Other Political News

[Soldier4Christ]

North Korean missile test to go unpunished after UN split


CHINA and Russia moved yesterday to block attempts to impose UN sanctions on North Korea as the reclusive communist nation fired a seventh ballistic missile.

Britain and the US backed the Japanese call for a mandatory Security Council resolution demanding a halt to testing as well as sanctions on funding, parts and technology for Pyongyang’s missile programme. The three countries’ ambassadors also appeared shoulder-to-shoulder outside the council chamber to send a united message.

“We hope the response of the Security Council will be swift, strong and resolute,” Kenzo Oshima, the Japanese representative to the UN, said.

President Bush called on North Korea last night to “verifiably abandon” its weapons programmes. He said that the apparent failure of the long-range Taepodong 2 missile, which fizzled 42 seconds after lift-off, did not diminish the urgency of pushing North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programme.

“One thing we have learnt is that the rocket didn’t stay up for very long,” he said. “It tumbled into the sea. It doesn’t diminish my desire to solve this problem.” He said that top US officials were working with other nations to coax Pyongyang back to the multinational talks.

Japan’s proposal, invoking the “enforcement provisions” of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, would require that North Korea, “immediately cease the development, testing, deployment and proliferation of ballistic missiles”. The draft resolution would outlaw “the transfer of financial resources, items, materials, goods and technology to end users that could contribute to [North Korea’s] missile and other weapons of mass destruction programs”.

The text would also call for North Korea to return to the six-party talks, which it has been boycotting in protest at an American crackdown on counterfeiting and other alleged financial crimes.

But China and Russia, which hold veto power on the 15- nation council, quickly signalled their opposition to sanctions and called for action to be limited to a non-binding statement, rather than a resolution.

“Thirteen delegations were in favour of a resolution and two delegations have recommended that a presidential statement would be more appropriate,” Jean-Marc de La Sablière, the French ambassador who holds the council presidency, said.

Vitali Churkin, Russia’s UN envoy, suggested that his Government, while particularly concerned by information that some missile fragments may have fallen near Russian territory, did not envisage any punitive measures. “The goal should be the resumption of the six-party talks and the ultimate diplomatic solution.”

Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador, cited the precedent of the Security Council’s response to North Korea’s 1998 test-firing of a Taepodong 1 missile that flew over Japan. Then the council issued a statement expressing “regret” over the missile launch, which “poses harm to the fishing and shipping activities in the region”.

North Korea remained defiant. “Maintenance of peace in our country is entirely made possible by our strong war deterrent,” a commentator on the state-run Korean Central Broadcasting Station said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Ruling disappoints, angers Ithaca 50


ITHACA — Disappointment, rage and the eventual need to regroup characterized many local reactions to Thursday's ruling by New York's highest court on same-sex marriage.

In the 4-2 decision, the Court of Appeals said that the New York State constitution does not require the legalization of same-sex marriages.

“The decision is not only behind the times, but it leaves us as second-class citizens,” said Ross Haarstad, a member of the Ithaca 50 who has been in a same-sex relationship for 20 years. “The court ducked an issue that they should've decided on constitutional grounds.”
The Ithaca 50 refers to 25 same-sex couples who sued the City of Ithaca in 2004 after being denied marriage licenses by the city clerk's office. That suit, Seymour vs. Holcomb, was one of four included in the Court of Appeals case. The attorneys Richard Stumbar, Mariette Geldenhuys and Elizabeth Bixler represented the Ithaca 50.

There can be no appeal in the case because it addresses an issue dealing with the state constitution, and the next level of appeal would cross into the federal jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.

With that in mind, those pushing for same-sex marriages said their next step will be to start pressuring the state Legislature and candidates running for state office to act on the issue.

Locally there has been little faith that turning to the Legislature will offer a quick or easy resolution to the issue.

“It took them 30 years to pass (the Sexual Non-Discrimination Act). I'm not waiting 30 years for them to recognize the rights included in marriage,” said Jason Hungerford, another member of the Ithaca 50.

Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, D-125th District, who announced her plan to run for re-election a few hours after the court decision was made public, said this about the court ruling:

“Let's get government out of the wedding business and have everyone, equally, have a civil arrangement,” she said.

The proposal Lifton supports would replace the word “marriage” with “civil commitment” in state laws, creating a legal contract she said would be accessible to everyone, while leaving the religious aspect of the union to religious institutions.

“Why should state government become a religious institution?” she asked.

As she was leaving the event announcing Lifton's candidacy, Carolyn Peterson, mayor of the City of Ithaca, reiterated her support for ongoing efforts to legalize same-sex unions.

“They deserve that equal protection under the law,” she said.

Richard Driscoll, executive director of the Community Arts Partnership of Tompkins County, saw the ruling as a confusion of the separation between church and state.

“If the church says you can't get married that's their business, but what does it have to do with the state?” he asked.

Despite this view, supporters of same-sex unions expressed their commitment to continue fighting for equal protection under the law.

“I think it will change in my lifetime. It should now but we'll keep at it,” Haarstad said. “We knew it was a long haul. Now it's longer.”

[Soldier4Christ]

EU says disputed Mexico vote fair

Election monitors from the European Union say they found no irregularities in last Sunday's hotly disputed presidential election.

The EU said its 80 monitors nationwide did not witness any wrongdoing.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has vowed to launch protests after the razor-thin victory of his rival Felipe Calderon.

But Mr Calderon has already begun to spell out his policies and has taken congratulatory calls from overseas leaders, including US President Bush.

The final tally from the election showed that just a few thousand votes separated the two candidates.

Conservative candidate Mr Calderon finished with 35.88%, against 35.31% for Mr Lopez Obrador, the candidate of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD).

Mass rally

The European Union monitoring team said its monitors "did not report any incidents or irregularities that could have affected the transparency of the counting process and that could have impacted the results".

Mr Calderon, of the ruling National Action Party (PAN), on Friday began to set out his policies, including support for US immigration reforms.

He also pledged to close the wealth gap between rich and poor and aid Mexican farmers.

Mr Calderon took calls of congratulations from Canada, Spain and US President George W Bush.

Mr Bush's spokesman, Tony Snow, said the president had called to tell Mr Calderon he "looked forward to working with him on issues of mutual interest".

However, Mr Lopez Obrador has not yet admitted defeat and has announced he will mount a legal challenge, citing "many irregularities".

Ricardo Monreal, a spokesman for Mr Lopez Obrador, said: "Demonstrations are allowed by the constitution", although he vowed that they would be peaceful.

A mass rally has been called for Saturday in Mexico City.

The vote will not be declared complete until the Federal Electoral Tribunal certifies the count.

Parties must file complaints by Monday and the tribunal must certify the winner by 6 September. It has the power to alter results and even call new polls.

[Soldier4Christ]

Angelides says he would sign gay marriage bill

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides said Friday that if he unseats Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in November he would sign a bill legalizing gay marriage in California.

Angelides talked about the issue the day after New York's high court upheld that state's one-man, one-woman marriage laws and as a California appeals court prepared to consider whether a trial judge erred in declaring the state's marriage laws unconstitutional.

"I would sign the marriage equality bill because I believe if we can get behind people to build a lasting relationship, that is a good thing," Angelides said at a news conference where Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., urged voters to support him.

The California Legislature last year became the first lawmaking body in the nation to legalize gay marriage. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, saying it was up to voters or the courts, not lawmakers, to settle the matter.

The measure's sponsor, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, plans to reintroduce it in December after the election.

Clinton, who does not support gay marriage, refused to answer questions about Thursday's court ruling in her home state, but made a brief pitch on Angelides' behalf.

She said she had known Angelides since his days as head of the California Democratic Party in the early 1990s, when her husband, former President Clinton, was running against President George Herbert Walker Bush. That race, she said, mirrors the one Angelides is in now.

