Dems Can Hide If They Want To Run

Carl Hulse provides a rather counter-intuitive view of the behavior of the Democratic Senators in positioning themselves on the detainee bill:

Democrats See Strength in Bucking Bush

By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush’s power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.

The most vivid example of the Democratic assessment came from the party’s many presidential hopefuls in the Senate. All of them voted against the bill, apparently calculating that Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq has undercut the traditional Republican strength on national security and will insulate them from what are certain to be strong attacks from Republicans not only this year but also in 2008.   

...

Over all, 32 Democrats voted against the measure while 12, including some of those in the most difficult re-election fights, backed it. Among the latter was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose perceived support for Mr. Bush has brought him political trouble at home.

It was a stark change from four years ago, when Mr. Bush cornered Democrats into another defining pre-election vote on security issues — that one to give the president the authority to launch an attack against Iraq. At the time, many Democrats felt they had little choice politically but to side with Mr. Bush, and a majority of Senate Democrats backed him.

The Democrats see strength in bucking Bush?  An alternative view is that four years ago, Democratic "leaders" such as John Kerry mis-underestimated the anti-war winds blowing within their party when choosing to side with the President on the Iraq war resolution.  The fairly obvious calculation in yesterday's vote is that no prospective Democratic candidate who hopes to survive the caucuses and primaries can support this bill.  That says very little about their sense of the effectiveness of this issue in a general election.

However, the article does provide two strong clues about Democrat's sense of the national mood:

Over all, 32 Democrats voted against the measure while 12, including some of those in the most difficult re-election fights, backed it.

And a bit later:

There is no doubt the vote will be injected into the final weeks of the midterm campaigns. Republicans have been working to draw Democrats into a fight over security legislation. But a division among Republicans allowed Democrats to stay out of the fray until the moment of truth arrived this week.

As we have been noting for a while, Dems have been hiding behind John McCain on this issue for weeks.  In TimesWorld, that is because they see great value in bucking the President and think they can best achieve that value by, hmm, keeping their opposition very, very quiet.  Please.

Safe seat Dems who want to preserve the path to a Presidential nomination quietly opposed this bill; Dems in trouble supported it.  Obviously Bush is not as powerful on national security issues as he was in 2002 but it is still a battlefield the Dems would prefer to avoid.

Here is the Times coverage of the bill itself.  More on the habeas corpus issue from the WaPo.

Comments

[Marcel]

The Torture Authorization and Amnesty Act will be law unless the Supreme Court deems it to be unconstitutional.

[Other Tom]

I think the habeas issue is pretty interesting. Article I, Section Nine of the constitution says the Congress can't suspend the habeas privilege except in cases of rebellion or invasion, where national security depends on it. Does 9/11 satisfy the invasion requirement? Would the USSCt say national security requires denying it in these guys' cases?

[Mackenzie]

Whatever one's opinion on the merits and constitutionality of the legislation, the way in which it was presented and debated is of serious concern. Nearly 5 years after Gitmo opened, 3 months after a Supreme Court ruling, and weeks before mid-terms, the White House suddenly recognized the urgency of the issue, and the Senate limited itself to 10 hours of debate.

We have the government we deserve.

[Pofarmer]

Wow, my wife came home from work last night the most agitated I think I've ever seen her. She got hijacked by a full blown BDS, My Pet Goat, Bush is the worst President ever, Well, why didn't Bush respond to the Cole?, I'd vote for Clinton again in a heartbeat,"Independent". I mean she was wound tight. We talked till nearly midnight about domestic politics and the middle east and Saddam and Iran. It's just amazing the gulf there is between veiwpoints at this point in the U.S. Is there any reconciling these difference of opinion? Have the Liberals done this much damage to us and our society in the last 30 years?

[MayBee]

Here's what I noticed: Debbie Stabenow supported it. Sherrod Brown supported it.
Bucking the president isn't, apparently, tremendously popular in swing-state America.

