WE
ARE OUTRAGED
October 8, 2006
As voters in the 8th
Congressional District, we noted with pleasure that both Mike Fitzpatrick and Patrick Murphy signed on to the statement in
the Coalition for Peace Action candidate questionnaire that they “insist that the President and his Administration abide by U.S. laws and international treaties forbidding
the use of torture or abuse.”
We are outraged that, shortly
after we made their responses public, Rep. Fitzpatrick voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and would-be Congressman
Murphy said that--had he been in Congress--he would have voted for it as well.
The issue is the following:
the Congress has given President Bush a pass by failing to follow through on its earlier insistence--in harmony with the decision
of the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld--that U.S. laws must be in harmony with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Congress passed a law which
n denies so-called “enemy combatants” the right of habeas corpus
n allows the president to define what he considers torture
n permits the use of evidence obtained through coercion
so that, if a detainee is
tortured, s/he is not entitled to plead his/her case in any court of law; detainees, whether tortured or not, haven’t
the right to challenge the legality of their detention, and agents who forcibly obtained information up till 2005 can bring
that “evidence” into the military commissions.
Further the Act defines torture
much more narrowly than either Common Article 3 or the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which the U.S. has ratified. “Cruel and inhuman treatment” is defined as acts that cause “severe or serious”
pain. But it’s unclear what qualifies. (“Serious pain” is defined as “bodily injury” that causes
“extreme physical pain.” Isn’t “extreme” worse than “serious?”) And why the reference
to bodily injury? Does that mean that causing hypothermia and long-time standing are not criminal? Finally a provision has
been added that the person “specifically” intends to cause the pain. Any government agent who says his goal in
using “additional measures” was to get information, and not to cause pain, hasn’t tortured!
These additional facts increase
our alarm:
n Only 5% of the detainees at Guantanamo were
picked up on the battlefield.
n According to U.S. military
testimony, only 8% of the detainees are considered to have been members of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
[The vast majority found
themselves at Guantanamo because of being turned in by others. Many were sold by bounty hunters! They
responded to U.S. leaflets dropped from planes all over Afghanistan, promising Afghanis that, by turning in enemy combatants, one could “get wealth beyond your dreams.”]
Senator Specter, whose amendment
to restore habeas corpus was defeated, voted for the bill--which passed after just one hour of floor debate. He hopes the
courts will undo it because it violates international law. When? In 2011? After innocent people languish in prison for more
long years? After additional torture? This is NOT a way to make law!
We are outraged. As Americans,
we are furious that our representatives and would-be representatives have so little commitment to uphold the Constitution
that they would give the President a pass on these weighty, historic issues.
Alfred C. Krass
[See House vote on Military Commissions Act.]
