Apparently , Sen. Mark Pryor did not read the Military Commissions

[sinkingfeeling]

Act of 2006. I wrote him a 'strong' letter condemning his vote for this awful WH-written bill. I got his response today and you'll love it.

"I did vote to remove the provision eliminating their right to ask for a writ of habeas corpus. Since that provision is still in the bill, I expect the Supreme Court will again have its say on our detainee policy. .....The bill does not allow the President to reinterpret Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. That would have been the wrong message to send 57 years after we signed the Conventions."

Am I missing something? Here's the bill that passed:

SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

(a) Implementation of Treaty Obligations-

(1) IN GENERAL- The acts enumerated in subsection (d) of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (b) of this section, and in subsection (c) of this section, constitute violations of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibited by United States law.

(2) PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES- The provisions of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention for the United States to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encompassed in common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or international source of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection (d) of such section 2441.

(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT-

(A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

(B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register.

(C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (except as to grave breaches of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.

(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch of the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c1... :

Should I ask Mark why he didn't read the bill or why Congress and the Senate is so readily giving up their right to make laws that do not rely on the Supreme Court to 'fix'?

[thereismore]

1. you actually want to have conversation with him? nt

[mike_c]

2. typical senate BS....

He voted for it-- his vote implies support for the Bill's provisions. He only has a yes or a no vote. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand which one means "I support this bill" and which means "piss on that."

[BOSSHOG]

3. His father would be ashamed?

[babylonsister]

4. Sounds also like he's passing the buck to the SC. Not good enough! nt

[nam78_two]

5. Huh??!!!

:wtf:
Can't decide which would be worse in this case stupidity/ignorance (if he doesn't even know wtf he signed on to) or bold-faced lying to your constituents....

Jeesh.....

Is there a profession with less accountability?