Congressman, Tim Bishop: “Why Fear a Trial?”

Congressman, Tim Bishop: “Why Fear a Trial?”

By Mary MacElveen

October 17, 2006

As I attended a debate between Congressman Tim Bishop (D 1st Cong. District, NY) and his Republican challenger, Italo Zanzi: when both were asked of the detainee bill recently approved by Congress which will be signed by Bush today, this is what candidate Zanzi stated that he “doesn’t believe Bush can claim anyone as a terrorist.”

As I read some of contents of this detainee bill which is called ‘Military Commissions Bill (S. 3930)’ it states categorically, “Re-establishes President Bush’s military tribunals, which were rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional." I want candidate Zanzi to focus in on the word ‘unconstitutional’. How can any elected official including Bush place their hand on the Bible and take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, and then support a bill that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected?

It is not so much that directive, but this one that disproves Zanzi’s assessment of this bill that it, “strips legal residents of the U.S. of their right to challenge their detention in court if they’re accused of being “enemy combatants,” So, if an American is arrested that is accused of being an “enemy combatant”, don’t they have the right to due process of law?

At one point, I was going to write of this country’s most heinous serial killers and we gave them the right of due process. Their victims were allowed to confront them in court and in one case; Ted Bundy was even allowed to marry within a court of law. These killers had and still do have the right to challenge any law in which the prosecution said they broke. Their defense attorneys are even allowed to challenge the courts when it comes to constitutional issues.

As journalists write of the Iraq War and terrorism in general, it is this part of the bill that does disturb me that it, “names any individual, including citizens, as an “unlawful enemy combatant” if they provide “material support” to those engaged in hostilities against the U.S.” As I see it, words do have value so should be thought of as a physical entity and can be construed as ‘material support’. Journalists also write the opinions and reactions of those that are engaged in hostilities against us, so can journalists be targeted and labeled as ‘enemy combatants’ by aiding the other side with a venue in order to speak out?

What happens to an innocent American that unknowingly supplies “material support” to an enemy of the United States? Are they not allowed due process? In the past, we placed many on trial for acts of treason, gave them due process and those convicted sit in prison. The United States Constitution served us in those cases.

While no question was submitted concerning war crimes contained within this bill, this is what that bill soon to be signed into law states “legalizes U.S. war crimes committed before December 30, 2005” So, if down the road and this is directed to, Italo Zanzi, should it be found that Bush had indeed committed war crimes, does this shield him? I would also like him to speak of these ‘U.S. war crimes’ since congress felt the need to place it within this bill.

As we all know, Bush lied about the facts concerning our illegal invasion of Iraq which even the UN Security Council did not give us permission to invade since we lied about the facts. We all know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet another fact not brought up as it related to this war in this debate. We most certainly do know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. As a result of these lies it has now been reported that 655,000 innocent Iraqis have died. Wouldn’t he call that a war crime? If so, then through this bill, Bush is now shielded.

As I listened to Congressman, Tim Bishop’s answer regarding this one bill, he point-blank stated, “Why fear a trial?” which means due process under the law. He also stated that our “government should be run by rule of law” If our Constitution has served us so well in the past, why change it? That is what Congressman, Tim Bishop understands.

This is what Congressman, Bishop stated of the war in Iraq by us focusing on this war, “We allowed our concentration in Afghanistan to slip” He also stated that we do need to get our soldiers out” He then stated that it has turned into a “civil war” in which our “soldiers are not trained”

The following remarks were the ones that I focused in on. He (Bishop) stated that “70 percent of Iraqis think that it is okay to attack our soldiers” Gee, I wonder why? Bishop referred to where we would be thought of as liberators and greeted with flowers, when the complete opposite has happened. He also stated that our military is “stretched to the limit” With US Naval ships just off the coast of Iran, just how is this Bush administration going to supply the man power should we invade Iran?

This was perhaps the one most single and powerful statement made by Congressman Bishop concerning our war in Iraq that it was “a war of choice” I seem to remember Senator John Kerry stating during the 2004 presidential campaign, “You don’t use the military because you want to, but because you have to.”

When it comes to Bush’s go-it-alone foreign policy, this is what Congressman Bishop believes that we “need to return to a saner foreign policy” He also believes that “diplomacy is not a bad thing” There are some that believe diplomacy is a sign of weakness, but I am of the opinion it makes one stronger and makes this nation stronger.

By us returning to the rule of law, and through the use of diplomacy, it is then we can most certainly say that we are guided by a higher moral power.

http://www.marymacelveen.com/blog/_archives/2006/10/17/2422545.html