Bush Signs Terror Detainee Bill

(CBS/AP)  President Bush on Tuesday signed legislation authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in a time of war.

At a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, President Bush said the bill, above all else, "will save American lives" and help foil attacks on the U.S. by authorizing the CIA interrogation of suspected terrorists.

"Put simply, this program has been one of the most vital tools in the war against the terrorists. It's been invaluable to both America and our allies," Mr. Bush said.

The law allows aggressive interrogation techniques, but the president said the U.S. will abide by its international obligations and will not engage in torture, reports CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller.

Mr. Bush's plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.

"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Mr. Bush said.

A coalition of religious groups staged a protest against the bill outside the White House, shouting "Bush is the terrorist" and "Torture is a crime." About 15 of the protesters, standing in a light rain, refused orders to move. Police arrested them one by one.

Among those the United States hopes to try are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, an alleged would-be 9/11 hijacker, and Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al Qaeda cells.

"It is a rare occasion when a president can sign a bill that he knows will save American lives," Mr. Bush said. "I have that privilege this morning."

The president signed the bill in the White House East Room, at a table with a sign positioned on the front that said "Protecting America." He said he signed it in memory of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Among those in the audience were military officers, lawmakers who helped pass the bill and members of Mr. Bush's Cabinet.

He singled out for praise, among others, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come under sharp criticism in recent months as violence has soared in Iraq.

The law protects detainees from blatant abuses during questioning – such as rape, torture and "cruel and inhuman" treatment – but does not require that any of them be granted legal counsel. Also, it specifically bars detainees from filing habeas corpus petitions challenging their detentions in federal courts. Mr. Bush said the process is "fair, lawful and necessary."

"The bill I sign today helps secure this country and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair and we will never back down from threats to our freedom," Mr. Bush said. "We are as determined today as we were on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001."

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[pakaal]

It certainly shows how happy the Bush administration is that this has been signed - the DOJ is already calling for dozens of lawsuits to be dismissed because of this new law.

So what happens next is we're now going to see these appealed, the Supreme Court will have to step in again, they'll call this unconstitutional, strike the law, the lawsuits will continue....

A tremendous waste of effort. But after 6 years of it, we really should be used to tremendous wastes of effort by now.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[radiob-2009]

There are three problems with this piece of legitlasture regardless of what president sign it or what congress.
(1)the right of habeas corpus
(2)Hearsay being admitted as evidence
(3)extreme interrorgations
There have throughout American history people who have been unjustly convicted for the failure of these safeguards not being properly implemented.
This is not a question of nor should it be of political affilation as so many posters here have used.It is a question of justice in regards to what I see as universal rights. It is being naive to beleive that some individual will not be wrongly convicted.Will they have any redress or their families?

[pakaal]

There were posts yesterday questioning whether this bill's passage could affect American citizens, and stating that in any case all defendents would have the right to actually go to trial (military tribunal, to be technical). The actual bill can be found here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

The discussion of whether or not American citizens can be tried under this bill continues (and thanks to the comments yesterday for giving me the impetus to look further). The relevent section is here: Section 3(a)(1)(1). If anyone (American or not) can be defined as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is the question, but legal debate goes on - and that's not comforting.

2. The federal government has no obligation to ever bring someone to trial under these circumstances. This probably doesn't apply to US citizens, but it does for anyone else. And although I'm sure a whole bunch of people will argue that since it's not Americans, who cares, but for my part I say this sentiment demeans American values and morals.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[frankly6]

"All the things you think Bush does in secret are handled by countless other people who each serve as a small part of a vast checks and balances system that includes a whole lot more than just habeas corpus."

Not "countless other people" but people that the President apoints. These poeple do not act independently because they are apointed and serve at the whim of the President. What checks and balances do you speak of that are not effectively eliminated by this bill? Please describe them. What checks and balances have we seen on the Presidents power so far? I'm sure it will make me sleep better.

[jjasonham]

"All the things you think Bush does in secret are handled by countless other people who each serve as a small part of a vast checks and balances system that includes a whole lot more than just habeas corpus."

I agree. The checks and balances were set up to prevent things like that from happening, but the theoretically the "people" are a big part of it's implementation. The president is only in for two more years, but I wouldn't feel any different if it were a democratic or libertarian president..I can honestly say that. That suspension is simply unconstitutional and should never been done lightly and only as a last resort. It is a very big deal, which is why it's illegal outside of extraordinary situations. Maybe there is also an uproar because of the state that partisanship has become: Corruption to the highest degree. This is NOT an attack on the GOP, either. There should be Senate/HOR term limits as well and a separation of corporate money from campaigning. Point is, the situations we are seeing manifest each and every day were once hypotheticals. Protecting the constitution and implementing well thought out laws are the only ways to "ensure" the outcomes we want to see.

[frankly6]

Check out this video below. It really lays it all out on this subject.

[frankly6]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=igycXBseoAg

[frankly6]

"I said trust is irrelevant because the practical ability of any president to carry out what you're suggesting does not exist."

Again there are no checks on these powers if the law releases him from checks. This can all be done in secret. Anything that is done in secret is legal.