Providing for Consideration of H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act of 2006

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6166, MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - September 27, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. We are rushing through a bill under a closed rule without the right to debate amendments.

This is a bill which will have tremendous ramifications for our Nation, our judiciary, and our military, and we are given a closed rule. This process is an absolute outrage. It demeans our democracy. I regret that we must even consider such legislation, but we must because the Bush administration has broken and abused the honor, integrity, and standing of the United States.

For the past 5 years, the Bush administration has repeatedly acted in ways that betray America's commitment to the rule of law. Prisoners have been held in secret prisons without any due process or even access by the Red Cross. Others have been held at Guantanamo to avoid judicial oversight and the application of U.S. treaty obligations toward detainees.

The executive branch has operated under a bizarre set of legal theories that have been rejected by dozens of our highest-ranking former military officers and representatives of the Judge Advocates General Corps, all of whom have warned of the dangers such opinions pose to our own uniformed men and women in the field, now and in the future.

Interrogation practices were approved at the highest levels of the Pentagon, which General Counsel of the Navy Alberto Mora described as ``clearly abusive and clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values.''

According to press reports, the CIA has used a variety of methods that the United States has previously prosecuted as war crimes and routinely denounced as torture when they were used by other governments.

Mr. Speaker, we would not need to be here if the Bush administration had simply adhered to the letter and spirit of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. We would not be here if the Bush administration had called upon our best and most experienced military interrogators, those who undergo rigorous training at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, because violations of U.S. and international law would not have occurred, and we likely would have obtained intelligence of higher quality and value.

We would not be here if the Bush administration had directed all interrogators across all agencies to adhere to the letter of the Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions.

Now, I wish I could say President Bush and his advisers have come to grips with how they have undermined and tarnished America's reputation as a nation that stands foursquare in support of the rule of law, justice, and human rights. But this legislation proves that precious little has been learned.

Instead, this bill will prevent any accountability for violations of the law carried out in the past. It will immunize from prosecution anyone who might have committed abuses or crimes. And when we immunize those who carried out abuses, we extend that blessing to those who issued such orders and provided such guidance.

Mr. Speaker, scores of military officers in the field rejected the orders and guidance to use so-called ``alternative methods'' during interrogation, namely, torture. They knew those orders violated the law. But we are not rewarding those fine officers for sticking with the law. They are not being honored for their professionalism or for the quality of the intelligence they provided.

But those who broke the law will be rewarded along with those who ordered them to break the law. If this bill passes, we will even strip individuals who are detained of their rights and ability to challenge the factual and legal basis of their detention. Why? Because the White House does not believe in the checks and balances of democracy.

They are angry that twice the Supreme Court has pointed out the failures of our detainee policies, practices and procedures.

Mr. Speaker, how can we do this? If some other country were holding American citizens in detention and rewriting their laws in just this way to deal with our people, would we be encouraging such an effort?

Mr. Speaker, let me say quite simply why I oppose this bill. I oppose this bill because I am a proud American, and this bill runs contrary to the very values on which our country was founded and for which we stand like a beacon to the rest of the world: The rule of law, due process and respect for human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I fear for the soul of this Nation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov