Leftist hyperbole on parade

  There was a demonstration in front of the White House yesterday called “Voices Against Terrorism” – sounds like a good reason to protest, doesn’t it? Except the “terrorism” they’re “against” is that which is inflicted (supposedly) on people by the Bush Administration. According to Washington Post’s Jenna Johnson;

In 1996, [Sister Dianna] Ortiz founded the Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International, which brings together survivors and advocates for human rights issues, and she began to travel across the country to tell her story. Participants at this weekend’s vigil, the coalition’s 10th, included 75 survivors from some of the 150 countries the organization cites for practicing and condoning torture.

“We’re not just telling it — we’re reliving it,” Ortiz said. “We feel like we are back in our cell.”

This year, survivors and activists had a specific mission: demanding the repeal of the Military Commissions Act, which President Bush signed in October. Coalition members say they think the act is unconstitutional, is a severe violation of human rights and essentially legalizes acts of torture, she said.

The act establishes procedures for conducting military investigations and hearings for suspected terrorists and combatants. One of the activists, Ray McGovern, who was a CIA analyst for 27 years, said the act ignores prisoner rights established by the Geneva Conventions and the 1996 U.S. War Crimes Act.

Well, ya know what, I went to the Military Commissions Act (.pdf), known to the legal world as Public Law 109-366, and read all 39 pages. There is nothing in the law that “legalizes acts of torture”. It doesn’t even address torture except to make it a crime and forbid it’s use to extract evidence. It doesn’t violate the Constitution because it’s mandated purpose (948b) is;

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.

That’s it - nothing about American citizens, so it can’t be unConstitutional. In fact, it specifically forbids the admisibility of evidence extracted using torture during Military Commission procedings;

‘‘§ 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment of statements obtained by torture and other statements.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
‘‘(b) EXCLUSION OF STATEMENTS OBTAINED BY TORTURE.—A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
‘‘(c) STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that—
‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
‘‘(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.‘‘(d) STATEMENTS OBTAINED AFTER ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.—A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that—
‘‘(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;‘‘(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
‘‘(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

Of course, the Washington Post couldn’t bother to find that section of the law before publishing their story, could they? Nope, they just quote the moonbats – cuz that’s much better copy than some dry old facts;

“The act needs to be banned for practical and moral reasons,” McGovern told yesterday’s crowd. An opponent of the Iraq war, he accused then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in May 2006 of lying about prewar intelligence during the question-and-answer session of a speech in Atlanta.

I guess Ms. Johnson couldn’t help but inject a bit of the standard “Bush lied, troops died” meme into her obviously biased “story”. 

Mr. McGovern would do himself a favor by actually reading the Act instead of going off half-cocked, but that wouldn’t serve his search for fame very well, would it?

The Act, which grants non-Americans the same Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections as the Bill of Rights, is a reasonable law, under the circumstances. Given that many of the nations from which these suspected criminals come would execute them nearly as soon as they are apprehended, it’s pretty damn civilized.

I think it’s kind of disingenuous for the Left to be so upset about what they consider terrorism committed by the United States but they wouldn’t dare speak out against Islamofacists who behead journalists for video-fare, send six-year-olds with bomb vests into battle,  and hide under females’ clothing to perpetrate their crimes.

But the Left, and these want-wits in particular, make wild, unfounded accusations hoping no one will ever have the gumption or the wherewithall to prove them liars. They depend on ignorance and laziness.

Ms. Johnson concludes her front page piece with a quote from terror victim, Sister Ortiz;

Ortiz said that the protest and vigil were significant and that her goal is to raise public awareness.

“When I first came back, very few people were speaking out,” Ortiz said. The torture survivors in this country “believe that we don’t have the right to be silent. We have the moral responsibility to speak the truth.”

I agree and sympathize, Sister, however, your message is being diluted by Leftist hyperbole and you’ve become a political tool of the anti-Bush moonbats.

Category: Antiwar crowd, Legal, Media, Politics, Society