| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Mukasey Seeks War Declaration on al Qaeda |
| 2008-07-22 |
| Congress should explicitly declare war against al Qaeda and write new rules for legal challenges by terrorism suspects following a Supreme Court ruling on the rights of Guantanamo prisoners, U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said on Monday. Mukasey urged Congress to pass such legislation as the first U.S. war crimes trial got under way at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where prisoners in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism are held in a detention center condemned internationally for harsh treatment. Democrats in control of Congress and civil rights groups reacted coolly to Mukasey's proposals, saying they would avoid judicial oversight and stack the deck in favor of the administration. The legislation is needed to conform with a landmark Supreme Court ruling last month that Guantanamo prisoners have the constitutional right known as "habeas corpus" to challenge their detention in federal court, Mukasey said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute. A new law should prohibit courts from ordering a detainee to be released within the United States, protect secrets in court hearings, ensure that soldiers are not taken from the battlefield to testify and prevent challenges from delaying detainee trials. In addition, he said, "Any legislation should acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us." "Congress should reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported al Qaeda," and related groups, he said. A week after the September 11 attacks Congress authorized "all necessary and appropriate force" against nations and groups that planned or supported the attacks. It did not specifically mention al Qaeda, which carried out the attacks, or their Taliban allies. Some critics have said the Bush administration was too broad in asserting a nameless "war on terrorism," and some legal challenges have said the government failed to show a detainee's sufficient connection to al Qaeda to justify continued imprisonment under the 2001 resolution. Mukasey said the administration already has legal authority to battle terrorism. However, he said, "It would do all of us good to have the principle reaffirmed, not that that principle itself is in doubt." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #10 I have no problem with them simply reissuing this with the title 'Declaration of War' so satisfy the idgit Kennedy - S.J.Res.23 One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. Why it takes an army of lawyers to figure that putting those three words magically substantively alters the intent of the original legislation only demonstrates that the judiciary is way out of control. Next Justice Kennedy will demand that a DoW requires the process of amending the Constitution. When we go that far, we might as well use the process to dump SCOTUS. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-22 19:13 |
| #9 Should McCain sponsor the bill and force Obama to make a choice ? Posted by: DK70 the Scantily Clad7177 2008-07-22 16:58 He'd just absent himself from the vote or simply vote 'present.' |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-07-22 17:00 |
| #8 It's interesting how this coincides with an ISI report from Pakistan saying that 10,000 terrorist have massed in the tribal areas of Pakistan. I Does the declaration Mukasey is asking for from Congress give us more latitude going after them in Pakistan? Should McCain sponsor the bill and force Obama to make a choice ? |
| Posted by: DK70 the Scantily Clad7177 2008-07-22 16:58 |
| #7 Why not just repeal our signatory acceptance of the Geneva Convention? It has never kept the North Koreans, the North Vietnamese, the Iraqi's, AQ, and others from violating it when our forces were captured. Why have it as our burden? Screw the left wing Euros who contribute nil to their own defense or NATO. We need to think only of ourselves in this mess. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2008-07-22 12:56 |
| #6 The Bush administration has run out of energy and sense. In 2003. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-07-22 12:20 |
| #5 Actually, this throws it straight into the laps of Congress. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-07-22 11:48 |
| #4 Sammy declared war on the US in 1996. |
| Posted by: Woozle Unusosing8053 2008-07-22 11:13 |
| #3 Terrorists and their supporters are a Clear and Present Danger to us all, and few have the Need to Know that we take no prisoners for obvious reasons. Time to end the debate and move on to a viable energy policy and other pressing matters. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2008-07-22 10:45 |
| #2 The Bush administration has run out of energy and sense. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-22 06:59 |
| #1 Wait! If they are a recognized miltary outfit, then they are entitled to Geneva Convention protections, even if not a signatory state. The best solution is to assign the status of Personna non Grata to 100% of terrorists and terror supporters. Of course, marking someone in that manner requires due process. I recall a group of Muslim co-workers nodding support when one of their own said, "We are with Osama; he's the only one who is doing anything for Muslims." That was in late 2001, when al-Jazeera was cheerleading for Taliban-al-Qaeda. I believe that al-Qaeda is supported by at least 80% of Muslims in the West. Said support is not explicit, for al-Taqiyah purposes. Why do Muslims insist on working for Halal meals for Gitmo inmates? Are they not fake Muslims, given that terrorism is supposedly anathema to members? Reality dictates: all but a handful of the religion of terror members supported Taliban when it was in power; the same numbers want them restored. Those savages are termites in the body politic of the West. I support execution for mere association with al-Qaeda. It is a catastrophic error to indulge free exercise of conscience for internal subversives. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-07-22 01:28 |