[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1909-E1910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 27, 2006

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. There are many glaring 
problems with this bill. It gives the President unilateral discretion 
to interpret the meaning and application of provisions in the Geneva 
Convention that relate to torture, which could result in the allowance 
of humiliating and degrading interrogation practices. It redefines the 
definition of an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' to include any individual 
who ``materially'' and ``purposefully'' supported hostilities against 
the United States. This new definition is so broadly worded; it could 
include someone who made an economic contribution to an organization 
that they did not know was on a terror-watch list. It still allows into 
evidence information that was obtained through torture and coercion, as 
long as it was obtained before the passage of the Detainee Torture Act. 
Perhaps most damaging is the stripping of the United States courts' 
habeas corpus jurisdiction to review detentions, eliminating one of the 
most fundamental and important precepts of our American Constitutional 
tradition.
  The court-stripping provisions included in this legislation would do 
serious harm to the longstanding rule that the government cannot just 
imprison people without giving them the opportunity for a fair and 
impartial determination that the detention is in accordance with the 
Constitution. Consider the case of Maher

[[Page E1910]]

Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen. During a layover in New York on 
his way home to Canada, United States authorities seized him and 
shipped him to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured for nearly a 
year. He was subjected to extensive interrogations, during which he was 
beaten and whipped. He was imprisoned in a 6-foot underground cell. The 
Canadian Government conducted an investigation into the case and found 
that Mr. Arar was placed on a terrorist watch-list based on inaccurate, 
unsubstantiated and unreliable evidence. Since being released, he has 
been cleared of all charges. This case illustrates why the right of 
habeas corpus is so vital to our rule of law. Individuals must always 
have an avenue to challenge their detention. If not, innocent people 
can be unlawfully detained and indefinitely imprisoned based upon 
insubstantial or even erroneous evidence.
  In a letter to Members of Congress commenting on the habeas stripping 
provisions, former Judge Advocate Generals John Hutson, Donald Guter, 
and David Brahms stated, ``it is critical to these detainees, who have 
not been charged with any crime, that Congress not strip the courts of 
jurisdiction to hear their pending habeas cases. The habeas cases are 
the only avenue open for them to challenge the bases of their 
detention--potentially life imprisonment--as `enemy combatants.' '' In 
another letter to Members of Congress, 9 former Federal judges also 
expressed concerns. They warn that ``. . . depriving the courts of 
habeas jurisdiction will jeopardize the Judiciary's ability to ensure 
that Executive detentions are not grounded on torture or other abuse . 
. . Congress would thus be skating on thin constitutional ice in 
depriving the Federal courts of their power to hear the cases of 
Guantanamo detainees.'' Thomas Sullivan, a former United States 
attorney in Chicago who has represented Guantanamo Bay detainees, 
testified at a recent Senate hearing that he believed that if this 
legislation is ``passed with these habeas-stripping provisions in it, 
then after I am dead and the members of this Senate are dead, an 
apology will be made, just as we did for the incarceration of the 
Japanese citizens in the Second World War.'' (``Security and War Take 
Center Stage as Campaign Break Nears,'' New York Times, September 26, 
2006)
  Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we should work to protect 
Constitutional rights, not deny them. As the former Judge Advocate 
Generals wrote in their letter to Members of Congress, ``. . . the writ 
of habeas corpus embodies principles fundamental to our Nation. It is 
the essence of the rule of law, ensuring that neither king nor 
executive may deprive a person of liberty without some independent 
review to ensure that the detention has a reasonable basis in law and 
fact. That right must be preserved.''
  H.R. 6166 has serious consequences for the safety of our brave 
military men and women and for our Nation. If the United States 
supports stripping detainees of fundamental legal protections, other 
countries will feel justified in doing the same thing. Allowing 
questionable interrogation techniques--practices that could actually 
violate the Geneva Convention--would have dangerous implications for 
the treatment of American soldiers who are captured abroad. It will 
also make the enemy fight harder because capture or surrender could 
have such dire consequences. In fact, there are fewer people 
surrendering to American troops now than in at the start of the war in 
Iraq.
  While there are those who argue that the erosion of civil liberties 
is needed to protect our Nation, I believe it will actually have the 
opposite effect and will make our country less safe. The most important 
asset the United States has in the world community is our commitment to 
the rule of law and fair treatment. By denying habeas corpus rights and 
giving the President unfettered discretion in defining torture, we are 
sending out a signal to the world that the United States will no longer 
serve as the world's standard in our commitment to human rights, civil 
rights and the rule of law. It will erode our international reputation 
as a moral Nation that is an example of democracy and freedom, and it 
will undermine our leadership role in the world community.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6166.

                          ____________________