"He brought passion and commitment to a campaign that was on an uphill side," Clinton said of the 1992 race, adding that in taking on Schwarzenegger, Angelides "was unafraid when it looked like a hopeless cause because he believed California could do better."

Appearing with Angelides on Friday were other state Democrats: U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Angelides' primary opponent, Controller Steve Westly. Westly dismissed suggestions that he reluctantly supported Angelides after their bruising primary, which Angelides won 48 percent to Westly's 43 percent.

"California wants a change in Sacramento," he said. "We want a Democratic governor and we will have a Democratic governor come November 2006."

[Soldier4Christ]

N.Y. ruling denies gay marriage
Similar California case to hear arguments from both sides Monday


Lawyers who will argue for and against same-sex marriage Monday before a California appeals court offered disparate views of Thursday's ruling by New York's highest court in a similar case.

The New York State Court of Appeals ruled 4-2 that a state law excluding same-sex couples from marriage doesn't violate that state's constitution, and is an issue best addressed by lawmakers.

"The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one," Associate Judge Robert Smith wrote for the majority, adding that until recent decades, societies throughout history condoned marriages only between men and women. "A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

The California Court of Appeal in San Francisco will hear arguments Monday in six consolidated cases challenging the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer in March 2005 ruled the statutory ban serves "no rational purpose" and unconstitutionally denies same-sex couples equal protection under the law.

National Center for Lesbian Rights legal director Shannon Minter, who will argue four of the cases Monday, issued a statement Thursday saying California courts are unlikely to mirror the New York court's reasoning.

California lawmakers have taken a stronger stand that same-sex parents and their children deserve equal legal protections, he said: "Because of this clear policy, a California court could not accept a desire to treat some families as superior to others as a legitimate basis for discrimination in marriage."

The Legislature has supported marriage equality by enacting California's domestic partnership law and passing a same-sex marriage bill, although the latter was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, he noted. And the California Supreme Court in 2005 ruled government can't discriminate against children based on their parents gender or sexual orientation.

In contrast, New York has no statewide civil union or domestic partnership protections, and New York courts have rejected most equality claims made by same-sex couples.

Minter also noted California has a history of interpreting its state constitution to provide "stronger and broader protections for civil liberties than the federal constitution." As an example he cited a 1948 California Supreme Court decision striking down the law against interracial marriage; the U.S. Supreme Court didn't do so until 1967.

"Our courts have a proud legacy of standing up for personal dignity and individual freedom," he said. "We are confident they will continue to do so for lesbian and gay people as well."

Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office must defend the current same-sex marriage ban, but the Campaign for California Families has sued San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for letting city officials issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004.

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of the Florida-based conservative legal and educational group Liberty Counsel, will argue Monday on the campaign's behalf. He also had filed a friend-of-the-court brief for conservative groups in New York, and on Thursday he said the New York ruling "certainly is persuasive" and "was a good prelude to the arguments on Monday, from our perspective."

"It mirrors the exact same argument that we are making in our briefs, which is that it is a legislative matter" and lawmakers can base their decisions in the best interests of procreation and child rearing, Staver said.

Male-female marriage underpins the well-being of couples, children and society, Staver had said in a statement issued earlier Thursday, but recognizing same-sex marriage "would result in the abolition of male and female by making gender irrelevant, and the abolition of gender would have devastating effects on children."

"We must not rest until we have once and for all defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the United States Constitution," the statement said.

The Georgia Supreme Court also issued a same-sex marriage ruling Thursday, upholding that state's constitutional ban. That case didn't involve the ban's substance, but only whether the amendment was properly placed on the ballot in 2004.

Twenty states have enacted constitutional same-sex marriage bans; 25 others have only statutory bans. Massachusetts is the only state now allowing gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions. High courts in Washington state and New Jersey are mulling whether same-sex couples have the right to marry.

[Shammu]

"I would sign the marriage equality bill because I believe if we can get behind people to build a lasting relationship, that is a good thing," Angelides said at a news conference where Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., urged voters to support him.

Bull pucky, but what do you expect for support from Hillary Clinton.  I can see him behind the people. The California Legislature has no say in the matter.  It is up to the voters or the courts, not lawmakers.

