Patriot vs. Patriot: What’s the Best for America?

How would you respond if someone called your ideas unpatriotic? What is patriotism anyway? Is it more about protecting the American people or the Constitution’s principles? Perhaps it is both or neither of these things.

As the Senate debated the fate of suspected terrorists, both sides of the aisle declared their point of view to be the most patriotic. Decide for yourself what is in America’s best interest.

The vote

On September 28, 2006, the Senate passed a bill 65-34 that would make it illegal to abuse terror suspects but give the president some control over interrogation techniques. The vote was along party lines except for 12 Democrats voting for the legislation and one Republican, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, voting against it. Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine did not vote. To see how your Senator voted, click here.

The House already passed the measure, and since there are no differences between the House and Senate versions, no conference committee is needed. It will go directly to President Bush for his signature.

The bill

The bill determined what evidence would be allowed when trying detainees in a military tribunal. It would allow evidence obtained without a warrant but prohibit evidence gained through abusive interrogation. However, the bill permits information acquired through torture before December 30, 2005. Democrats argue that the worst prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib prison occurred before that date.

Further, the bill redefines the term "enemy combatants" to include non-citizens living legally in the United States. Beyond that, the measure gives the President and Secretary of State the power to name anyone they see fit as an enemy combatant. That means that any American citizen could be identified as an enemy combatant and denied due process.

Lastly, the bill would deny detainees the right to protest their detention and treatment - the Constitutional right of habeas corpus.

The bill’s history

In June 2006, the Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush administration created an illegal military tribunal system to judge suspected terrorists. The ruling required a new tribunal system, one in line with national and international laws.

The White House proposed legislation that would reinterpret international laws that prohibit the use of torture. The White House says that terrorists are enemy combatants, not soldiers in a war. Therefore, they reason, the international laws on warfare, called the Geneva Conventions, do not apply. The administration argues that in order to make America safer, it must have the power to detain and interrogate terror suspects as it sees fit.

But Democrats and many Republicans disagree. For over a year, John McCain (R-Arizona) has been speaking out against torture under any circumstances. McCain was himself a victim of torture for five years in Vietnam, and last session he helped to pass a law that would require military interrogators to follow the Geneva Conventions when questioning suspected terrorists.

Other Senate Republicans, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine), and Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) are strongly opposed to President Bush on the matter. And former Secretary of State Colin Powell has questioned the administration’s point of view, pointing out that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," suggesting that permitting torture would cast further doubt on America’s morality.

Republican compromise

McCain, Warner, Collins, and Graham all voted in favor of the most recent version of the bill, due to a compromise between The White House and the senators. The new version has the limitations on torture that the Senators were looking for, and McCain assured the Senate that President Bush would not be able to approve any interrogation techniques that violate the Geneva Conventions.

However, many Republicans voted for the bill knowing that it would likely be overturned by the Supreme Court. Without the right to habeas corpus, the Court is likely to find the bill unconstitutional, sending it back to the Congress.

Habeas Corpus and party loyalty

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and Constitutional Scholar Arlen Specter (R- Pennsylvania) proposed an amendment to the bill that would protect the detainee’s right to habeas corpus, but it was voted down 43-54.

Specter reminded Congress that the right to due process began almost 900 years ago with the Magna Carta in 1215 and was established in the United States by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees habeas corpus except "in cases of rebellion or invasion [when] the Public safety may require [no due process]." Specter argues that terrorism is neither rebellion nor invasion and that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are protected by the Constitution. However, his fellow Republicans argue that this is an issue for the Supreme Court, which has not yet addressed the question of the rights for prisoners at Guantanamo.

Although his amendment was voted down, Specter voted with his party in favor of the bill.

What do you think?

Should terror suspects have the right to due process? If not, why not? What sort of interrogation techniques should be allowed? Do you think that the president and secretary of state should be able to identify enemy combatants? Should the Congress pass a bill that it assumes the Supreme Court will overturn?

Your input matters

Your representatives in Congress DO care what you think. Especially now -- 2006 is an election year and many representatives will be looking to reconnect with their constituents. Let your congressmen and women know what you think! Give your senators a piece of your mind! To get to your reps, click here.

To explore our archive of past Security Issue updates, click here.

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.