So is it really bucking or backing the President, or is it doing what average voting Americans want? I can see why Dems remained silent- they couldn't make it look like they had a strong stance either way. They think the Presidential contenders need to court the Kos crowds first, but they know that isn't the winning position overall.
And that has nothing to do with Bush.

[Other Tom]

Mackenzie, isn't it possible that the administration felt no need to offer legislation of any kind until the Hamdan decision was issued, and that it then felt the need was quite urgent?

[Pofarmer]

Since when did we ever extend Constitutional priveleges to enemy combatants(illegal or otherwise, nearly uniformly not U.S. citizens) collected on foreign battlefields?

That part of the argument nearly drives me insane.

[Other Tom]

I would add to my earlier comment the fact that during the five-year period, which included presidential primaries and a presidential campaign, no Democrat felt the need to propose any legislation either.

Pofarmer, I believe that the Supreme Court has held that foreign nationals, not just US citizens, are entitled to the habeas corpus privilege.

[MayBee]

Pofarmer, I believe that the Supreme Court has held that foreign nationals, not just US citizens, are entitled to the habeas corpus privilege.

I'm not brilliant, and it's late and I'm going to bed. But I'm not sure about this. Regardless, I'm quite sure Congress has the right to change the application of habeas corpus...for foreign nationals certainly, but possibly even for American citizens (to which the new law won't apply, however).

[maryrose]

This vote is going to come back and bite the presidential hopeful candidates on the rear-end. Who can forget Kerry and Edwards voting against more armor and money for the troops. The presidential candidates take the short view-satisfy Kos-Kids at a time when they need the long view just punishment and treatment of war criminals. It will cost them dearly in 08.

[maryrose]

Stabenow knows to look tough on terrorism she had to vote in favor. Other dems that voted Aye are moderates in the Senate.The gang of 14 with the exception of Byrd was on board as well. And of course the principled Lieberman. Is there any doubt how Lamont would have voted. I thought Menedez's vote was interesting-he knows he is in trouble now but Schumer is still standing by him but repub lawyers are ready for a fast one.

[Other Tom]

I know that the Congress has the power to legislate concerning the procedures for habeas corpus, and has done so, but I'm not sure about its power to eliminate it altogether except as specified in the constitution. (By the way, the constitutional language speaks of "public safety," not national security.)

Mackenzie: I think we've both been forgetting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which was proposed by the administration, and enacted by the Congress, without any election looming. I believe, in short, that it was entirely appropriate for the administration to act now, i.e. promptly after the Hamdan decision. And why on earth should legislation of this kind not be made the focus of an election campaign? That's why we have elections.

[Ranger]

Pofarmer, I believe that the Supreme Court has held that foreign nationals, not just US citizens, are entitled to the habeas corpus privilege.

My understanding is that habeas corpus only applies to foreign nationals legally within the borders of the US. Illegals are held and deported without any court ever hearing their case and the burden of proof is on the alien to provide evidence of legal status or reason for an exception. In fact, aliens awaiting deportation can be held indefinately without charge if their country of origin refuses to accept them back. And that doesn't even start to address the issue of people captured intending to do harm to the US while in the service of a foreign power.

[Mackenzie]

The Administration had years before the Hamdam case to enact legislation. Then they waited 3 months after that decision. This is being used as a wedge issue. Smart politics, poor governing. And only 10 hours and up to 5 amendments allowed in the Senate? This is too important an issue.

[S.]

Michael Barone has an interesting assesment of the Dems that voted with the president.

[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/
archives/060928/roll_call_on_mi.htm?s_cid=rss:site1]

(Sorry, I'm web illiterate, and couldn't figure out how to do an actual link. A little help please? Thanks.)

He seems to be of the same feeling as maryrose and MayBee. National security appears to still be the major issue of the day.

[Other Tom]

Mackenzie: What about the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005? And what was preventing the Democrats from proposing legislation? And why did not a single Democrat utter a single word about this legislation during the six weeks or so that the Republicans were discussing it? And what is wrong with wedge issues?

