Military Commissions Act Of 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Rather than allow a full and open debate on this important issue, the Majority has decided that 2 hours is sufficient and prohibited any amendments…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Rather than allow a full and open debate on this important issue, the Majority has decided that 2 hours is sufficient and prohibited any amendments from being offered during consideration on the Floor.
We all are committed to bringing the masterminds of the 9/11 attack and other terrorist plots to justice. However, I have strong concerns about several provisions of the bill before us today. First, by allowing the President to interpret Geneva Conventions requirements, H.R. 6166 would endanger American soldiers who for 60 years have been protected by those very provisions. Under this bill, the President could determine what methods constitute torture rather than banning torture outright. This loophole could leave our soldiers vulnerable to the same reinterpretations should they be taken as prisoners.
Second, the bill prevents detainees from filing habeas corpus suits challenging their detentions in court. The indefinite detention of individuals who have been designated as enemy combatants without judicial recourse is very likely unconstitutional and rejects the long American commitment to the rule of law.
Finally, rather than use the existing appellate military system, H.R. 6166 creates a new and untested Court of Military Commission Review that would handle appeals of military commission determinations.
Amendments offered by Democratic members to address these three concerns were denied by the Republicans, and so the House today will debate a bill that raises serious constitutional issues. This is a shame.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6166.