Representative Lantos voted against and made a strong statement opposing the bill. Read more to see his statement.

Lantos Rejects White House's Ill-Advised Bill on Treatment of Detainees

Washington, DC - Congressman Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo/San Francisco) today voted against legislation proposed by the White House and House Republicans concerning the treatment of foreign nationals in U.S. custody that contained weakened provisions on their rights and on preventing torture.

"The legislation remains deeply flawed in more ways than I have time to describe here," Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, said in a statement during debate on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (H.R. 6166). "It prohibits any detainee from ever raising the Geneva Conventions in any case before any court or military commission, a provision that I fear will be used against our own troops if they are ever captured by the enemy. It takes actions against existing lawsuits and establishes a whole new system for military appeals that is constitutionally suspect, will lead to even more court cases, and could leave us five years from now with exactly the same number of convictions we have under the existing military tribunal system: zero.

"We should be trying to expedite trials of terrorist suspects, not providing the basis for more delays," he continued. "And, acting directly against the recommendations of the bilateral 9-11 Commission, this legislation does not represent a joint approach with our allies."

The bill passed the House 253 to 168, with members of Congress voting mostly along party lines. The Senate will consider it on Thursday.

Lantos, a Holocaust survivor and the founding co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, stated that debate on the bill centered on "a fundamental issue of concern to anyone who cares about human rights."

"Our treatment of detainees and our failure to come up with a joint approach with our allies has damaged our ability to prosecute successfully the war on terrorism," he said. "It has endangered our troops by setting standards for others that I believe we will deeply regret. It has impeded our ability to work with many of our allies who have a different view from this Administration on the obligations of the Geneva Convention, one that has since been adopted by our own Supreme Court. It has undermined our legitimacy worldwide and been a recruiting tool for our enemies."

Since some of the bill's provisions were objectionable, and still the majority leadership ruled out any chance for modifications even though there is no real urgency to passing the legislation, Lantos gave voice to the frustration of many Democrats regarding how this legislation came about.

"Because of an arrogant White House and a Republican Leadership in this House that has simply bowed to the Executive's will - as it has so many times before - we have once again made the consideration of a critical legislative initiative a charade, a debate being conducted with undue haste and without any serious consideration," Lantos said.


Lantos' full statement about the bill is below.



Statement by Representative Tom Lantos for debate on H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006

September 27, 2006

Mr. Speaker, we are embarking on a debate of extraordinary importance to the nation and to our success on the war on terrorism. It is centered on a fundamental issue of concern to anyone who cares about human rights - and there are still many of us, thankfully.

So this should be a debate about ideas, and there should be full and complete deliberation.

Unfortunately, because of an arrogant White House and a Republican Leadership in this House that has simply bowed to the Executive's will - as it has so many times before - we have once again made the consideration of a critical legislative initiative a charade, a debate being conducted with undue haste and without any serious consideration.

Mr. Chairman, since September 11, 2001, one of the most vexing problems that has faced our country in the struggle against the forces of nihilism and extremism is our approach to those who come into our custody because we believe they are a danger to the United States. We have seen unclear policy and muddy thinking leading to cruel treatment of those in U.S. custody, with some conduct even amounting, in the view of the former General Counsel to Department of the Navy under this Administration, to be torture. Finally, last June the Supreme Court ruled that the Administration's unilateral set of rules for trying terrorist suspects was unlawful.

Let us make no mistake about it - our treatment of detainees and our failure to come up with a joint approach with our allies has damaged our ability to prosecute successfully the war on terrorism. It has endangered our troops by setting standards for others that I believe we will deeply regret. It has impeded our ability to work with many of our allies who have a different view from this Administration on the obligations of the Geneva Convention, one that has since been adopted by our own Supreme Court. It has undermined our legitimacy worldwide and been a recruiting tool for our enemies.

The legislation before us should be an effort to address these problems, and in some ways it has. It establishes a better framework for trying detainees than the one established by the Administration. And by keeping it a crime to engage in serious physical abuse against detainees, it prohibits the worst of the abuses that we have seen, including those that are also banned by the Army's new Field Manual on interrogation, including forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee or using duct tape over the eyes; applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain; waterboarding; using working dogs during an interrogation; inducing hypothermia or heat injury; conducting mock executions; depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, sleep or medical care.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the legislation remains deeply flawed in more ways than I have time to describe here. It prohibits any detainee from ever raising the Geneva Conventions in any case before any court or military commission, a provision that I fear will be used against our own troops if they are ever captured by the enemy. It takes actions against existing lawsuits and establishes a whole new system for military appeals that is constitutionally suspect, will lead to even more court cases, and could leave us five years from now with exactly the same number of convictions we have under the existing military tribunal system: zero. We should be trying to expedite trials of terrorist suspects, not providing the basis for more delays. And, acting directly against the recommendations of the bilateral 9-11 Commission, this legislation does not represent a joint approach with our allies.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 60 years ago, I fled from a continent in ruins from a war conducted without rules, marked by atrocities on a scale that the world had never seen. Much of that continent was under a dictatorship in Moscow that was bent on oppressing its citizens and those under its dominance everywhere. So the issues presented by this bill are more than a policy debate to me.

I am profoundly disappointed by what we are doing today. It does not represent progress in protecting our troops and civilians who are caught up in armed conflict. It represents a retreat.

The Geneva Conventions were meant to protect people like me and our country's troops from the worst abuses of war. This country has always stood for the upholding and supporting those protections and expanding them whenever we could, in our national interest.

We should not be rushing legislation through now, just before an election, when we know it won't be needed for many months. We should not be considering a bill that is substantially different from the one that has been already put through our Committees. And we should not be debating legislation without any chance of presenting our individual ideas for improving it.


But here we are. Under these circumstances, I oppose this legislation and fully expect to be back debating these issues when the Supreme Court overturns this ill-advised legislation.