I defer to Ranger's discussion of habeas as applied to foreign nationals--I am just very uncertain in my recollection of this issue.

[Rick Ballard]

Barone link

He has a little nugget buried deep:

Now comes the interesting news. This week the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review a decision of the Washington Supreme Court overturning a law passed by referendum that would require public employees to give consent before unions would get that portion of their dues money spent on politics.

The decision on that one will have a major impact in '08. The SEIU is a socialist controlled Democratic organ that needs a very close haircut by the SCOTUS.

[millco88]

Mackenzie,

Whether you agree or not, the Bush Administration thought they had rules for "dealing" with detainees until the SC's Hamdan decision. It's hard to see why a lot of time and effort should have been spent on that issue prior to Hamdan; an approach was already in place.

As for whether bringing it up now is political, well, isn't that kind of what elections are supposed to be about -- choices in governing philosophy, style, issue emphasis, etc.??

[Tom Maguire]

I thought Menedez's vote was interesting-he knows he is in trouble now but Schumer is still standing by him but repub lawyers are ready for a fast one.

You have read this scenatio no where else, but:

(1) Lautenberg resigns, allowing his seat to be filled by appointment by the Dem Gov of NJ;

(2) Menendez steps aside; Lautenberg then runs for election as the replacement candidate.

Why this is appealing to Dems - they can dust off the old Torricelli court filings and will not need to change as many names.

(That scenario may need to spend some time in the oven to achieve half-baked status).

As to habeas corpus - my impression is that somehow the President retains the right to designate any US citizen an "unlawful combatant" and send us to Gitmo sans habeas corpus rights. (Or have I been reading too many lefty sites?)

As to the habeas corpus status of foreign prisoners - surely that is not a new question, but what is the answer?

[clarice]

Rick, I saw that and blogged it--In any state that passes similar legislation, if the SCOTUS rules as I think it should, the Dems will be in major trouble.

[boris]

Smart politics

In a democracy smart politics is good government. The whole point of constitutionally assigning national security to the elected branches is to make them accountable to the people they are entrusted to protect.

The whole point of constitutionally assigning national security issues AWAY from the judicial branch is because they should be making decisions based on the literal interpretation of law and constitution using accepted conventions WITHOUT CONCERN for how such decisions affect national security.

One can take the point of view that the most legitimate interpretation of Hamdan was the judicial branch INSISTING that congress take up their constitutional duty in partnership with the executive branch, which they had been shirking due to irresponsible democrat partisanship in time of war.

[SteveMG]

I'll certainly defer to the more expert opinion on this but I cannot conceive how habeas corpus rights have to be given to non-Americans captured overseas or detained overseas. Operative words: non-Americans and overseas.

For example, we've captured thousands of Iraqi soldiers or Taliban during the Iraq and Afghan expeditions; none have the right to appeal their detention in American courts. Or had the right when we were holding them. My guess is that the custody of these soldiers/combatants is now in the hands of the Afghan and Iraqi governments.

And I'm pretty sure that Americans designated as enemy non-combatants still retain their habeas corpus rights. Jose Padilla for example.

This issue must have been addressed but I can't find a news story answering it.

SMG

[boris]

TM, At The Corner

It was poined out by an reader/emailer:

"(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try ALIEN unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission."

Section 948a(3) defines "alien" as follows:

"(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."

[Gary Maxwell]

Man the logic that Carl Hulse employs in that analysis is simply blinding in its brilliance.

And has anyone noticed that citizens are just disappearing in the middle of the night and suddenly waking up at Guantanmo Bay? No, and I haven't either.

[clarice]

boris, I agree.

And now let me play with the NYT's headline to make it more accurate:

Sensing Weaknessin their anti-war stance, Senate Democrats See
Strength in Bucking the Presidentonly in states which do not share the national consensus

[sad]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/nyregion/28air.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Here is some info for the Dims to chew on. Quite frankly, I didn't expect to see this story in the NYTs. You can bet the scandal is worse than what is reported here. Had read about this sometime ago but don't remember where.