[Soldier4Christ]

It is up to the voters or the courts, not lawmakers.

And it should be up to the people only not the courts, after all that is the way this government was designed not a totalitarian rule by a few elite judges or lawmakers.

[Shammu]

And it should be up to the people only not the courts, after all that is the way this government was designed not a totalitarian rule by a few elite judges or lawmakers.

AMEN though you noticed I called the voters, the people.

[Soldier4Christ]

Corzine Formally Ends NJ Government Shutdown

Governor Corzine says New Jersey's new budget is a step on the road to fiscal responsibility for the Garden State.

The $30.6 billion spending plan Corzine signed last night formally ends a fiscal and political impasse that spurred a weeklong government shutdown and shuttered Atlantic City's 12 casinos.

Under the budget compromise approved by the Legislature early yesterday, Corzine and Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts Junior agreed to raise the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent. But it sets aside half of the $1.1 billion it will raise to alleviate the state's highest-in-the-nation property taxes.

With a new budget in place, most state services and activities including the casinos and the state lottery, were back in operation early yesterday.

[Soldier4Christ]

Same-sex marriage dealt setbacks

Advocates of gay marriage have lost court battles in two of the largest US states, New York and Georgia.

New York's Court of Appeals ruled the state constitution does not grant a right to gay marriage, but left open the option for a change in the law.

In Georgia, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the state ban on gay marriage had been improperly passed.

American proponents of gay marriage have had success with court battles only in the state of Massachusetts.

The New York case combined four different suits brought by more than 40 same-sex couples who had spent two years fighting their case through the New York courts.

Three judges ruled that the state constitution did not require New York to recognise same-sex marriages.

A fourth judge concurred, though she added that it may be time "for the Legislature to address the needs of same-sex couples and their families".

Two judges wrote a heartfelt dissent, and one declined to participate in the case because his daughter has lobbied for gay marriage in California.

'Long haul'

The ruling is the end of the line for this particular case, which the gay marriage advocates fought only on state law, not federal law.

Gov George Pataki and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer - a leading candidate to be the next governor - had argued that lawmakers could reasonably believe marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.

Kathy Burke, one of the plaintiffs, said it was "a sad day for New York families", the Associated Press reported.

Another plaintiff, Regina Cicchetti, said she and Susan Zimmer, her partner of 36 years, had not given up.

"We're in this for the long haul. If we can't get it done for us, we'll get it done for the people behind us," AP quoted her as saying.

Georgia's Supreme Court decided its case on narrower grounds than New York's - where the plaintiffs claimed the ban on gay marriage was discriminatory.

The Georgia case concerned whether the state ban on gay marriage was imposed properly when it was approved by more than three in four voters state-wide in 2004.

A lower court ruled the ballot was improper, but the Supreme Court disagreed, thus reinstating the ban.

[Soldier4Christ]

Rove: Bush to veto DeGette bill

President Bush will likely cast the first veto of his presidency if the Senate, as expected, passes legislation to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, White House aide Karl Rove said today.

"The president is emphatic about this," Rove - Bush's top political advisor and architect of his 2000 and 2004 campaigns - said in a meeting with the editorial board of The Denver Post.

The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed the legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver, and Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. If the Senate approves the bill it would go to the president's desk.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who backs the bill, has said he will try to bring it up for a Senate vote soon.

"It is something we would, frankly, like to avoid," Rove said when asked if the White House would welcome, or dread, vetoing legislation passed by a Republican Congress, especially on so emotional an issue as embryonic stem cell research.

But Rove said that he believes the legislation will pass the Senate with more than 60 votes this month, "and as a result the president would, as he has previously said emphatically, veto the Castle bill."

"I'm appalled that Bush would use the first veto of his presidency to veto a bill that could help 110 million people and their families," DeGette said today after being informed of Rove's remarks.

