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.
Back in the day, anyone attacking any soldier (German, Japanese, American) was considered a spy and shot. People out of uniform are by definition, not covered by Geneva convention. This is yet another tactic employed by our enemy. It's a great tactic. We have to hold them forever and that fact alone becomes an asymetric warfare weapon. Those terrorist are just damn smart. And, Pelosi is just another useful fool.
The terrorist detention bill should give the US some cover but, it's still a pretty small fig leaf that the terrorist will be able to exploit.
Plus....there is nobody in uniform and/or no country in their hierarchy that can provide an unconditional surrender, etc..
I think Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will be standing trial before too long, Nancy.
As has often been said, dembulbs prefer elections involving 9 or less votes (ie, judical fiat). What she objects to is denying captured terrorist the full benefit of US criminal rights and full access to the US judiciary, undoubetly with US taxpayer paid counsel.
Since when has Nancy Pelosi believed in "values" ?
The Democratic party--"Siding with America's enemies since 1970"
Just a little bit of history. The North and South actually did have prisoner exchanges where opposite forces sent prisoners back to their own armies to fight again.
According to Federal War Department statistics, 24,000 Union soldiers died of wounds, starvation and disease in Southern prisons during four long years of war. This was a tragic rate. But even more tragic was that 26,000 Confederate soldiers died in Union prisons during the same period. Many of the Confederate deaths were unnecessary, because the Union Army had a wealth of food and medical supplies that could have been made easily available to their Southern prisoners. But Union authorities maliciously refused to do so. After the dust of war had settled, the South, having held 50,000 more prisoners than the North, had 4,000 fewer inmate deaths
By 1864, Confederate soldiers were outnumbered three or even four to one, and by this time the Union, with more than enough men to use as replacement troops, adamantly refused to cooperate in prisoner exchanges. The Union blockade of Southern ports helped prevent the replenishment of critical medical supplies and other essentials. But the decision that was most detrimental to Union prisoners in Confederate prison pens was the decision on the part of the federal government to discontinue a prisoner-exchange program between the North and South.
Within a two-week period, Southern representatives paid two visits to the U.S. Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, asking for prisoner exchanges. On the first visit, they offered to exchange prisoners of war man for man. On their second visit, the offer was to turn over all Union prisoners for all Confederate prisoners, even though the Confederacy held a great many more Union soldiers. And twice Stanton refused the Southern offer. The Confederates desperately thought of everything possible, up to kidnapping Lincoln and using him to force a prisoner exchange, to get their badly-needed manpower.
we had internment camps all over the US housing German prisoners until "Hostilities ended" = which is, I believe, our = an other countries = "history". You don't let the combatants loose to go back and join the enemy ranks.
I would, however, like to hear SOMEONE remind these Geneva Convention pukes that the rules only cover uniformed military of a country = anyone caught NOT in uniform, could be, and were, shot as spies. (This is why many soldiers, if doing 'spy' work, wore their uniforms under civilian clothes so that, if capture were imminent, they could strip them off and in " be in uniform.")
But of course, we know the dimRats are expert in bald faced lying and they know that the public schools have been so watered down that the younger generation doesn't know history
On the one hand, they're screaming the rights of these barbarians under the Geneva Convention that apply to uniformed enemy combatants of another country (wich they aren't) and the next under the U.S. Constitution as citizens (which they aren't)...Which, besides the deliberate duplicity, shows that they are still thinking of the the WOT as a law enforcement problem.
That has worked successfully in the past - for the prisoners WE take...but hey, Popsicle Face, name me ONE time when our troops were treated humanely by the enemy.
What two faced rhetoric.
Where, in the meantime, is the hue and cry over what these barbarians have done with our troops and noncombatants?
Not a peep from any quarter...
As if these neanderthals would suddenly treat our troops = or anyone -= in any way other than barbaric, if only we'd coddle them more.
How about the Gitmos' get to eat the same meals our troops do? Can you imagine the screaming of inhumanity Pelosi and gang would engage in. "How dare you feed military rations to those poor dears." No, Instead, they get 3 full meals a day - especially cooked to their customs.
"The American people want those responsible for 9/11 to be prosecuted without further delay.
Has she been asleep for the last 5 years or what. Her words just reenforce the charge that Dems are still in the Sept. 10th, 2001 mode. Prosecuted? Lady, we're at war!!
Torture is having to listen to John Francois Kerry and San Fran Nan.
Screw you brain dead @$$holes!!
I'm perfectly happy with convicting, condemning, and executing them. Would that be definite enough for you, Nancy?
Every time I see or hear one of these loony Dems misquote the Bible it seems like blasphemy.
Is the eyebrow advocating that Judeo-Christian values be applied to Islamic fanatics? Uh, oh...
Mass denial of the reality of mass murdering terrorists is a frightening thing.
Didn't we prosecute the 20th hijacker? I don't remember the guy's name.
Hasn't Bush and Co killed most of the planners already?
Pelosi you silly terrorist loving liberal- The supreme court is there to uphold constitutional law, not create it. Liberals always seem to get that backwards.
Never mind the Golden Rule is, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but I thought the only scripture they quoted was, Do not judge lest ye be judged?
What a braindead DinocRat, can't even quote it right.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Someone should tell this dingbat that the Geneva conventions is not part of the constitution, nor dealt with in our courts. Although it may change if democrats ever get back into power, we are still a sovereign country, and are not governed by other countries, or courts.
Nancy Botoxi strikes again.