Date: 2006-09-27
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. all Members of Congress support the effort to thwart intemafional terrorism and make Americans safe. But there are right ways and wrong ways to carry out that critical effort. The military commissions bill before us today is the wrong way. and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. The Geneva Convention protects Americans everywhere. Congress should n)t alter our international obligations in an electionyear rush ordered by Karl Roves partisan strategy shop. We cannot use international law to justify Americas- actions when it suits our purposes and ignore it when it does not. America has given its word to the rest of the world that we win abide by the Geneva Conventions. Redefining our interpretation of the Geneva Convention is a slippery slope. Consider the words of the Navys own Judge Advocate General. who testified to Congress on the possible implications of altering Americas commitment to the Geneva conventions: "I would be very concerned about other nations looking in on the United States and making a determination that. if its good enough for the United States. its good enough for us. and perhaps doing a lot of damage and harm internationally if one of our servicemen or servicewomen were taken and held as a detainee." Beyond military personnel. the Geneva Conventions also protect those not in uniform-. special forces personnel. diplomatic personnel. CIA agents. contractors. journalists. missionaries. relief workers and all -other civilians. Changing our commitment to this treaty could endanger them. as well. In addition to my concerns about our commitment to the Geneva Conventions. there is a real possibility that this bill will not stand up to judicial scrutiny: The Supreme Court in "Rasul v. Bush" decided that detainees have habeas corpus rights. And well established case law lays out that legislation depriving federal courts of jurisdiction does not effect currently pending cases. And nine former federal judges recently wrote: "Congress would thus be skating on thin constitutional ice in depriving the federal courts of their power to hear the rases of Guantanamo detainees.. . . If one goal of the provision is to bring these cases to a speedy conclusion. we can assure you from our considerable experience that eliminating habeas would be counterproductive." Sacrificing our principles makes us neither safe nor free. In fact. there is some evidence that sacrificing our principles in this bill may make us less safe. Just yesterday. the President declassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimateor NTEwhich. -news accounts say. details that U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere has increased the spread of terrorism. making America less safe. One of the key reasons outlined in the NTE for this conclusion was that. entrenched grievances of injustice help create an antiU.S. sentiment among Muslims that terrorist groups exploit to recruit new members and grow the jihadist movementthe images of and stories about detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib. the unexplained death of prisoners at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan. the denial of habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo bay. the use of extraordinary rendition to kidnap suspected enemies of the state anywhere in the world. and secret CIA prisons. These incidents have all helped spread antiU.S. sentient around the world. This has alienated us from friends and allies and added to the list of grievances terrorist groups like al Qaeda use to recruit new jihadists. The President should have the best possible intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States and our allies. And those responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist acts should be brought tojustice. tried. and punished accordingly. and their convictions should be upheld by our courts. Sadly. this legislation does not accomplish any of those things. For that reason. I encour-. age my colleague to vote against its passage.