CCC FORUMS

wldwdpc · Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 12

I received this from Senator Durbin and believe that it is worth sharing:

January 9, 2007

Dr. Bruce Williams

3127 Lake Bluff Dr Decatur, IL 62521

Dear Dr. Bruce Williams:

Thank you for contacting me about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930), which modified the War Crimes Act of 1996 to limit the range of offenses that are prosecutable under U.S. law as war crimes. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Since September 11, 2001, Bush Administration officials have bent many of the time-honored rules of warfare regarding the treatment of prisoners. They have claimed the right to seize anyone, including an American citizen in the United States, and hold him or her indefinitely. They have claimed that Americans and others who were detained have no right to challenge their detention, no right to see the evidence against them, and no right to even know why they are being held. The Justice Department even issued a memo redefining the meaning of torture, stating that abuse only rises to the level of torture if it causes pain equivalent to organ failure or death. The memo concluded that the President had the authority to order the use of torture, even though torture is a crime under U.S. law. This became official Administration policy for over two years before it was withdrawn under public pressure.

The Administration also decided that it would deviate from established trial processes and create a new military commission system to try detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Supreme Court rejected this system of military commissions in its June 2006 decision Hamdan v. Rumsfeld because the commission process did not comply with American laws and treaty obligations. Among these treaty obligations, the Court emphasized Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits torture and cruel, humiliating or degrading treatment of detainees.

In September 2006, the Administration proposed the Military Commissions Act, which sought to re-establish the military commission system and redefine what interrogation tactics the Administration deemed acceptable. The Military Commissions Act included language that modified the War Crimes Act of 1996. The War Crimes Act previously stated that a violation of Common Article 3 constituted a war crime. The Military Commissions Act provided that only a "grave breach" of common Article 3 would constitute a war crime. The Act then defined conduct that would constitute a "grave breach" to include a narrow list of crimes and stated that the changes to the War Crimes Act would apply retroactively to 1997. Critics have argued that the Military Commissions Act was intended to immunize from prosecution those who, at the Administration's direction, applied interrogation techniques to detainees that may have violated Common Article 3.

I voted against the Military Commissions Act. Among its flaws, the Act did not create clear standards for unacceptable treatment of prisoners. It also eliminated the fundamental protection of habeas corpus, meaning that individuals - including legal residents of the United States - could be detained indefinitely without the opportunity to challenge their detention in court. I believe that those who are dangerous to America should be charged, tried and incarcerated, but 200 years of American history have given us clear guidance on how to do this the right way. The drafters of the Military Commissions Act did not heed those historical lessons. However, the Act passed the Senate in September 2006.

This Administration has demonstrated that by instilling a climate of fear it can lead a majority in Congress to turn its back on fundamental values we all swear to uphold. I recognize that our enemies in the war on terror have committed terrible atrocities upon American soldiers and others whom they have taken prisoner. I condemn this vile behavior in the strongest terms, and the perpetrators of these atrocities must be found and brought to justice. But in our own detention practices and trial procedures, the United States must hold itself to the same high moral values that we stand for in other circumstances. The war on terror is also a struggle of values and principles, and in order to win it we must convince those who might be swayed by the advocates of terror that the values we Americans hold dear -- such as freedom, due process, human dignity, and the rule of law -- are values they can embrace as they advance toward a brighter future. Unfortunately, the Military Commissions Act does not represent the values that the United States of America stands for.

The Military Commissions Act will be the subject of legal challenges, and it remains to be seen whether the Administration's new detention, interrogation and military commission policies will survive constitutional scrutiny. In the meantime, I will continue to work to ensure that our laws -- and the core values upon which they are based -- are not laid aside as we act to defend our national security in a time of war. Thank you again for your message.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

RJD/rp