[Steve White]

Tom speculates that the new opposition by the Democrats may have come because the Dems 'misunderestimated' the strength of the anti-war movement in 2002.

According to this Wikipedia article, the authorization for the Iraq war passed the Senate 77-23. Chafee was the only Republican to vote 'no' (as expected). The other 22 are Dems.

Now we've gone from 22 to 32 Dems voting against the President. That's news? The Dems still can't muster an effective opposition. Six years into a challenging presidency, when Dubya's clout should be at a minimum, and he gets pretty much everything he really wants.

[cathyf]

Illegals are held and deported without any court ever hearing their case and the burden of proof is on the alien to provide evidence of legal status or reason for an exception. In fact, aliens awaiting deportation can be held indefinately without charge if their country of origin refuses to accept them back.

For example at one point there were several Somali women who were petitioning for asylum to escape FGM who were being held in a minimum security federal prison. They were there for awhile (year or 2) while INS and DoJ figured out how to parole them while waiting for their hearings. In at least one case, it was a teenaged girl, and everyone wanted to get her out of there, and eventually she went into the foster care system and into high school. This was a case where pretty much everybody agreed that they wanted to get the women out of prison but figuring out how was complicated.

Somehow it's pretty galling the idea that unlawful combatants taken on the battlefield get more rights than asylum-seeking women who've not done anything wrong beyond being born with clitorises.

[Semanticleo]

"It was a stark change from four years ago, when Mr. Bush cornered Democrats into another defining pre-election vote on security issues"

That's why they call it the 'Bully Pulpit', Maguire.

Now that voters are beginning to wise up to
presidential bluster it's time for the steering wheel to be taken out of hamster hands. How to do that? Not by hitting him head on in his last remaining strength.
Rather by hitting him continuously on his
Achilles Heel, Iraq. Seen any good signs there lately? Neither has Bush.

[Syl]

Leo

Not by hitting him head on in his last remaining strength.
Rather by hitting him continuously on his
Achilles Heel, Iraq.

Yep. Really bright. The NIE says if we lose Iraq we lose. If we win there we win.

All the Dems have to offer is complaints and Okinawa.

That'll work. Sure.

[maryrose]

I agree with Boris's assessment.
TM: I thought about your Menendez scenario and somehow I can"t see Lautenberg taking one for the team unless he is really tired of politics and wants out. Codey is a possible replacement but with 35 days out and the absentee military vote mentioned by Clarice I just don't think it is going to happen. But I didn't think Lautenberg replacing Torricelli and winning would happen either.

[Semanticleo]

"If we win there we win."

And a big thanks for all who mindlessly signed on to that FUBAR and continue the Descent into
the Maelstrom.

[boris]

FUBAR comes from WW2.

This FUBAR is peanuts in comarison.

[Syl]

Leo

Descent into the Maelstrom.

Need to refine the list:

Complaints
Okinawa
Defeatism

[boris]

-- in comparison -- (my keyboard has developed a speech impediment)

[Other Tom]

I think Padilla was held to have the right of habeas corpus because he was a US citizen, even though he had been designated an enemy combatant.

[cathyf]

Other than the most recent arrivals, all the Gitmo Guys have all had hearings so they in fact have had habeas corpus rights in practice. The hearings have certainly not been shams -- hundreds of detainees have been released, and they have made mistakes in that several released detainees have later shown up on the battlefield.

[Pofarmer]

"If we win there we win."

And a big thanks for all who mindlessly signed on to that FUBAR and continue the Descent into
the Maelstrom.

That's the conclusion from the NIE that your side was so breathlessly pushing.

[Neo]

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The Article 1 Section 9 (Limits on Congress) is in language that has a huge inference. Rebellion and Invasion both are actions that occur inside of the homeland. The ability of Congress or the President to enforce Habeas Corpus outside the homeland is not by nature extension. Rather they are available only by accommodation, through treaty or otherwise.

No nation has, to the best of my knowledge, ever extended card blanche Habeas Corpus to prisoners of war or other alien combatants.

The real problem, for most Americans with this issue, is that there is a poor understanding of the differences between domestic civil and criminal law and international law. And an even poorer understanding of the law of war.
Since the American people have not had to endure the hardships of war in more than 6 decades, that is World War II, it has become fashionable to blur the line of where the law of war begins. Erosion of this line, at least in the minds of some, has be so evasive that many now draw the line at direct combat. That might be fine if our enemies did the same, but it just ain't so.

[Neo]

so they in fact have had habeas corpus rights in practice

But this is habeas corpus before a military authority convened under the law of war, not a civil authority.

[millco88]

Neo,

Are you actually complaining about citizens of other countries having different rights than citizens of the US?? Isn't that like one of the points of being a citizen, i.e., you're treated better??

The question isn't whether the detainees should be treated equally to citizens; it's what standard should the treatment of detainees meet. If you're holding out for "equal to US citizens", good luck with that one.

[maryrose]

Believe me when I tell you the rights of these terrorists are not being violated. I think any nay vote on this bill is going to be very hard to explain 6 months or even 2 years from now. I can't even imagine what kind of campaign advertisements will come out against those Senators foolish enough to not realize that the majority of Americans want us to be tough on terrorism. Nelson of Nebraska gets it- these other liberal senators are clueless.

[Other Tom]

I don't think there's any question that these guys are getting all the rights of due process that international law and the Geneva conventions require. The Combatant Status Review Tribunals are established per the clear language of Article 4 of the Convention on prisoners of war, and the Supreme Court has held that once they are determined by those tribunals to be enemy combatants, they can be held for the duration of hostilities.

I'd appreciate it if you all would disregard everything I've said on this thread about habeas corpus. Some of it may be correct, but I haven't done any research and so should have remained silent.

[SteveMG]

If SCOTUS rules that these detainees have habeas rights in civilian US courts, then the entire military commission process will unravel. And I'll wager here that that will happen if somehow a lawyer for a detainee is able to get this before a civilian magistrate (Kennedy will be the deciding vote in a 5-4 ruling).

Once lawyers for the detainees are able to appeal their clients' detention under habeas, they will court shop to find the most favorable judge (usually liberal but to be fair not always) to rule that not only are the habeas rights being denied but a whole series of other protections. And that the military commissions do not have sufficient safeguards for those rights.

Back to civilian courts we go.

What a way to run a war.

SMG

[cathyf]

SMG, I think that the Supremes have already declined that precise invitation on several occasions. Look, the Gitmo detainees are not US citizens, are not detained on US territory, and for the most part have never set foot on US soil. The Supremes have made it pretty clear that they have no more authority to grant them habeas rights than the they do to the prisoners in Abu Ghraib or Begram.

[Mackenzie]

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was enacted to buy time. It was not expected to withstand Supreme Court scrutiny with the then make-up of the Court. One additional vacancy would have been required. It is doubtful that the new legislation will be acceptable to the current Court.

Whatever the Court accepts, the forthcoming Signing Statement will again give the President unlimited authority. He will delegate that authority to the Vice President, and we all know the VP's opinions about Executive Authority, the limited roles of the Courts and Congress, and the desirability of adhering to international treaties.

[noah]

Obviously, the Dems could have "bucked Bush" on this issue if they had 40 votes in their caucus to do so. They may actually have the votes but decided not to filibuster for political reasons (my guess).

I realize that I am on dangerous grounds when speculating about mental states of Dims.

[SteveMG]

Cathyf:
Re habeas, detainees and Scotus.

Hamdan?

The lefty lawyers (David Cole et al.) will not rest until they get these in civilian courts. They'll find a court to rule in their favor - somehow, someway - and it'll work its way up the system.

I'm way out of my league in this so I'll cut it short before really making a fool of myself.

