That’s Charlie Rangel from 2004.

As Ed Morrissey notes:
Whether Schumer is right is a good topic for debate, but not the point at the moment. The point here is that the CIA and the Bush administration got much different feedback on Congressional…

It was written by V.P. Joe Biden

Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania now (D)

1996 and it sounds like the evil patriot act.

The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act

http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/legal/police/terror95.html

S. 390 was introduced February 10, 1995 by
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware,
and Sen.
Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania.

H.R. 896 was introduced the same day in the House by
Rep. Charles Schumer, D-New York, and

Rep. Dicks.

The bill finally passed the House in March 1996, and was signed into law in April 1996.
The Law

Presumed guilty, secret evidence can be used
Permanent resident aliens arrested under this law have to prove they should not be held in jail before trial. Secret evidence can used in the detention hearings and at trial that only the judge could see, not the defendant.

First Amendment protections weakened.
The law lifts a 1994 Crime law restriction prohibiting the FBI from investigations based on speech or beliefs, when restricting humanitarian aid. Foreigners can be barred from speaking in the U.S. using McCarthy era McCarran-Walter Act provisions. An overbroad definition of terrorism virtually requires the Justice Department to select crimes to prosecute based on political beliefs and associations.

Presidential powers expanded.
The President can label organizations — without any appeal or review — as “terrorist”, and criminalize fundraising for humanitarian aid even remotely related to such groups.

Vince Miller, Director of the International Society for Individual Liberty, said the following in an April 26, 1995, message to LiberNet:

The “Counter-Terrorism Bill” however, concentrates enormous police powers in a domestic equivalent of the National Security Council, and gives the President tremendous arbitrary power to declare who is a domestic or overseas “terrorist” — a decision which this legislation says shall not be subject to appeal!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

The AEDPA had a tremendous impact on the law of habeas corpus in the United States. One provision of the AEDPA limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim resulted in a decision that was

1. contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

2. based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
Subchapter 10:
Section 924, Article 124;
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to injure, disfigure, or disable, inflicts upon the person of another an injury which–

(1) seriously disfigures his person by a mutilation thereof;

(2) destroys or disables any member or organ of his body; or

(3) seriously diminishes his physical vigor by the injury of any member or organ;

is guilty of maiming and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Waterboarding was NOT and is STILL NOT illegal under the UCMJ.

Has the White House phone rang at 3am yet? I’m sure Hillary is there to answer it, just in case it does .

I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.

You could theoretically devise a scenario where perhaps torture should be used. However, that doesnt mean it would be legal.

Torture isnt legal, and it shouldnt be legal. It should be something done only when the circumstances are so dire that one is willing to commit an illegal act for the greater good.

Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, Do what you have to do.

Of course, that hypothetical is incredibly unrealistic outside of Hollywood scripts, and certainly hasnt happened in the real world. Shouldnt we base our laws on the real world rather than scriptwriters’ imaginations?

Cheney “knew” that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. He “knew” that Iraq had WMD. So he tortured suspects in order to confirm that “knowledge”.

However, his “facts” were wrong and the tortured confessions were worth as much as the legal memos that he based them on: nothing.

I hate to say it, but UpChuck was right.

saiga on May 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Of course, he later changed positions ;-)

The most logical and best place to start

The most logical place to start is, of course, with the hypocrites in Congress.

Schumer is going to feel awkward when he’s sitting next to Cheney on the chopping block.

Cheney: “Great idea, Chuck”
Schumer: “Bite me, Dick”