Richard WarnickMatheson Voted for Torture
I write e-mails to Senators Hatch and Bennett and Rep. Jim Matheson, mostly for my own amusement but also to promote the theoretical notion that these gentlemen are in Washington to represent me. I get back condescending form letters that I throw in the trash—the message of every one is the same, i.e. “we’re not going to so much as acknowledge the views of a mere constituent!”
[Note to anyone running for a seat in the House or Senate: let’s have two form letters on every issue, one that begins with “I know you disagree with me on ____†and one that says “Thank you for your support on _____.†It creates the impression that somebody in the office might have read the incoming e-mail.]
I fished my latest letter from Congressman Matheson out of the wastebasket because it’s the only explanation I have about why he was one of 34 House Democrats to vote in favor of HR 6166, the Military Commissions Act. Popularly known simply as “the torture bill,†this legislation ranks with the Alien and Sedition Acts as one of the worst laws Congress has ever passed. The Military Commissions Act is now awaiting President Bush’s signature (plus one of his now-infamous signing statements).
This 98-page law is written so broadly that it authorizes the permanent extrajudicial detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens who have never left the United States - based solely on the decision of the President. It even suspends the writ of habeas corpus, which has been part of our legal tradition since the 14th Century.
What’s in this law?
Excerpts from Section 3(a)
GENEVA CONVENTIONS NOT ESTABLISHING SOURCE OF RIGHTS.—No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.
[Note: nobody has any rights, not even the right to ask about rights. This in itself violates the Geneva Conventions.]
DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.—A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
[Note: this means the government can lock up anybody at all and throw away the key.]
Section 6(a)(3)(A)
As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
[Note: this means anything goes with regard to torture, despite all the supposed restrictions elsewhere in the law.]
Section 7(e)(1)
No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
[Note: if one is in fact a U.S. citizen, how can one prove that without access to the court system? Habeas corpus was nice while it lasted.]
What does Congressman Matheson say he voted for?
I voted for this compromise legislation because it provides for the necessary prosecution of suspected terrorists within a framework that prohibits torture and affords important legal rights to the accused. Dangerous terror suspects are awaiting trial even as Congress considers this legislation. This compromise bill allows those trials to be held, with substantial rights in place for the accused, so that military commissions can appropriately determine whether terrorist suspects have committed graves crimes against this nation.
I strongly condemn the use of torture– I believe it is an immoral and ineffective method, as do many current and former members of the military. This legislation prohibits degrading treatment of detainees, including a specific list of banned behaviors, such as cruel or inhumane punishment. It further specifies types of interrogation techniques considered in violation of the treaties. The bill does not interpret U.S. treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which govern the treatment of captives during battle. Instead, the compromise bill states that the president has the authority to interpret the meaning of the Conventions through Executive Order. Under the original Administration legislation, many Members of Congress, including myself, were concerned that captured U.S. soldiers wouldn’t be afforded the Geneva Conventions’ crucial protections.
Finally, this legislation establishes twenty six specific legal rights for alien enemy combatants including:
• The right to examine and respond to evidence submitted against the defendant.
• The right to legal counsel.
• The right to a presumption of innocence.
• No requirement that the defendant testify against himself/herself before the military commission.
• The right to appeal to a “Court of Military Commissions Review.”
• No death penalty unless it is expressly authorized and the accused is found guilty by unanimous verdict.
It looks as though several sections of the Military Commissions Act were written just to provide a fig leaf that congressmen could hide behind (the so-called compromise). As noted above, all of the supposed prohibitions on torture and all of the alleged rights of the accused are trumped by giant holes in the law that give the Executive Branch total power to arrest anyone and imprison them forever without any access to the courts. The President is authorized to interpret the Geneva Conventions however he wants.
Conclusion: Either Congressman Matheson doesn’t understand what he voted for or he’s counting on being able to fool his constituents.
October 6th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
This is a classic case of politics leading the politician. I try so very hard to like Matheson, but he’s become so utterly predicatable it painful.
We should start a poll to see if we can predict how he will vote on any issue. I’ll bet we could score 100%.
