Priorities

Why is Congress, and these members in particular, so fixated on the rights of terrorists under the US legal system and what the rest of the world thinks of us? Isn't the first job of Congress to protect and serve the United States of America? Have they forgotten their responsibilities under the law? Or the oath of office they took?

I, _____ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

With that in mind, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted on its own version of a terror tribunal bill, which would grant even more rights to terror suspects than the Administration's version. The vote passed 15-9, with chairman John Warner of Virginia (R) joined by all the Democrats on the committee and McCain, Graham, and Collins. Supporters of this bill claim that it would help improve the US image abroad. I think it misses the mark. Mark Levin calls the GOP supporters of this hideous legislation ACLU Republicans, which is appropriate since the ACLU considers the Bush version to completely gut Geneva Convention enforcement.

Terrorists do not get Geneva Convention protections. They are specifically excluded from the protections because they operate outside the law. Period. That should be the end of the discussion, but some, like Sen. John McCain think that terrorists should be accorded Geneva Convention protections and due process rights under the US Constitution, even as there has never been any such protection granted to enemies of this country - especially during a time of war.

Now, the possibility that this bill survives a full Senate vote is slim, but there appears to be enough support for some of the provisions among Democrats and the aforementioned Warner, McCain, Collins and Graham that they might end up in the final version. President Bush has said he would resist this version of the bill, and Sen. Frist has said that he would support the Bush version.

One aspect of the bill that is particularly noxious is that McCain's group thinks that terror suspects should be entitled to view classified information gathered by the US government. And they're not alone. Former Sec. State Powell thinks that the Bush proposal is wrong. Doesn't anyone realize the logic of providing terrorists with classified information in tribunals might be just a wee bit odd? After all, there is a possibility that these suspects might end up being released because the government could not prove its case beyond a doubt, and the terror suspect goes back to his terrorist cohorts with the information gleaned from his trial.

As we've seen with Mohammed Ali Hammadi, a Hizbullah terrorist who was serving a life sentence for the murder of US Navy Diver Robert Stethem and was released after 19 years, many a terrorist will return to the fold to renew their attacks against the West. Hammadi promptly went back to Lebanon where he rejoined with Hizbullah. There is a high rate of recidivism among those terrorists captured and released, and in the terrorism prevention business, that's a real bad thing to catch terrorists only to watch them get released because of legal technicalities. The consequences are too high to ignore.

The thing is, that the President's proposals on granting certain rights to terror suspects already surpasses whatever rights they had been granted under the US Constitution and Geneva Conventions as interpreted previously, which is to say that they had none before and are now getting rights. McCain and the Democrats think that the Administration's proposals don't go far enough.

McCain thinks that extending these rights to terrorists will somehow provide additional protection to our troops in the field. I sincerely doubt it. The terrorists have repeatedly shown themselves to completely and fully ignore all the laws of war - specifically targeting civilians, operating in civilian areas to maximize casualties, and not wearing uniforms to separate themselves from civilians.

Congress and the courts have made such a mess of national security that CIA agents have to concern themselves with signing up for legal insurance because of concerns over liability should they be accused of abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that the Justice Department will nto represent them in court or in Congressional inquiries.

As part of the administration's efforts to protect intelligence officers from liability, Bush last week called for Congress to approve legislation drafted by the White House that would exempt CIA officers and other federal civilian officials from prosecution for humiliating and degrading terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. Its wording would keep prosecutors or courts from considering a wider definition of actions that constitute torture.

Bush also asked Congress to bar federal courts from considering lawsuits by detainees who were in CIA or military custody that allege violations of international treaties and laws governing treatment of detainees.

The proposals have won mixed reviews in the Senate, where they are generally opposed by Democrats and a group of dissident Republicans. The proposals were deliberately omitted, for example, from competing legislation circulated last week by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).

Others blogging: Blue Crab Boulevard, Macranger, Wizbang, Stop the ACLU, Flopping Aces, and bRight and Early.

UPDATE:
Allah at Hot Air has far more, including the fact that the House Armed Services Committee had earlier passed the Administration's version of the tribunal package 52-8.