Military Commissions Act of 2006

President Bush signed this into law. Now we have to wait to see what the results of the law suits will be. I find it amazing that none of the article I've read have even named the legislation. It's the Military Commission Act of 2006.

President Bush yesterday signed into law new rules on interrogating detainees and prosecuting suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, calling the measure "one of the most important pieces of legislation in the war on terror."

But as Bush and a group of key Republican senators hailed the compromise that led to the passage of the new rules last month, the American Civil Liberties Union called it "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history." Groups of defense lawyers vowed to fight the new law in court, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional" because it denies detainees the right to challenge their detention in court.

I'm certain we'll be hearing the details of the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union's complaints. I'd really like to hear what would be acceptable to the ACLU for processing these illegal combatants and terrorists.

"This bill provides legal protections that ensure our military and intelligence personnel will not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists, simply for doing their jobs," Bush said, lauding the CIA interrogation program as a "vital tool" that has thwarted numerous attacks. "This program has been one of the most successful intelligence efforts in American history."

It is unclear whether the new law bans mock drownings and other such tactics. Senator John McCain of Arizona, a Republican and former Vietnam POW who spearheaded the effort to outlaw torture, said those tactics would be prohibited. But White House press secretary Tony Snow would not specify which methods would be allowed.

"The government will not tell you the precise questioning techniques, for the reasons that have been outlined many times before," he said. "You do not want to give those who are apprehended, or terrorists, the ability to plan in advance for techniques that might be used."

I still find it amusing that the press wants the Administration to detail what interrogation methods that they will be using. Not that they would use those details to politically protest their stance that anything that is used to detainees is torture, but they expect that the Administration would help them with their activities. Of course, the Administration will provide a broad interpretation of what is allowed in the Federal Register, and you can expect there will be a lot of screeching when that comes out.

The new law now blocks the court from hearing those petitions. Yesterday, the Department of Justice immediately sent a letter to a US appeals court in Washington announcing that the Guantanamo detainees no longer have access to the court.

Defense lawyers said they would appeal, arguing that the Constitution guarantees a detainee's right to challenge his or her detention in court, and that that right cannot be so easily denied by Congress.

No doubt that there will be legal maneuvering on this. Don't expect many detainees to move into the processing any time soon.

On topic of Guantanomo Bay, there appears that the countries that have been screeching the loudest about closing GITMO are refusing to take detainees that come from their own countries.

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett last week issued the latest European demand to close down the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The existence of the prison is "unacceptable" and fuels Islamic radicalism around the world, she said, echoing a recent chorus of complaints from Europe about U.S. counterterrorism policy.

Behind the scenes, however, the British government has repeatedly blocked efforts to let some prisoners leave Guantanamo and return home.

According to documents made public this month in London, officials there recently rejected a U.S. offer to transfer 10 former British residents from Guantanamo to the United Kingdom, arguing that it would be too expensive to keep them under surveillance. Britain has also staved off a legal challenge by the relatives of some prisoners who sued to require the British government to seek their release.

Other European governments, which have been equally vocal in assailing Guantanamo as a human rights liability, have also balked at accepting prisoner transfers. A Turkish citizen who was born and raised in Germany was finally permitted to return from Guantanamo in August, four years after the German government turned down a U.S. proposal to release him.

In addition, virtually every country in Europe refused to grant asylum to several Guantanamo prisoners from China who were not being sent home because of fears they could face political harassment there. The Balkan nation of Albania agreed to take in five of the Chinese in May, but only after more than 100 other nations rebuffed U.S. pleas to accept them on humanitarian grounds, State Department officials said.

Interesting. We're bastards for not giving them justice, but when offered to allow their home countries handle them, they refuse.

I'm going to avoid the idiotic quotes by the likes of Feingold and his ilk. I'm sure everyone has heard more than enough of that in the MSM.