I think its safe to say Jim has never taken a risk in his life. And he is certainly not driven by conscience. I knew Jim’s father, and Jim knew Jim’s father. I wonder what Dad would say were he alive.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
I’m mostly concerned here that the actual facts show that torture, extraordinary rendition for more agressive torture, spying, mass military arrests in occupied nations (Iraq/Afghanistan) as well as the U.S., Canada, Europe, ok it starts to get global. But there is a torture trade going on here and Matheson is getting behind it.
Think about the problem of eschelon in regards to spying. It is truly frightening to see this kind of torture eschelon expanding with U.S. leadersip. I know some legal residents of both Latino and Arab backgrounds. I am frightened but I wonder how they must feel.
Jim Matheson surely does not feel this kind of pain. In his 1984-esque bubble in Washington I’ll you can hear is the voice of big brother. Today the villanous, hateful, wicked people of the middle east are at our heels. War is peace, torture and trial by appointed tribunal means “substantial rights in place for the accused,” as Matheson would say.
Aspire to make this election separate the wheat from the chaff. . .
October 7th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Compromise, shrompromise, this bill had three ‘needs’, not the least of which was to provide legal cover for already perpetrated warcrimes. Didn’t the U.S.Supreme Court itself rule against ‘our pResident’ on habeus corpus and the Geneva conventions? Yes it did. Did that ruling come from out of nowhere? So, here’s the legislation that’ll make THAT go away. Sure the powers-that-be rationalized the bill as making us safer from terrorists, and that it would ‘clarify’ just what torture methods were OK, and that ‘our guys’ wouldn’t go forward with this plan (to continue to torture) anyway, unless the enabling legislation were passed. They too, needed to be let off the hook.
Though I find this process spurious to the max, the read deal here, in my estimation, will be in the pResidential ‘Signing Statement’. I can’t forget how hard GW fought Mcain when this issue first came up, months ago. Before that, contrary to GW’s protestations that, “We do not torture”, there was the exposure of the very same at Abu Graibe. Me thinks GW likes torture and war a little too much. I also believe the little reminder which came in the shape of anthrax mailed to them, that even senators and congresmen are vulnerable, seemed unsurprizingly to make them all, even demos like Matheson, much more compliant. The source of that ‘bit-o-terror’ was never found.
Truely another ‘Mission Accomplished’ moment.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:51 am
In the Hambden vs. Rumsfeld decision The Supreme Court ruled that terrorist prisoners and enemy combatants fall under the Geneva Convention and must be accorded the same rights as any other prisoners of war. They specifically sited common article 3 as the basis of their decision; However a careful reading of the Geneva Convention, particularly Article 4, illustrates how the 5 members of the Supreme Court that ruled in favor of Hambden exercised extreme judicial activism in coming to their decision. They only read article 3 and completely ignored article 4 which specifically enumerates who is covered under the Geneva Convention.
“Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.”
I defy the Supreme Court or anyone to show how terrorists and enemy combatants not affiliated with a countries military, nor wearing any distinctive uniform or markings of an organized military and are not following the “laws and customs of war†are to be given rights under the Geneva Convention who clearly do not match any of the provisions covered by the Convention. By ruling the way they did, the Supreme Court has inserted there own language into the Geneva Convention that were never there and has never been practiced by any of the signers of the Geneva Convention.
What President Bush and this new law are trying to accomplish is to right an outrageous wrong perpetrated by a rogue wing of the Supreme Court. If liberals are upset about altering of the Geneva Convention it is the court they should be directing their wrath; however it’s not about altering the Convention since they clearly supported the courts actions. Additions and alterations are ok as long as they meet with liberal’s approval.
October 7th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
You want to begrudge us everything, even a pitiful scrap, a ruling by the Supreme Court ‘rogue wing’? I’ll say it again, Ken, you the man.
October 7th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
hehehe, Ken perhaps it’s laundry year for the insurgents. So you are saying if you can’t afford a uniform you are a terrorist? What are the special ops guys we send out wearing this year? Our spies?
