What Boxer Said... and What She Didn't

Sen. Boxer appeared on Ed Schultz' radio show today, and she was asked about Hugo Chavez' "El Diablo" speech, which is being condemned by other Democrats. Boxer bashed Chavez and called him a thug, but said how ashamed she was that such rhetoric could get a positive response in the UN. It shows how low our stature is as a nation with Bush in the lead. "Can you imagine this happening to John Kennedy? Or Bill Clinton?"

In my mind that's exactly the right attitude. I'm ashamed too that Chavez wasn't laughed out of the chamber.

However, on the torture/military commission issue, Boxer gave the lamest response of the three emails I've received from Senators on the subject. Here's Tom Harkin (this actually is from a Daily Kos thread:

The bottom line is that I am firmly against torture.

The mistreatment of detainees has been a black eye for America. It has led our allies throughout the world to question our commitment to human rights and the principles of democracy. It has undercut our moral values and runs counter to everything our Constitution stands for.

Democrats, including myself, have a long history of criticizing the Bush Adminstration's handling of terror suspects. This is where oversight is key. But so far, Congress has been asleep at the wheel in this department.

In the end this is an issue to take to the ballot box. If we want real change in policy, and not more rubberstamps from Congress, we need to elect a majority of Democrats to both the House and the Senate to provide adult supervision on our wayward President.

I don't have a problem with focusing on oversight, but he kind of doesn't address the current legislation. Here's Dianne Feinstein's email, which amazingly is the best of all:

Thank you for writing to me about the procedures for reviewing the status of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I welcome the opportunity to respond.

While the United States needs a place to hold captured terrorists, I am very concerned about the policies and practices in place at Guantanamo and other detention facilities. We need a fair and prompt review process that will efficiently allow us to determine the proper status of these people.

Senate Amendment 2523, proposed by Senator Bingaman in 2005, would have allowed foreign detainees to challenge their detention in United States courts under the writ of Habeas Corpus. I voted for the amendment, because my work on the Senate Judiciary Committee has convinced me that the current military tribunals are inadequate. Unfortunately, on November 15, 2005 the amendment was defeated by a vote of 44-54.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld raises the issue of what procedural protections must be afforded to Guantanamo detainees under our Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Geneva Conventions. I am in the process of reviewing the Hamdan decision and its implications. Several hearings are likely to be held on this issue as we consider additional legislation and I will continue to monitor this issue closely. I am hopeful that the Administration will decide to work with Congress so that we can finally implement a sound, humane and effective review process.

She actually addresses the real issue (habeas corpus), but she's deluded if she thinks there will be any more hearings. They're probably going to bring this legislation to the floor tonight. Meanwhile, here's Boxer:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views regarding the legal rights of foreign detainees. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush has declared that anyone suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism will be declared an "unlawful combatant." Such a determination, the Administration argues, excludes the detainees from being afforded the same protections given to regular prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.

On June 29, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major ruling affirming the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . In its Hamdan decision, the Supreme Court stated that the Bush Administration had violated both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention in establishing its military tribunals. The Court also ruled that the Executive Branch acting alone lacked the power to unilaterally determine the detainees' legal rights and that Congress had not granted this power to the Administration.

Following the Hamdan decision, the Bush Administration proposed legislation regarding the establishment of military commissions, which is now being considered by both the House and the Senate. Through this legislation, the Administration would condone the practice of hiding prisoners in secret cells. President Bush also wants to exempt the United States from Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a critical provision that prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." Furthermore, in order to shield the practices of CIA interrogators, President Bush wants Congress to rewrite the War Crimes Act, which makes it a crime to violate the Geneva Conventions.

These provisions of the Administration's bill are deeply troubling. I agree with two former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, Colin L. Powell and John W. Vessey, who cautioned Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

On September 14, 2006, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 15-9 to advance legislation that I believe is fair. I support this legislation because I believe it is critical that we try detainees in a manner that is consistent with both American military doctrine and the Geneva Convention. Please be assured that as Congress continues to debate ways to prosecute the war on terrorism, I will push for measures that advocate the rule of law.

She gives up the debate entirely to the Republican "rebels," says nothing about habeas corpus (though she mentions the rewriting of the War Crimes Act), and argues in favor of the Warner Bill that eliminates habeas corpus and eliminates the threat prosecution for torturers.

I'm not looking forward to how shitty this debate is going to be in the Senate. I fear we'll be looking for the spines, because there won't be any in the Capitol. Prove me wrong, Democrats.

UPDATE: Jane Harman grabs a spine on warrantless wiretapping, which actually does look imperiled.