SMG

[noah]

Mackenzie, many moonbats rightly predicted broadly the outcome in Hamdan but nobody predicted that the SCOTUS would grant common Art. III status to enemy combatants. That one has everybody if they are honest scratching their heads.

That loony aspect of the decision forced this whole debate. I bet some justices are regretting the decision already.

[Neo]

As for the Signing Statement, each of these statements allows all to see whatever interpretation the Executive branch will apply to the law. The Signing Statements impart no authority, but rather only represent a position of interpretation. Previously, these positions were understood within the Executive branch as internal policies that were unseen by the public and these positions were made public only when a statue was put up for judicial review.
The Signing Statements represent a level of transparency by the Executive branch. If all bills had a Signing Statement, we would all be better served.

millco88:

I'm really trying to differentiate between habeas corpus before a military authority operating under the law of war and habeas corpus before US civil/criminal judiciary. The first is fine and correct when applied to POWs or alien combatants. The second is an idealist misinterpretation when applied to POWs or alien combatants.

[noah]

Somebody upthread opined that the SCOTUS should not consider national security when making their decisions. So I guess Justice Jackson was a lunatic when he opined that the Constitution is "not a suicide pact". Ditto when Judge Richard Posner recently published a book arguing the same issues entitled "Not A Suicide Pact"?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was enacted to buy time. It was not expected to withstand Supreme Court scrutiny...'

Was your first clue that the DTA denied SCOTUS jurisdiction in the first place?

[boris]

SCOTUS should not consider national security when making their decisions

SCOTUS can obviously do whatever it wants. The constitutional role assigned to them does not include national security. That role is assigned to branches directly accountable to the people.

Should the judicial branch intrude in matters of national security to the detriment of national security, then the Jackson quote is perfectly applicable.

IOW it supports my contention rather than rebuts it.

[noah]

Peace Boris! I guess we agree then that Hamdan is a disaster.

[noah]

And Boris, should the SCOTUS adopt absolutist positions that restrict severely our abilities to combat terrorism, what is our recourse? Clearly Bush had to fight back hard against mush-brained McCainism to get the bill he got. Moonbats are predicting no sale at the SCOTUS. The what?

[boris]

Moonbats are predicting no sale at the SCOTUS.

Moonbats encourage the notion that SCOTUS should not feel constrained by its assigned constitutional role. Sadly that has happened all too often.

That said it's difficult to imagine they would intrude against both elected branches into the area where the constitution gives those branches exclusive power. The idea that SCOTUS gets exclusive authority to enforce the constitution is not in the constitution.

If SCOTUS were to violate the constitution that blatently, the other two branches would be acting well within their powers to delcare the SCOTUS ruling "unconstitutional".

[JM Hanes]

boris:

"If SCOTUS were to violate the constitution that blatently, the other two branches would be acting well within their powers to delcare the SCOTUS ruling "unconstitutional"."

You point out what must be the most universally overlooked check in the whole checks & balances scheme -- and thus the source of much confusion in the current political wrangling over the balancing of powers.

[boris]

It seems to me a lot of wishfull thinking has gone into exaggerating Hamdan. The reasoning used may have been along the lines of AnonLib & the Greengang but the ruling itself was limited to inserting a place holder intended to be superceeded by congress.

[Other Tom]

Mackenzie: Now you're imputing dark motives concerning what "was enacted," and you're deducing what "was expected" of the Supreme Court by some unspecified number of unidentified people. (Try re-phrasing your argument in the active voice.) You've taken the discussion outside the realm of the interesting.

[maryrose]

Agreed Boris. I think SCOTUS just wanted clarification from the President and Congress.

[Barney Frank]

You point out what must be the most universally overlooked check in the whole checks & balances scheme...

Very true, however the other two branches seem far too craven to enforce or even attempt it.

Which of course is why the left has hung it's hat on building the fiction that the SCOTUS is the final unchecked word if it chooses to be.

[Semanticleo]

"That's the conclusion from the NIE that your side was so breathlessly pushing.'

You mean the side that had the will and the
wherewithal to see through the doublespeak?