Caveat emptor,
let the buyer beware.
and if the thought does not give scare
just reason with “them”(ken?), to ensure prickly hair
the trail of logic all tortured and twisted
just like a drunk, all night double fisted
“it means what we say”
is the constant refrain
as our troops ante up, with blood and with pain
we watch the reasons with widening eyes
leading to head shakes, and whispering sighs
just wait some more, for a new pack of lies
and wonder on those, that give in to the cries
of hucksters and liars, that have no compunction
in using the faithful, they having no gumption
to think on their own and wonder the folly
of what stands before them, in plain site, by golly.
I give myself over, to wonder in fact
the manner in which, our Country now act
with all players ensembled, in a murderous pact
the opposition still serving with dubious tact
I wait in stead, to a dissident voice
one of our founders, not given to choice
as he stated then, as I believe now,
“better to hang together, as hang seperately”
and I, better to live as a dog, as die as a cow.
October 7th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Ken,
I agree (no I don’t). How dare the enemy take off their uniforms to fool the US soldiers.
Your post just goes to show how out of touch you are with the current state of affairs concerning the Bush administration and its conduct re the rest of the world. The current Hastert/Foley affair exposes just how lying suck-bag low-lifes Repugs are.
Why do you continue to support these fuckhead losers?
October 7th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
“This legislation prohibits degrading treatment of detainees, including a specific list of banned behaviors, such as cruel or inhumane punishment.”
This is quite a blatant example of political double-speak, is it not? How in the he** is “cruel or inhumane punishment” an example of “specific” behavior?
Why doesn’t Jim just make the jump and put the R in front of his name? While I completely understand the political situation Matheson was forced into after the ‘02 gerrymandering, I’ve just about had it with his continued betrayal of core Democratic principals simply to gain a few “moderate” Republican votes, largely from the rural areas of his district. This may just be the year that I can no longer stomach voting for a DINO.
October 8th, 2006 at 6:27 am
I would remind everyone that not one of OUR reps voted to shoot down this turkey. Lest we forget: Orrin, Bennett, Cannon and the other fella, is it Bishop? (what a name, almost reflects religiousity). Further it is a mistake to lump all republicans (especially Utah repubs) together in one ’stinking pile’. Many are coming to thier senses or have already done so, and even if they do not, we still need to make our arguments for peace and justice, so that they may someday get it. The truely brain-dead range only in the high teens (%) at best.
Ken one further thing: It was only the vote of a couple of the real rogues on the Supreme Court that made this travesty possible. One of them has already flipped, and I wouldn’t be surprized if another weren’t disgusted with that vote now.
Cassandra, Thanks. I’m honored by your effort. Keep it up.
October 8th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
With regard to Ken’s post above, I’d like to note that Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to noncombatants as well as prisoners of war. It says that essentially all prisoners “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The Military Commissions Act violates these rules, unless you are willing to go along with the absurd legalistic fiction that “unlawful combatants” are neither noncombatants nor POWs. The term “unlawful enemy combatant” is not found in the treaty– it is the product of the Bush administration’s fertile imagination.
October 8th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
While I think Richard’s point sounds very persuasive, I must admit that I’m no scholar of martial law, and cannot really claim to know which side is technically right. To me, the question boils down to a simple moral one. Regardless of the standards agreed to in the Geneva Convention, whether such international qualify as “law,” or the categorization of the people in question, we should resist the urge to use torture on ANY person because torture is shown to be an ineffective method of extracting truth, and because torture is morally reprehensible. Period.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Derek,
I agree . . . period! (wait, exclamation point! ! ! !)
December 18th, 2006 at 11:37 am
[...] Two months ago, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which eliminated habeas corpus entirely. The Act makes possible the permanent detention and torture (as defined by the Geneva Conventions) of anyone - including American citizens - based solely on the decision of the President. My representative, Jim Matheson, voted for it to his everlasting shame. [...]
June 7th, 2007 at 11:46 am
[...] Senator Orrin Hatch voted against the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act (S. 185) today in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill passed by a vote of 11-8. The right of habeas corpus (the means by which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment) was revoked last October by the Military Commissions Act (MCA), which also legalized the torture of prisoners. Senator Hatch voted for the MCA, along with the entire Utah congressional delegation including Rep. Jim Matheson. [...]