On another volatile issue - congressional attempts to reform the nation's immigration system - Rove said that immigration legislation had to be "comprehensive" to win Bush's support, but that more controversial proposals like a temporary-worker program might be phased in as the U.S. improves its border security.

Rove said that the behind-the-scene talks between House and Senate negotiators were making "good" progress toward an immigration compromise and that there is still a chance that a bill could be passed before the November election.

In a wide-ranging, 90-minute interview, Rove also defended the Bush administration's policy in Iraq and predicted that Republicans would maintain control of both the House and the Senate in the November election.

The Bush administration's stem cell policy, adopted in 2001, has been to allow federal research funding only for existing lines of embryonic stem cells.

Researchers and patients groups have complained that the policy hinders vital research into treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's disease and other illnesses.

The stem cell legislation is not likely to become law, Rove said, because backers lack the votes needed - two-thirds of each house of Congress - to override a veto.

"We were all an embryo at one point, and we ought to as a society be very careful about being callous about the wanton destruction of embryos, of life," Rove said. Recent research, he said, shows that researchers "have far more promise from adult stem cells than from embryonic stem cells."

If Bush vetoes the stem cell bill, "we will try to override it," DeGette said, adding that support among lawmakers is growing.

Castle and DeGette have requested a meeting with Bush to present their case. "I still hold out hope that the president would give us that courtesy for a meeting," she said.

Rove was in Colorado to speak Sunday at an Aspen Institute forum and to attend several political events, including a Republican gathering tonight in Parker.

Addressing immigration at the editorial board meeting, Rove was receptive to proposals by some congressional Republicans to establish checkpoints at ports of entry to the United States, where existing illegal immigrants would have to go to register, pay a penalty and show proof of employment.

He said that such checkpoints didn't necessarily have to be on the border, but could be located at airports in Denver or Los Angeles, for example, or at ports of entry like New Orleans.

Comprehensive reform is needed because illegal immigrants will inevitably find ways to enter the United States, so long as wages are so high here when compared to other countries.

"You cannot control the border. ... We don't have enough resources," he said. "You've got to do it all together."

Rove said that he advises GOP candidates to back the president's comprehensive approach, despite the fierce opposition of hard-liners within the Republican Party such as Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Littleton.

"I cannot see a single district in which a Republican is going to be advantaged by opposing a comprehensive solution," said Rove.

When asked about the November election, Rove expressed confidence that the Republicans will weather the recent dip in public opinion.

"They are not going to be able to run the table," Rove said, when asked about Democratic hopes to seize the Senate. He predicted that that the GOP would pull off some "surprise" upsets of its own.

And though the public is sour on the ongoing costs of the war, the new Iraqi government "looks like (it will be) able to get this job done," Rove said. As long as there are signs of progress, "at the end of the day, ... the American people do not want the U.S. to be defeated."

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge: FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Legal

 An FBI raid on a Louisiana congressman's Capitol Hill office was legal, a federal judge ruled Monday.

Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said members of Congress are not above the law. He rejected requests from lawmakers and Democratic Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office.

In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials.

"Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office.

Jefferson had sought the return of several computer hard drives, floppy disks and two boxes of paper documents that FBI agents seized during an 18-hour search of his Rayburn Building office.

At issue was a constitutional provision known as the speech and debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work.

"No one argues that the warrant executed upon Congressman Jefferson's office was not properly administered," Hogan wrote. "Therefore, there was no impermissible intrusion on the Legislature. The fact that some privileged material was incidentally captured by the search does not constitute an unlawful intrusion."

The raid on Jefferson's office angered members of Congress, some of whom threatened to retaliate by tinkering with the FBI and Justice Department budgets.

President Bush stepped in and ordered the solicitor general to take custody of the seized materials so Congress and the Justice Department could work out procedures to deal with similar situations in the future.

The president's 45-day "cooling off period" ended Sunday with no compromise worked out but with assurances from the Justice Department that it would not seek to regain custody of the materials until Hogan ruled on Jefferson's request.

Because Hogan signed the search warrant authorizing the search, Jefferson's legal team was not surprised by his ruling upholding it.