Is there a problem?

[Mackenzie]

This thread was been open for about 10 hours now - the same amount of time that the Senate allocated to discuss such important legislation.

[Other Tom]

You've had six weeks to debate it in public. You lacked the courage to open your mouths. You're getting precisely what you bargained for.

[SteveMG]

Mackenzie:
"This thread was been open for about 10 hours now - the same amount of time that the Senate allocated to discuss such important legislation."

C'mon, they've been debating and working on this legislation in detail for more than a week. Both the House and Senate.

And by "they", I mean the Republicans because the Democrats have been hiding behind McCain's skirt.

SMG

[PeterUK]

"You mean the side that had the will and the
wherewithal to see through the doublespeak?

Is there a problem?"

Yes,there is a war on.

[cboldt]

The question has been kicking around for years. Congress "knew" it had a role, and could have passed legislation years ago. They didn't.

H.R.3468 - Foreign Terrorist Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 2001 [Harman, Lofgren]

To authorize the President to convene military tribunals for the
trial outside the United States of persons other than United
States citizens and lawful resident aliens who are apprehended in
connection with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against
the United States.

H.R.3564 - Terrorism Tribunal Act of 2001 [Barr]

To authorize the limited use of military tribunals absent a war
declared by Congress in cases arising out of acts of
international terrorism committed in the United States.

H.R.4035 - Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 2002 [Conyers]

To authorize the President to establish military tribunals to try
the terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks
against the United States, and for other purposes.

H.R.5071 - Military Tribunals Act of 2002 [Schiff]

To authorize the President to establish military tribunals to try
the terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks
against the United States, and for other purposes.

INTRODUCTION OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS ACT OF 2002 [Schiff]

(House of Representatives - July 09, 2002

S.1937 - Military Commission Procedures Act of 2002 [Specter, Durbin]

To set forth certain requirements for trials and sentencing by military
commissions, and for other purposes.

S.1941 - Military Tribunal Authorization Act of 2002 [Leahy]

A bill to authorize the President to establish military tribunals
to try the terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001
attacks against the United States, and for other purposes.

H.R.1290 - Military Tribunals Act of 2003 [Schiff, Brown, Frank, McGovern]

To authorize the President to establish military tribunals to try
the terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks
against the United States.

H.R.5222 - Military Commissions Act of 2004 [Sanchez]

To amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), to provide standards for the use of
military commissions for the trial of offenses under the law of
war or in furtherance of international terrorism.

H.R.3044 - Military Commissions Act of 2005 [Sanchez]

To amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform
Code of Military Justice), to provide standards for the use of
military commissions for the trial of offenses under the law of
war or in furtherance of international terrorism.

H.R.6054 - Military Commissions Act of 2006 [Hunter]

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by
military commission for violations of the law of war, and for
other purposes.

S.3861 - Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006 [Frist, McConnell, Inhofe]

To facilitate bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful
enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military
commissions, and for other purposes.

S.3886 - Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006 [Frist, McConnell]

To authorize military commissions to bring terrorists to justice, to
strengthen and modernize terrorist surveillance capabilities, and for
other purposes.

S.3901 - Military Commissions Act of 2006 [Warner]

To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the
law of war, and for other purposes.

S.3929 - Military Commissions Act of 2006 [McConnell, Frist]

To authorize military commissions to bring terrorists to justice,
to strengthen and modernize terrorist surveillance capabilities,
and for other purposes.

S.3930 - Military Commissions Act of 2006 [McConnell, Frist, Warner]

To authorize military commissions to bring terrorists to justice,
to strengthen and modernize terrorist surveillance capabilities,
and for other purposes.

S.Amdt.5036 - Military Commissions Act of 2006 [Frist]

An amendment to the bill H.R. 6061, to establish operational
control over the international land and maritime borders of the
United States.

H.R.6166 - Military Commissions Act of 2006 [Hunter, Sensenbrenner]

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by
military commission for violations of the law of war, and for
other purposes.