Fixing the Military Commissions Act
According to The Hill, there may be a move underway to undo some of the damage caused by the Military Commissions Act which the President signed into law in October:
Some perspective is warranted here, though. Even if Dodd and Leahy are able to push through this sort of legislation (and get the House to follow suit), President Bush would never sign it, not in a million years. He would veto any such bill, and not only that, he would invite the entire press corps over to the White House to watch him do it, and he would issue a statement accusing the Democratic Congress of trying to grant rights to terrorists.
Don't get me wrong. I still think Dodd and Leahy should do whatever they can, especially given the very real possibility that various portions of the Military Commission Act will be struck down by the courts over the next two years, but it's important to keep expectations in check. Until Bush leaves office, there is very little progress that can be made on this front, at least legislatively.
Gearing up for a major clash with the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress, several key Senate Democrats are planning to overhaul the newly minted legislation governing military tribunals of detainees. . . .Good for Leahy and Dodd. It's nice to know at least a few members of Congress understand how truly pernicious and un-American that law is.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who is running for president and who, come January, will be the second ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, introduced legislation today that would amend the existing law.
Dodd said he’s expecting the legislation to be taken up early next year. "The bill goes back and undoes what was done," Dodd told The Hill. . . .
Dodd is the first Democrat to take aim at the controversial military tribunals bill. But Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the incoming Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, also said that he is in the process of drafting "major changes" to the legislation.
Some perspective is warranted here, though. Even if Dodd and Leahy are able to push through this sort of legislation (and get the House to follow suit), President Bush would never sign it, not in a million years. He would veto any such bill, and not only that, he would invite the entire press corps over to the White House to watch him do it, and he would issue a statement accusing the Democratic Congress of trying to grant rights to terrorists.
Don't get me wrong. I still think Dodd and Leahy should do whatever they can, especially given the very real possibility that various portions of the Military Commission Act will be struck down by the courts over the next two years, but it's important to keep expectations in check. Until Bush leaves office, there is very little progress that can be made on this front, at least legislatively.
2 Comments:
Some perspective is warranted here, though. Even if Dodd and Leahy are able to push through this sort of legislation (and get the House to follow suit), President Bush would never sign it, not in a million years. He would veto any such bill, and not only that, he would invite the entire press corps over to the White House to watch him do it, and he would issue a statement accusing the Democratic Congress of trying to grant rights to terrorists.
No doubt Bush would veto almost any such bill, but as you're saying, it's still important to have the public debate and get the public (and the press) at least somewhat educated on the issues.
That said I'm a shade more optimistic than I think you are. With Bush's popularity low and falling, an attempt by him to sell such a bill as soft on terrorists might backfire and be seen as a cynical political move on the part of the administration. This is especially true if the bill has some bipartisan support (as e.g. a limited habeus corpus amendment likely would). The Congressional Republicans have a lot of anger at Bush and are looking to distance themselves from him -- their newfound minority status will obviously prompt some introspection -- so what is possible even for them to support may have changed.
I agree with your perspective, however I'm troubled with where that leaves us. I firmly believe that the longer the MCA stays on the books, the less likely we will be to take it off the books.
That's because (I believe) the longer the MCA is law, the more people are abused by this law. The more people are abused by this law, the more human rights complaints (and reparation demands) will crash down on us if we repeal this law. As time goes by, our government will avoid dealing with the repercussions of repealing this law, and so won't repeal this law. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The longer this law stays on, the more painful it will be for us to admit fault in the law, and thus the less likely we will be to repeal this law. Am I wrong?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home