"While a Congressman is not above the law, the executive branch must also follow the law," said Jefferson's lawyer, Robert Trout. "We appreciate the consideration the judge accorded our motion for the return of the seized property, but we respectfully disagree with his conclusion, and we intend to appeal the ruling."

Hogan said a search warrant seeking material is very different than a subpoena seeking testimony.

"Jefferson may never be questioned regarding his legitimate legislative activities, is immune from civil or criminal liability for those activities, and no privileged material may ever be used against him in court," the judge wrote.

Jefferson has been under investigation since March 2005 for allegedly using his position to promote the sale of telecommunications equipment and services offered by iGate, a Louisville-based firm, that sought contracts with Nigeria, Ghana and other African nations.

In return for his help, Jefferson allegedly demanded stock and cash payments. Jefferson has not been charged and has denied wrongdoing.

[Soldier4Christ]

Mass. Court Backs Gay Marriage on Ballot

 The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage ruled Monday that a proposed constitutional amendment to ban future same-sex marriages can be placed on the ballot, if approved by the Legislature.

The ruling was in a lawsuit brought by gay-rights supporters who argued that Attorney General Tom Reilly was wrong to approve the ballot measure because they said the state constitution bars any citizen-initiated amendment that seeks to reverse a judicial ruling.

 In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Judicial Court said the proposed amendment is not a "reversal" of the court's ruling legalizing gay marriage but a proposed change to the state constitution, which can be legally done through a citizen initiative.

"The underlying substantive law is simply changed to reflect the present intentions of the people, and that new law will be applied thereafter in any subsequent case or cases," the court said in its ruling.

Justice John M. Greaney, in a concurring opinion, warned that approving an amendment banning gay marriage would be discriminatory because it would remove the rights of same-sex couples to the legal, social and financial benefits of marriage.

"The only effect of a positive vote will be to make same-sex couples, and their families, unequal to everyone else; this is discrimination in its rawest form," Greaney wrote.

With a landmark 2003 ruling, the court cleared the way for same-sex marriages to begin in Massachusetts in May 2004. More than 8,000 gay couples have married since.

The state Legislature is expected to take up the ballot question Wednesday during a constitutional convention.

Citizen-initiated ballot questions must be certified by the attorney general and then approved by two consecutive legislative sessions. Before the marriage question could be placed on the 2008 ballot, supporters would need to win the votes of 50 lawmakers _ 25 percent of the Legislature _ in two consecutive sessions.

Lee Swislow, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said she was disappointed but knew it would be an uphill battle. She said the fight is not over.

"So now obviously the focus is going to turn to the Legislature, which has a chance on Wednesday during the constitutional convention to do the right thing and defeat this amendment," said Swislow, whose organization filed the lawsuit in January.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.

Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Last week, justices on New York's highest court ruled gay marriage is illegal there under state law, and Georgia's high court ruled its state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was legal.

Supporters of a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts predict they will have enough votes to win the first round of approval from the Legislature. They would also need to win approval in the next legislative session.

"We are comfortably in excess of 50 votes," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.

"We are very, very excited, elated and pleased with the SJC ruling," he said. "All I can say is justice is alive and well in Massachusetts."

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate to Hear Detainee Issue After Recess


WASHINGTON — The Senate is unlikely to take up legislation addressing the legal rights of suspected terrorists until after Congress'August recess, Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday.

Frist's plan not to act until this fall pushes the Guantanamo issue squarely into election season, when Republicans will be seeking support from voters by focusing on national security issues.

Republicans are discussing their legislative options among themselves, Democrats and the Bush administration, said Frist, R-Tenn.

"We will act legislatively,"he said.

The Supreme Court on June 29 ruled 5-to-3 that President Bush's plan to try detainees captured in the war on terror through military tribunals violated U.S. and international law. Some 450 detainees are being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

The decision put the ball in Congress'court to pass legislation dictating how suspected terrorists should be prosecuted.

