[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 27, 2006

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation 
which threatens to overturn two centuries of legal precedent, and which 
undermines our Nation's longstanding international obligations 
enshrined in the Geneva Conventions.
  As Members of Congress we have no higher priority than the security 
of the American people. It's our duty to see that anyone who murders 
Americans is properly tried and punished. This responsibility requires 
us to address the disastrous detainee policies put in place by the Bush 
Administration. Republicans and Democrats have sought to create a 
sustainable legal framework that gives our judiciary the tools to 
deliver justice to our enemies in swift, clear and fair terms. Above 
all, our methods must reflect the ideals of our Constitution and the 
highest standards in protecting human rights and due process under the 
law.
  The bill before us fails to meet these standards. Instead, it erodes 
the protections of the Geneva Conventions and reverses two centuries of 
American jurisprudence by denying habeas corpus protections for the 
accused. More dangerously, it fails to eliminate the use of torture, 
which has seriously undermined global support for our fight against 
terrorism.
  As a member of the House Intelligence Committee I'm very familiar 
with the challenges we face in the fight against terror, and nothing I 
have seen has convinced me that the measures in this bill will make us 
safer or provide an effective framework for bringing our enemies to 
justice.
  The Geneva Conventions exist not to embolden our enemies but to 
protect our own soldiers from harm should they be captured or detained. 
Our failure to embrace these standards of treatment opens the door to 
misconduct by our enemies, a reality that many current and former 
military experts have spoken out against. Former Secretary of State 
Colin Powell put it best by saying that redefining our obligations 
under the Geneva Conventions will encourage other countries to ``doubt 
the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. . . . Furthermore, it 
would put our own troops at risk.'' No one doubts the wisdom of 
Secretary Powell in these matters and it's reckless of this body to 
ignore his counsel.
  Habeas corpus rights, likewise, do not give comfort to the guilty, 
nor do they help to free terrorists in our custody. They exist only to 
protect the innocent, and their proper application helps reduce the 
risk of detaining the wrong individuals. The failure to provide habeas 
corpus rights was a key issue in the Supreme Court's decision to 
declare the Administration's original tribunal system unconstitutional. 
Denying these rights again with this bill creates a serious threat to 
the constitutionality of the legislation, and makes it more than likely 
that we'll all be back here in a year, or 5 years from now, trying once 
again to create a system that will bring terrorist enemies to justice.
  Finally, this bill fails to set an appropriate standard for the 
treatment of prisoners and relaxes the restrictions on the use of 
torture embodied in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The 
bill grants the sole authority for interpreting the Geneva Conventions, 
including Common Article 3, to the President, giving the Administration 
the option to relax or simply ignore these protections outright. The 
bill also specifies that the restrictions on the use of torture laid 
out in the Army Field Manual which apply uniformly to U.S. military 
personnel and facilities, do not apply to other U.S. agencies engaged 
in the fight against terror, including the CIA.
  Our security depends on effective and lawful interrogation practices 
that yield dependable, actionable intelligence. This legislation gives 
the Administration a blank check to define its own methods for 
interrogation and opens the door for abuses. We've already seen where 
permissive interrogation rules can lead . . . it's called Abu Ghraib. 
Certainly what we have lost in credibility in the eyes of the world 
community and the Iraqi people weighs heavily against any information 
that has been obtained. To ensure accountability Congress must have the 
ability to review and set standards for interrogation practices around 
the world. Doing so ensures not only their legality, but ultimately 
their effectiveness. This bill takes that responsibility out of our 
hands.
  Mr. Speaker, for all the stated reasons, this bill should not become 
the policy of our great Nation and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

                          ____________________