Senate moves quickly to respond to Hamdan

posted at 11:09 am on June 30, 2006 by Allahpundit

Specter’s already introduced a bill that would authorize military tribunals and set due process guidelines. Hearings are scheduled for July 11. Frist has a bill of his own coming next week. And John Warner and Carl Levin say the Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on procedural requirements in hopes of passing something in September. Full speed ahead.

Sounds like the debate will center on whether the Gitmo gang should be entitled to full courts-martial or some lesser specie of military hearing. The difference is the extent to which the government can present classified info as evidence without letting the defendant see it. Pelosi and Feingold doubtless will demand the full court-martial enchilada, which is fine by me: if they want to argue that terrorists are entitled to the same procedural benefits as U.S. soldiers with a midterm election coming up, so much the better.

Now, you call it — which is the quote of the day? Candidate #1, from Agence France Presse. Adjectives are fun:

The Washington Post and The New York Times on Friday hailed the decision as “a victory for law,” while the ultraconservative Washington Times condemned it as a dangerous restriction of presidential authority.

The Post in particular celebrates the implications of the Geneva Conventions for “dignitary” offenses.

Candidate #2, from the AP:

“The Supreme Court must be neutral and must respect human rights. They must give justice,” Abdul Salam Zaeef said in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

Zaeef was detained at Gitmo for four years — after serving as the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air


Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.


Trackback URL


I vote for #2. That is really rich to have a Taliban pontificate on SCOTUS. The bonus is his “concern” for human rights! Bwa-ha-ha-ha.

Babs on June 30, 2006 at 11:42 AM

Gotta be #2 , where our ‘learned’ Taliban leader also said “the facility’s military tribunals were “an insult to humanity and human rights.”
While the New York Times would probably hire this guy, I only want to vote for him for your ‘quote of the day’.
“an insult to humanity” and “must respect human rights”?? from this killer? make that 2 votes.

shooter on June 30, 2006 at 11:50 AM

We now have a “Committee” as Commander-in-Chief. The effect going forward will be, while we debate tactics, the enemy moves forward. When are these liberal idiots going to get it.

This issue is all about seperation of powers, or as they would like it – centralization of powers….

I pray GW gets one more appointment before his term is over, if not we are heading down a road where they will be weakening us with our own Constitution. The terrorists must be laughing this one up. How inept the SCOTUS has made our leader look. It simply tells them, the President is not in charge….Simply wait, “the liberals will hand us our victory as long as we LAWYER UP!! and demand our rights at the table of Liberty” (haha!)

If the American people allow this, we deserve our fate..

dallas94 on June 30, 2006 at 11:55 AM

Definitely #2. The words “respect human rights” coming from a Taliban guy is a joke.

StephC on June 30, 2006 at 11:58 AM

Whoever said this decision was a political victory for Bush was prescient. And for the rest of us, too, because it reminds him about the importance of nominating good judges.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 30, 2006 at 12:05 PM

#1 is just the norm
#2 is royally amusing

Good to see Congress moving quickly (as much as possible) and assuming the Republicans lock themselves into the president, we can have the bill soon.

Defector01 on June 30, 2006 at 12:11 PM

#2 definatly…

However, from his “worldview” remember that ONLY MEN who follow the Koran are considered Human… so only they get Human rights…

Romeo13 on June 30, 2006 at 12:23 PM

Gee, I wonder if the Dems with show the ultimate stupidity and filibuster the bill? WOuldn’t that make great campaign fodder!

Mike O on June 30, 2006 at 12:24 PM

We’ve come a long way:

1. Bin Laden tells us what to do with the Zarqawi body and

2. Abdul Salam Zaeef tells us what the SCOTUS ought to do

And the Democrats and the MSM think this is great! Ha! Can’t wait for Nov.

The Europeans sense blood – they are skeptical of yesterday’s decision :(

Entelechy on June 30, 2006 at 2:31 PM

Five SC justices are really more qualified to be astronauts. They took up space in school.

MaiDee on June 30, 2006 at 4:21 PM

Protocol I was rejected by the Senate & Reagan in 1987

While I recommend that the Senate grant advice and consent to this agreement, I have at the same time concluded that the United States cannot ratify a second agreement on the law of armed conflict negotiated during the same period. I am referring to Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which would revise the rules applicable to international armed conflicts. Like all other efforts associated with the International Committee of the Red Cross, this agreement has certain meritorious elements. But Protocol I is fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed. It contains provisions that would undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war. One of its provisions, for example, would automatically treat as an international conflict any so-called “war of national liberation.’’ Whether such wars are international or non-international should turn exclusively on objective reality, not on one’s view of the moral qualities of each conflict. To rest on such subjective distinctions based on a war’s alleged purposes would politicize humanitarian law and eliminate the distinction between international and non-international conflicts. It would give special status to “wars of national liberation,’’ an ill-defined concept expressed in vague, subjective, politicized terminology. Another provision would grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war. This would endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves. These problems are so fundamental in character that they cannot be remedied through reservations, and I therefore have decided not to submit the Protocol to the Senate in any form, and I would invite an expression of the sense of the Senate that it shares this view. Finally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have also concluded that a number of the provisions of the Protocol are militarily unacceptable.

In fact, we must not, and need not, give recognition and protection to terrorist groups as a price for progress in humanitarian law.

I believe that these actions are a significant step in defense of traditional humanitarian law and in opposition to the intense efforts of terrorist organizations and their supporters to promote the legitimacy of their aims and practices. The repudiation of Protocol I is one additional step, at the ideological level so important to terrorist organizations, to deny these groups legitimacy as international actors.

I would also invite an expression of the sense of the Senate that it shares the view that the United States should not ratify Protocol I, thereby reaffirming its support for traditional humanitarian law, and its opposition to the politicization of that law by groups that employ terrorist practices.

Sounds very familiar doesn’t it? The Kelo-5 insisted the Geneva Conventions includes this very ‘Protocol I’ which was specifically rejected by the President and Congress 19 years ago.

So… did not the Kelo-5 quite simply lie, and in doing so:

“…undermine humanitarian law and endanger civilians in war.”

“…give special status to “wars of national liberation,’’ an ill-defined concept expressed in vague, subjective, politicized terminology.”

“…grant combatant status to irregular forces even if they do not satisfy the traditional requirements to distinguish themselves from the civilian population and otherwise comply with the laws of war.”

Act to “endanger civilians among whom terrorists and other irregulars attempt to conceal themselves.”

Grant “these groups legitimacy as international actors.”

Support “the politicization of that law by groups that employ terrorist practices.”

Apparently tiring of ignoring our protections guaranteed by the limits of the US Constitution with the inclusion of references to international law, the Kelo-5 have moved on to ignoring the protections of international law.

DANEgerus on June 30, 2006 at 6:24 PM

Everyone agrees the endgame needs to be the defeat of terror. The means we choose is what separates us from these animals; and gives us claim to the moral high ground. It is a grave, grave mistake to underestimate the value keeping the moral high ground. Single biggest blunder we’ve made in Iraq is Abu Graib (sp??). Why–because in this type of war, the goodwill of the population (on whose turf you and your enemy operate) is an asset you can’t afford to squander.

The insurgents look like, talk like, worship like, eat like, etc, the general population. We on the other hand, are foreigners proslytizing a novel idea. So on balance, need we behave a lot better than the insurgents to keep the folks on our side? Do we need to walk the talk?

As my dad used to say: FIO. (Figure it out).

honora on July 3, 2006 at 3:51 PM