Detainee Rights Create a Divide on Capitol Hill

[cal04]

The Supreme Court decision striking down the use of military commissions to bring terrorism detainees to trial has set off sharp differences among Republicans in Congress over what kind of rights detainees should be granted and how much deference should be shown the president in deciding the issue.

The debate is expected to consume the rest of the summer in Congress as lawmakers head into an election season expected to be dominated by issues of national security. The issue reflects the difficult legal, diplomatic and political choices the government faces in dealing with terrorism suspects.

The divisions do not fall strictly along traditional partisan lines, and are as much within the parties as between them, particularly for Republicans. On one side of the debate are Republicans who believe Congress should give the president the authority to set up the kind of military commissions, which sharply curtail defendants' rights, that were struck down by the court.

On the other side are those who say the trials should be modeled on the military system of courts-martial, an approach that would give detainees more due-process rights than would the commissions. In between, many Republicans and Democrats alike argue for starting with the military judicial system and tweaking it to reflect the differences of trying terrorism suspects.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/washington/10gitmo.html?hp&ex=1152504000&en=5bebbf8829c8f7ff&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[ComerPerro]

1. they call it "special privileges for terrorists", its really dishonest

[Ringo84]

2. Right!

It's a fear-mongering term designed to make it look as though Democrats want to reward terrorists. Disgusting.
Ringo

[Eric J in MN]

3. Try them in civilian courts.

Militaries shouldn't try people who aren't in the military.

We wouldn't want a military tribunal in Hondorus trying American citizens.