Detainee Trials and the Political Opposition

Lots of articles on this one. Frankly, the Dems are going down the path of no return. (And one RINO)

But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, objected that the measure would be "used by our terrorist enemies as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy when it comes to proclamations of human rights."

Yeah, right. Those terrorists that already rank us as those to be killed because we're not Muslims, and already define us as morally corrupt because we don't adhere to Sharia need a reason? Has Levin missed that they consider us weak because we have allowed human rights to restrain us in how we fight?

"Let me be very clear. I believe that there is a special place in hell reserved for the planners and perpetrators of 9/11," said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo). But, she said, the bill would "do nothing but put us in further legal limbo."

"This bill is practically begging to be overturned by the court," added House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

I think they may have a point, considering that the liberal side of the SCOTUS decided, for some unfathomable reason, to decide that these detainees are provided protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, though the clearly fall outside of the definition of those protected in the Conventions.

A bipartisan effort led by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania to strip out the provision preventing detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions - demands for legal justification for their imprisonment - is expected to come before the Senate today.

This one always gives me a warm feeling. Let's go out of our way to give illegal combatants legal rights to enter the US criminal system when we don't even provide an allowance for that to legal combatants. The bill gives similar protections to habeas corpus as given in a courts-martial, and that should be enough.

Then there are the complaints about giving the President too much power.

Democrats, who opposed the measure, charged that the leeway given to interrogators and the limited legal recourse granted to terror suspects who would face military trials gave Bush dictatorial powers.

Yep, that ranks in there with the other generic rhetorical complaints. Here's Kucinich's little enjoiner, he sounded like he was about to burst into tears at the end of his tantrumn with this:

'This bill is everything we don't believe in,' shouted Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, waving a copy of the bill on the podium.

And Murtha:

"It gives too much leeway to the president," said Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania.

And Leahy:

"This is un-American, this is unconstitutional, this is contrary to American interests, this is not what a great and good and powerful nation should be doing," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.

Makes you wish you had more time to read all of their debate, since I'm certain there is more context, though I'm dubious that there is any convincing content.

There was some intelligence from the Dems at least:

Concerned the legislation was being rushed through before an election without most senators understanding what was in the final version, Democratic Senators Robert C. Byrd of Virginia and Barack Obama of Illinois planned to offer a sunset provision that would require Congress to review the military commissions, as the trials are known, in five years.

Review is always a good idea, especially as it will allow tuning of the legislation if needed. (And if there is a Dem in the Whitehouse we'll get to see how they will react if they are stripped of the ability to interrogate and bring terrorists to trial.)