?

Who links to me?April 27, 2007, I wrote to all the US Senators i believe to be
reasonable (obviously, there weren’t all that many), begging them to
re-instate habeas corpus. This is the only reply i have received,
probably because Senator Spector is my senator. Although i frequently
disagree with him, i have found Senator Spector to be genuinely concerned
that the rule of law be followed properly. Additionally, Senator Spector
has had some success in his quiet, behind-the-scenes work to restore
financial aid for prisoners' education.
Thank you for contacting my office regarding the treatment of prisoners
detained by the United States in connection with the global war on
terrorism. I appreciate hearing from you.
The United States has no higher priority than the war against terrorism.
In the course of this struggle, we must make every effort to detain those
who engage in acts of terrorism and to obtain information from detainees
that will enable us to prevent future attacks. At the same time, it is
imperative we wage the war in a way that upholds the values the United
States has always advanced, making clear by our actions and our example
that we stand for freedom and fairness.
In the June 2006 Supreme Court decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court
held that military commissions used in prosecuting enemy combatants at
Guantanamo Bay must be authorized by Congress and must obey the legal
obligations of the Geneva Conventions' Common Article III and the Uniform
Code of Military Justice. The decision explicitly urged Congress to
legislate a solution by properly establishing military commissions to try
alien unlawful enemy combatants.
Following the Hamdan decision, members of the Senate Armed Services
Committee worked with President Bush to craft legislation to establish
military tribunals. I generally supported the legislation drafted by
these Senators and the administration; however, I had serious
reservations about a provision in the bill which eliminated detainees'
right to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is the right of those in custody to
challenge their detention in court. During my tenure as Chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee in the 109th Congress, I held a hearing on
September 25, 2006, to specifically address habeas corpus for Guantanamo
detainees. During the Senate's consideration of the legislation, I
offered an amendment which would have guaranteed habeas corpus for
detainees. Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a narrow 48-51 vote.
On September 28, 2006 the Senate passed the Military Commissions Act by a
vote of 65-34. Although my amendment was rejected, I voted in favor of
the bill because I believe, without this legislation, the ability of our
government to effectively fight the global war on terrorism would be
hindered. I believe this legislation is severable, meaning the
legislation was composed in a fashion where a court could rule on the
constitutionality of individual provisions without rendering the entire
legislation unconstitutional. Although the Supreme Court recently passed
on reviewing the legislation' s constitutionality, the Court signaled that
it will revisit the issue after further review by lower courts.
Accordingly, I am confident courts, including the Supreme Court, will
address the constitutional question raised by the provision limiting
habeas corpus.
I supported the Military Commissions Act because, aside from the
problematic habeas corpus language, the Military Commissions Act embodies
good policy. It amplifies Congress's previous legislation prohibiting
torture. Additionally, the bill provides that military commissions must
be established in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice
and Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions. Finally, it establishes
specific guidelines for the use of hearsay evidence and coerced testimony
and the handling of classified information.
Although I believe the Supreme Court will ultimately strike down the
habeas corpus provisions of the Military Commissions Act as
unconstitutional, as a cautionary measure, I have introduced the Habeas
Corpus Restoration Act. This legislation would ensure detainees have the
ability to challenge their detention in federal courts.
On March 6, 2007, I offered the language of the Habeas Corpus Restoration
Act as an amendment to S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act of
2007. In doing so, I engaged the Senate in an extensive debate on the
issue of habeas corpus for detainees. Unfortunately, this amendment did
not receive a vote because it was ruled non-germane and out of order
according to Senate rules following a motion to end debate on the
underlying bill. I will continue to press this issue with my colleagues
and look forward to fixing this problem.
In addition to the detention and trials of suspected terrorists, concerns
have been raised about the treatment of detainees. As a member of the
United States Senate, I have a consistent record of voting to ensure we
adhere to the same values we fight to protect. On October 5, 2005, I
voted in favor of an amendment introduced by Senator John McCain to the
Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act prohibiting
"cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" of detainees. This amendment
passed on a 90-9 vote in the Senate and was signed into law by President
Bush on December 30, 2005. During consideration of the Fiscal Year 2005
Defense Authorization Act, I supported an amendment offered by Senator
Leahy that stated it is the policy of the United States to treat
prisoners in its control humanely. Furthermore, I cosponsored an
amendment offered by Senator Durbin reaffirming prisoners of war and
enemy combatants must not be tortured or treated inhumanely. In light of
the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, I cosponsored the Senate
resolution that condemned the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and
called for a full and complete investigation to ensure justice is served.
On June 25, 2003, I wrote to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
expressing my concern over the mistreatment of enemy combatants in the
custody of the United States. Our reputation has been significantly
marred by the abuse of some detainees. The images and stories appearing
in both the American, and perhaps more significantly, the Arab and
international media have the potential to damage America 's standing as
the unquestioned champion of human rights and the rule of law.
I believe the United States should make it clear that all interrogations
of enemy combatants are conducted in a manner consistent with our
obligations under the "Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment." This treaty,
ratified by the United States, provides the most widely accepted
definition of torture and other forms of unlawful mistreatment.
Finally, I have expressed my concern for the practice of rendition which
is the practice of transferring a suspected terrorist to another
country's jurisdiction for the purpose of detention and interrogation. In
transferring the detainee to another jurisdiction, the United States
loses control of interrogation and detention methods; the detainees could
then be subject to treatment inconsistent with the standards and
practices of the United States. I am considering legislation which would
require Federal authorities to go to court to establish probable cause
and a basis for rendition before the custody of any detainee is
transferred to a foreign country.
Thank you again for contacting me. The concerns of my constituents are of
great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to
inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do
not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at