Lawmakers and congressional aides say there are a range of options that could be pursued, including passing legislation specifically authorizing Bush's proposed military tribunals or setting up a system similar to military courts-martial.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, plans to hold the first of several hearings this week on the issue. The committee, followed by the House and Senate Armed Services committees, plans to hear from active and retired military officials and legal experts.

"We need to have a body of law directed at this new battlefield"against terrorists, said Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and an advocate of the administration's treatment of detainees.

Hunter, Frist and other lawmakers have said they remain undecided on how the legislation should look, and several congressional aides said members are waiting to hear from the administration before moving forward. The exception is Specter, who has introduced legislation that would authorize a tribunal system but impose requirements on the Defense Department to ensure each prisoner is afforded sufficient"due process."

The matter of detainees'legal treatment has long been the subject of much debate in Congress, including among Republicans. Some conservatives have supported the Bush administration's desire to prosecute suspected terrorists using the military tribunals, whereas others suggest there should be less secrecy in the system.

Intended to protect classified information, the military tribunals would grant fewer rights to suspected terrorists. Unlike the military courts-martial system and civil courts, defendents have limited rights to appeal.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly last year to ban cruel and inhumane treatment when interrogating prisoners, but only after fierce debate on whether Taliban fighters and other suspected terrorists should be afforded certain legal rights.

The Bush administration has asserted that its tribunal system is lawful and detainees are not protected under the Geneva Conventions, intended to safeguard prisoners of war, including U.S. troops, from abusive treatment.

The Supreme Court ruled last month, however, that Bush's military commissions would violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.

A group of retired military officers who oppose the administration's position on the treatment of detainees asked members of Congress on Monday to block the appointment of the Pentagon's general counsel to a seat on a federal U.S. court because of his role in crafting the Pentagon's detainee policy. William J. Haynes II has been nominated for a seat on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"What compels us to take this unusual step is our profound concern about the role Mr. Haynes played in establishing _ over the objections of uniformed military lawyers _ detention and interrogation policies ... which led not only to the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody but to a dangerous abrogation of the military's longstanding commitment to the rule of law,"the retired officers wrote in a letter to Specter and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

The letter was signed by about 20 retired military officers, including Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar, former head of U.S. Central Command.

Sens. George Allen, R-Va., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., are scheduled to visit the Guantanamo Bay military prison this week. Allen is running for re-election and is frequently mentioned as a possible candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. Durbin has sharply criticized the treatment of prisoners.

[Soldier4Christ]

US applies Geneva Convention to military detainees

The Pentagon acknowledged for the first time that all detainees held by the U.S. military are covered by the protections of an article of the Geneva Conventions that bars inhumane treatment, according to a memo made public on Tuesday.

The memo signed by Gordon England, the No. 2 official in the Defense department, followed a June 29 Supreme Court ruling that struck down as illegal the military tribunal system set up by the Bush administration to try foreign terrorism suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The United States previously has determined that certain prisoners taken in Washington's war on terrorism are not deserving of all of the protections of the Geneva Conventions -- international agreements governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

The memo was made public on the day Congress began hearings on how to proceed in trying Guantanamo prisoners after the high court ruling.

The United States has come under international criticism for how it has treated detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere.

The memo, dated July 7, stated that detainees held in U.S. military custody worldwide are covered by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which ensures their humane treatment.

The article prohibits violence against detainees, including mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, and "outrages upon personal dignity" including humiliating and degrading treatment." It also ensures care for the sick and wounded.

It also bars sentencing or executing prisoners without a decision by "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

The administration argued the move was not a dramatic change because the Defense Department already had a policy of treating detainees humanely.

"It is not really a reversal of policy," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "Humane treatment has always been the standard, and that is something that they followed at Guantanamo."

England, the deputy secretary of defense, said in his memo that it was "my understanding" that aside from the military trial procedures that the Supreme Court struck down, "existing DoD (Department of Defense) orders, policies, directives, execute orders, and doctrine comply with the standards of Common Article 3..."

These include existing military manuals governing interrogations and medical care for detainees, the memo said.