Military Commissions Act of 2006

MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 -- (Extensions of Remarks - September 29, 2006)

* Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. There are many glaring problems with this bill. It gives the President unilateral discretion to interpret the meaning and application of provisions in the Geneva Convention that relate to torture, which could result in the allowance of humiliating and degrading interrogation practices. It redefines the definition of an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' to include any individual who ``materially'' and ``purposefully'' supported hostilities against the United States. This new definition is so broadly worded; it could include someone who made an economic contribution to an organization that they did not know was on a terror-watch list. It still allows into evidence information that was obtained through torture and coercion, as long as it was obtained before the passage of the Detainee Torture Act. Perhaps most damaging is the stripping of the United States courts' habeas corpus jurisdiction to review detentions, eliminating one of the most fundamental and important precepts of our American Constitutional tradition.

* The court-stripping provisions included in this legislation would do serious harm to the longstanding rule that the government cannot just imprison people without giving them the opportunity for a fair and impartial determination that the detention is in accordance with the Constitution. Consider the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen. During a layover in New York on his way home to Canada, United States authorities seized him and shipped him to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for nearly a year. He was subjected to extensive interrogations, during which he was beaten and whipped. He was imprisoned in a 6-foot underground cell. The Canadian Government conducted an investigation into the case and found that Mr. Arar was placed on a terrorist watch-list based on inaccurate, unsubstantiated and unreliable evidence. Since being released, he has been cleared of all charges. This case illustrates why the right of habeas corpus is so vital to our rule of law. Individuals must always have an avenue to challenge their detention. If not, innocent people can be unlawfully detained and indefinitely imprisoned based upon insubstantial or even erroneous evidence.

* In a letter to Members of Congress commenting on the habeas stripping provisions, former Judge Advocate Generals John Hutson, Donald Guter, and David Brahms stated, ``it is critical to these detainees, who have not been charged with any crime, that Congress not strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear their pending habeas cases. The habeas cases are the only avenue open for them to challenge the bases of their detention--potentially life imprisonment--as `enemy combatants.' '' In another letter to Members of Congress, 9 former Federal judges also expressed concerns. They warn that ``..... depriving the courts of habeas jurisdiction will jeopardize the Judiciary's ability to ensure that Executive detentions are not grounded on torture or other abuse ..... Congress would thus be skating on thin constitutional ice in depriving the Federal courts of their power to hear the cases of Guantanamo detainees.'' Thomas Sullivan, a former United States attorney in Chicago who has represented Guantanamo Bay detainees, testified at a recent Senate hearing that he believed that if this legislation is ``passed with these habeas-stripping provisions in it, then after I am dead and the members of this Senate are dead, an apology will be made, just as we did for the incarceration of the Japanese citizens in the Second World War.'' (``Security and War Take Center Stage as Campaign Break Nears,'' New York Times, September 26, 2006)

* Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we should work to protect Constitutional rights, not deny them. As the former Judge Advocate Generals wrote in their letter to Members of Congress, ``..... the writ of habeas corpus embodies principles fundamental to our Nation. It is the essence of the rule of law, ensuring that neither king nor executive may deprive a person of liberty without some independent review to ensure that the detention has a reasonable basis in law and fact. That right must be preserved.''

* H.R. 6166 has serious consequences for the safety of our brave military men and women and for our Nation. If the United States supports stripping detainees of fundamental legal protections, other countries will feel justified in doing the same thing. Allowing questionable interrogation techniques--practices that could actually violate the Geneva Convention--would have dangerous implications for the treatment of American soldiers who are captured abroad. It will also make the enemy fight harder because capture or surrender could have such dire consequences. In fact, there are fewer people surrendering to American troops now than in at the start of the war in Iraq.

* While there are those who argue that the erosion of civil liberties is needed to protect our Nation, I believe it will actually have the opposite effect and will make our country less safe. The most important asset the United States has in the world community is our commitment to the rule of law and fair treatment. By denying habeas corpus rights and giving the President unfettered discretion in defining torture, we are sending out a signal to the world that the United States will no longer serve as the world's standard in our commitment to human rights, civil rights and the rule of law. It will erode our international reputation as a moral Nation that is an example of democracy and freedom, and it will undermine our leadership role in the world community.

* I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6166.

http://thomas.loc.gov/