Boxer thinks torture bill will be overturned by Supreme Court.

[Clarkie1]

I hope very much that she is right, but I have my doubts...history shows that it's harder to regain justice than to give it up. Here's the text Boxer's letter I received today.

Dear XXXXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I appreciate hearing from you, and I strongly agree with you.

I am proud to have opposed the Bush Administration's indefensible plan to detain and try suspected terrorists.

Instead of giving our intelligence services the tools they need, this bill will endanger our troops in the field and will lead to lengthy delays in prosecuting those charged with terrorist acts against Americans. At the same time, the bill violates both American military doctrine and the right of habeas corpus, one of the bedrock constitutional principles of the American system of justice.

This bill, which violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention, will likely be overturned in the Supreme Court, further delaying our ability to bring terrorists to justice. And because it violates established standards of international law, this bill exposes U.S. troops to mistreatment by our enemies while needlessly antagonizing and alienating our allies. As General Colin Powell said in criticizing the Bush tribunal plan, "The world is beginning to doubt our moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

Be assured that I will continue to fight for tough anti-terrorist legislation that is consistent with American military doctrine and our nation's guiding constitutional principles. Thank you again for your letter and for caring deeply about this critical matter.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

[Jackpine Radical]

1. It's gotta GET to the SC first.

I can see a lot of difficulties in just getting it there. We could be in for 2-3 years of knowing people are being tortured in our name before a case gets before the Court.

[LynneSin]

6. But they are already getting tortured

I mean we know it's happening - we've all seen the pictures, hell we've posted in here. This bill was nothing more than the Bush Regime trying to legitmize what they are already doing.

[Hissyspit]

2. Or not. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

3. She's Probably Correct

The Judiciary is still working - unlike the "Battlin' Congressional Dems" SCOTUS has handed The Smirk his ass on a platter on a number of occasions, and has pretty clearly telegraphed that it will do so again on precisely this issue.

[LynneSin]

4. I'm thinking that's why the vote turned out like it did

I mean how else can you explain that two guys who both voted against IWR, against the Patriot Act, some of the most liberal guys in DC but both in tight races for the senated supported that bill. I know how this country operates and Repukes love doing these commericials about "Dems weak on Terrorism" and the torture bill was nothing more than to try and find some leverage to defeat "weak on terror democrats". I know that the posters here at DU don't buy that crap but unfortunately it seems to work year after year.

Sherod Brown and Robert Menendez both have very progressive records and their votes shocked me. But I'm thinking that the dem leadership knew that this vote would probably somehow get passed and even if it doesn't they know the administration was already doing the torture. If it gets overturned by the Supreme Court and it could (we have 4 on each side with Kennedy as the wild card) that would be absolutely major and would have a major impact not only on the Bush Regine but perhaps even the International Courts finally going after them.

BTW, I saw a great commericial from the Menendez camp. He came right out and linked Kean Jr with Bush and said point blank "We need to get out of Iraq". Go Bob!

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Bits and pieces.

The immunity bill of attainder they snuck in to cover their prior crimes, for example, will remain. Most of the parts that abolish the GC Article 3 prohibitions will stand. Habeus Corpus will get put back, and that is about all.

[Patsy Stone]

7. You realize that he hasn't signed this piece of crap yet.

I think it's just to hold in their hand until the election to say they did it. Why hasn't he signed it yet? Why hasn't he covered his ass yet?

[Warren Stupidity]

8. There was supposed to be a big signing ceremony.

What happened?

Paging George Bush?

Oh, nevermind.

[Patsy Stone]

11. Don't wake him.

He signed the border fence one though. :eyes:

[Just Me]

9. I am confident she is correct. My problem is patience with such a slow,..

,...process. It's insane the way the "powers-that-be" can bounce this shit back and forth for way, way too long. Drives me nuts because, the harm is happening, not being ended, stopped, immediately. I mean, DAMN, can't someone do some kind of restraining thingy to STOP this potentially HUGELY CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR until it's decided whether the government can just go out there and torture and violate its commitment to the GC and USC?

:shrug:

It is still incomprehensible to me that the judicial system can be manipulated so easily by those who are committing such vile activities. Makes me feel little faith, at all, in the strength of our "system". Thankfully, I don't need faith.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Which parts, other than no habeus corpus are unconstitutional?

The SC ruled that the GC prohibited the previous pre-torture law arrangement. This bill overrides the GC - I don't think there is a constitutional issue with that.

[Just Me]

12. Are you saying the SCOTUS will find the GC isn't part of the COTUSA?

I believe that would overturn a couple centuries of law,...on a dime. I'd love to read the reasoning underlying such a rule because it would certainly change the face and substance of this country.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. No - that new law supersedes old law.

Laws passed by congress and treaties ratified by congress are on equal footing, both are treated the same. I believe that if congress passes a new law that contradicts in whole or part existing laws or treaties, the new law supersedes the old. Treaties do not have superior status. Even worse, treaties, while requiring great effort to ratify, require nothing much more than an executive order to abolish.

My prediction is that only the attempts to abolish habeas corpus will be found unconstitutional.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. That's my Senator!

She's done everything she can against this turd. More than I can say for some others.