Military Commissions Act Of 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 3930, the Military Commission Act of 2006 because it is too broad, overly inclusive and potentially unconstitutional. While I also vividly remember the horrors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 3930, the Military Commission Act of 2006 because it is too broad, overly inclusive and potentially unconstitutional. While I also vividly remember the horrors of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I believe that Congress should carefully and constitutionally craft a bill which effectively punishes all terrorists and potential terrorists while at the same time maintaining the safety and security of our citizens from future terrorist attacks.
The definition of an ``unlawful combatant'' in Section 948(a.) of this bill is indicative of its over-inclusiveness. It creates legal loopholes and in my view, leaves even U.S. Citizens vulnerable to being classified as unlawful combatants. This definition does not exclude nor does it seek to exclude U.S. Citizens from being indefinitely detained. The President or one of his designees can simply determine that a fellow U.S. Citizen is an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' and this would suffice as sufficient evidence to detain this citizen indefinitely without any access to his family, an attorney or any form of judicial review.
Furthermore, the term ``purposefully and materially supported hostilities'' is overly broad and would lead to many innocent acts being transformed into terrorist activities.
In an article, Aziz Huq astutely demonstrates the broadness of the term by showing how a fictional character that owns a bodega and allowed Lebanese immigrants to use its services to send money to ``West Beqaa'', an area within the Hezbollah controlled area of Lebanon protectorate is found to have ``purposefully and materially supported hostilities. This scenario is not very far-fetched, this piece of legislation has the potential to impact the very foundation of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms on which this country is built. It will impact the American Citizen's freedom of speech, freedom of association and the list could go on.
The bill also further undermines U.S. credibility in the eyes of the international community by granting the President the authority to interpret Art. III of the Geneva Convention an international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. This language sets a bad precedence in the international community and only frustrates the goals of established international laws, norms and customs.
If the U.S. President is allowed to reinterpret and apply an international treaty, what would stop other nations from doing the same? Additionally, as noted in his letter to Senator McCain, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, posited that allowing the President to interpret the Geneva Convention would expose U.S. soldiers to more dangers. Colin Powell emphatically opposed this provision.
S. 3930 also violates separation of powers and the constitutional protection this provides, by stripping the federal court of its habeas review. The independence of the judiciary is one of the fundamental principles on which this democracy is built. Under this bill, the normal appeals process would not be available to the detained ``unlawful enemy combatant.'' Instead the detainee who wishes to appeal an adverse decision has to appeal to a newly established ``Court of Military Commission Review''.
Terrorists must be brought to justice and we must act accordingly to secure our country and our citizens. However, these same goals can be achieved in a constitutional manner. I urge my colleagues to oppose this unworthy bill.