary to our history and our values that it should raise all sorts of red flags.
"Yet this bill rushes us headlong into a court-stripping misadventure that will have disastrous consequences for our efforts to combat terrorism. Let us not go there.
"In addition, the bill establishes an appeals process that ignores the existing, highly respected, appellate military system that provides a direct route to the Supreme Court. Rather than deferring to the military justice system that is respected by the military, now in place, the bill creates a new appeals court with no track record and a longer path to Supreme Court review, which will delay justice.
"Perhaps most distressing, this bill could very well boomerang on us - putting American troops in danger. Redefining the Geneva Conventions in ways that lower the treatment standards the Conventions create poses a real risk to American forces.
"This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in affect. Do not do unto others, what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.
"For 60 years, we have understood that our military personnel are best protected by an international commitment to the highest possible standards for the treatment of prisoners. Why would we want to do something that at the same time jeopardizes the safety of our troops and weakens the moral basis for our efforts against terrorists? Experts have testified over and over again that that kind of treatment does not produce the intelligence that has the value and reliability that we need to protect the American people and to bring these terrorists to justice.
"Democrats have proposed amendments on these issues: habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions, the appeals process. But the rule as drafted will not allow us to consider them. This House once again is shutting us down on debate. Just yesterday, this House said 'No' to the resolution that said we want all Members of Congress to see the National Intelligence Estimate so that we can stipulate together, to a set of facts on how the war in Iraq is having a negative impact on the war on terror. Yesterday, they said 'No.' Today, they said 'No.' It's just a constant chant. These subjects are too important to allow that result to stand.
"Let us do the job we were elected to do on this, one of the pivotal issues of our time. Let us honor our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and our responsibility to protect the American people and to prosecute and punish those who would do harm to them."
"This rule applies to terrorists, creeps, enemies, perps, vermin & criminals - but, in no way, applies to Republicans..."
Put some ice on that, Nancy!
Right Popeye - the terrorists would never do something like cut stewardesses' throats in order to hijack airplanes and turn them into flying bombs to kill thousands of civilians unless we were mean to them first.
God help us if these morons take over again.
Kerry up in suit and tie saying "This bill permits torture".
I was thinking Nancy, that the north and south should have let their prisoners go during the civil war so that they wouldn't be detained too long and think of all the savings, not having to run those prisons. Everybody would feel so good!
When someone makes unending war against us, their captured combatants get unending detention.
As usual, Pelosi combines vile rhetoric with a waterfall of lies and misstatements. The most important one to keep in mind, amidst all the rhetoric about abusing the constitution is that this bill HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICAN CITIZENS. Despite the best efforts of the dembulbs and their cronies in the judiciary, the constitution does not apply to non-US citizens no present in the US do not.
For the more technically minded, this was posted on the Corner at NRO from a Washington insider just a bit more informed than Comrade Pelosi:
"I do not wish to go on the record but would offer the following technical comment on your question about habeas corpus and the military tribunal bill.
The proposal which passed the House H.R. 6054 categorically has nothing to do with Americans. The Detainee Treatment Act which passed last year is already the law. This legislation was necessary because the United States Supreme Court in Hamdan interpreted the habeas corpus statute (28 USC 2241) as not applying to those detainees at GITMO who had already filed habeas petitions prior to the enactment of the DTA. The purpose of the habeas provisions in the military tribunal bill is to treat all detainees at GITMO similarly. Since the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan was interpreting the habeas statute this was easily addressed by Congressional legislation.
The provision itself provides that those GITMO detainees who have had their Combatant Status Review Tribunal determination (required for every detainee) or any final decision by a commission would automatically go to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I might mention that this is more liberal than the language in DTA passed last year which requires review only of sentences in excess of 10 years.
This has nothing to do with American citizens or anyone who is voluntarily within the United States. In fact those who have been found to be Americans (e.g. Hamdi and Padilla) cannot even be held at GITMO (see John Yoo's new book where he describes in detail how this policy was arrived at).
The language in the Senate which is being pushed by Senator Kyl, Graham, and others I believe is identical to the House language ...[snip] Nonetheless, it is not substantively different with respect to the issue of Americans from what I have described.
Also, I would note that the subject at hand relates the question of statutory habeas relief and has nothing to do with the Great Writ. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that the U.S. Congress has clear authority to amend statutory habeas corpus procedures.
I hope that this is helpful"
She said this with a straight face?...cough...cough.
The "Golden Rule" for Democrats: treat scumbag murderous terrorists far better than our own troops are treated..... let terrorists at Guantanamo have maximal "rights" while they shower our people with excrement and urine, etc..... show far more respect and concern for terrorists than we (Demagogues) show for either our troops or our Republican adversaries (who we hate and loathe with all our foul, blackened hearts).
So what she's saying, basically, is that she's willing to let jihadis out to resume murdering Americans after a certian time has passed?
I thought all prisoners of war are subject to indefinite detention under the Geneva Conventions, no?
Show these Islamo-fascist prisoners all the classified information we have on them that compels us to detain them, bring them before a clown court with a high-profile defense lawyer and a low-iq "judge", and let them walk out free to visit their mischief armed with better information than they could ever have hoped to have gotten otherwise.
What a drooling MORON.
How long did we detain German and Japanese POWs during WWII?? Wasn't it for the duration of the war? And they were uniformed combatants.
The vermin at Gitmo are non-uniformed and, according the the Geneva Conventions, are subject to summary execution.
"It's been five years since 9/11, yet not one person who has been directly responsible for 9/11 has been prosecuted and punished.
Kerry would know all about torture. He's been doing it to the US for decades.
The terrorists we have captured should be thankful that we have not applied the standards of the Geneva Convention to them...the Geneva Convention defines the minimum standards for treatment of captured combatents in a declared war...among it's provisions is that enemies captured, not wearing a uniform, may be shot.
No one seems to get that Al Queda is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and therefore not subject to it's protections.
Does anyone really expect that if Al Queda captures an American serviceman, they will be constrained by the Geneva Conventions?
When the planes were flown into the towers, did the terrorists extend the Geneva Convention's prohibitions against intentionally targeting civilians?
Nancy Pelosi, you are a traitor, you defend our enemies and seek to give them a safe harbor in our liberal dominated courts, you do not seek the death of those who killed our countryment.
Hey Nancy, Harry, John F'ing Kerry, etc. OUR values don't apply to OUR ENEMIES!
Read the Constitution you MORONS! It's about protecting the USA and deals with OUR citizens.
Geez, these people are beyond retarded.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.