Some good news. Last Friday, the conference on the Department of Defense authorization bill was completed and, after a difficult fight with the House, the Durbin anti-torture amendment survived virtually unchanged. On Saturday, the Senate and House approved the conference report and the bill was sent to the President for his signature. From a Durbin press release received today by e-mail:

Legislative language written by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) to affirm the United States’ commitment not to engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was approved as part of the Defense Authorization bill this weekend by the U.S. Senate. The amendment codifies a very important, long-standing position of our nation: that the United States shall not engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This is a standard that is embodied in the U.S. Constitution and in numerous international agreements which the United States has ratified.

Durbin’s provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to issue guidelines to ensure compliance with this standard and to provide these guidelines to Congress. The Defense Secretary would also be required to report to Congress on any suspected violations of the prohibition on torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Durbin language specifically provides that this information should be provided to Congress in a manner and form that would protect national security.

I'm also told that the anti-torture provision in the Intelligence Reform bill passed by the Senate last week extends the Durbin amendment’s requirements to the intelligence community, including the CIA.

Durbin and other Democrats will be fighting hard to retain these provisions in conference. When the conferee's names are released, I'll be posting them along with contact information.

There's going to be a showdown. The House passed its Intelligence Reform bill this afternoon. The Senate passed its version earlier this week. The two are dramatically different in that the House version contains expanded law enforcement powers. Now the House and Senate will appoint conferees to see if they can hammer out a single version in time to get it to Bush for signing before the election.

The House version stinks. One additional note: The provision that would have allowed the U.S. to deport non-citizens to a country that might torture them was scrapped. Here's what they got instead:

Sen. Patrick Leahy, who has championed the Innocence Protection Act for the past several years, is putting a good face on today's House passage of Rep. Sensenbrenner's (R-WI) (mostly) victims' rights bill, H.R. 5107, the "Justice for All Act."

While this bill is far from what was hoped for and what is needed from an innocence perspective, it's better than no bill at all. I have nothing but praise for Senator Leahy and Congressmen Bill Delahunt and Ray La Hood who fought the Administration long and hard to get as much as they could for those who wrongfully languish in our nations' prisons and on death row. But for their tenacity and dedication, there would be no relief in sight.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where, believe it or not, the White House, Ashcroft, and two Republican Senators (Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl) remain opposed to it. Leahy and Sensenbrenner today called upon them to get out of the way of the bill's passage.

Here's the official spin, followed by the reality:

The Justice For All Act of 2004 (HR 5107...includes many provisions from a victims’ rights bill that was already passed by the full Senate and incorporates the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act (H.R. 3214/S. 1700). This omnibus legislation enhances the rights and protections for all persons involved in the criminal justice system through two different, but complementary, mechanisms: (1) a new set of statutory victims' rights that are both enforceable in a court of law and supported by fully-funded victims' assistance programs; and (2) a comprehensive DNA bill that seeks to ensure that the true offender is caught and convicted for the crime.

The Senate today passed its version of a bill containing reforms recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Now that bill must be reconciled with H.R. 10, the House version of the bill, which is an abomination and goes far beyond any recommendations of the Commission.

A principle objection by civil liberties and human rights groups is Section 3006 of the bill that allows the U.S. to send immigrants to countries that practice torture. Check out this statement from the ACLU, which describes the provisions of the bill:

On October 27, 2003, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed S. 1194, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003. The Act was introduced by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) and would be a good start towards ensuring that mentally ill offenders receive the proper treatment they need with grants designed to create community based treatment programs and other services.

The bill has now been scheduled to reach the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, October 6. There appears to be great bipartisan support for the bill but under the rules the House is following, the bill will need a two-thirds majority in order to pass.

Please contact your Representative ASAP and ask him orher to vote for S. 1194, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003. If you don't know your Representative's phone number, call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and asked to be connected to his or her office.

[source: e-mail from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.]

Here is Sen. Leahy's statement on why the bill will reduce crime. AFSCME, the the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, also strongly endorses the bill.

The LA Times today urges voters to vote for Proposition 66 which would reform the state's notorious and draconian three-strikes sentencing law. After noting that the law was passed in a hurry in a response to the killing of 12 year old Polly Klass, the Times says:

..only in California can conviction on any third felony put someone behind bars for life. That singularity points to what is wrong with the California law, despite its emotionally wrenching origins.

Here are some facts on the law and proposed reform:

The American Bar Association issued this statement today in opposition to H.R. 11 the Extraordinary Rendition bill we have critized here:

The American Bar Association objects strongly to the inclusion of provisions authorizing "extraordinary rendition" in the House leadership's bill that purports to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. These provisions would permit secretly transferring terrorist suspects to foreign countries known to use torture in interrogating prisoners. Extraordinary rendition not only violates all basic humanitarian and human rights standards, but violates U.S. treaty obligations which make clear that the U.S. government cannot avoid its obligations under international law by having other nations conduct unlawful interrogations in its stead. This practice not only violates our own cherished principles as a nation but also works to undermine our moral leadership in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Rejecting extraordinary rendition will demonstrate our respect for the rule of law and help protect American troops who may be detained by adversaries who may be disinclined to honor international obligations in light of the U.S. government's failure to honor its own.

[link via Memeorandum] More from Fafblog and Obsidian Wings.

Update: The White House endorses the bill.

Law Prof Michael Froomkin of Discourse.Net says a vote for Bush is a vote for Torture.

For more, visit Human Rights First (formerly Lawyers Committee for Human Rights). From their press release (received by email):

"SNEAK PROVISIONS" OF HOUSE 9/11 BILL WOULD PERMIT TORTURE
The House and Senate continued work this week on legislation to enact many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. While the Senate bill has focused on increasing cooperation among the nation's 15 intelligence agencies, the House bill includes provisions unrelated - or directly contrary - to the Commission's recommendations. Among the most disturbing provisions is one to evade U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture and permit the United States to "render" individuals to countries known to practice torture. The House bill also reintroduces provisions of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, legislation that was tabled after Human Rights First and other groups denounced it as a threat to civil liberties with no benefits for national security.

In more legal terms,

Finally, a little backbone. Democrats have realized that the GOP is padding the 9/11 Intelligence bill with extraneous provisions.

House Republicans who want the Sept. 11 bill to include other anti-terrorism and immigration enforcement powers produced a 300-plus page package laden with bills they had introduced before the Sept. 11 report came out. By doing a large, comprehensive bill that would increase police powers and implement new anti-immigration measures such as denying immigrants certain court appeals and allowing more people to be arrested on accusations of supporting a terrorist group, House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., says they're responding to what the Sept. 11 commission wants: greater security for America.

All but one Democrat, Adam Schiff (D-CA) voted against the bill.

At the end of the day, we are left with a bill that not only does not implement all of the 9/11 commission's recommendations, but that includes numerous extraneous, unnecessary and controversial provisions," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the committee's top Democrat. The Senate won't accept those items when it comes time to negotiate a final bill, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said. "This is their way of stopping the 9/11 commission's recommendations from being implemented."

Fine. Let them stop the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Better that than enacting another turkey of a bill in the name of anti-terrorism.

The ACLU has all the disturbing details of the Republican proposed measure.

As if there weren't enough problems with the new anti-terror bill Congress is considering under the guise of implementing the 9/11 Commission Report, Obsidian Wings finds another one--and it's chilling. In plain English, Kathryn says, it would legalize torture--and she's asked us to reprint the salient features:

The Republican leadership of Congress is attempting to legalize extraordinary rendition. "Extraordinary rendition" is the euphemism we use for sending terrorism suspects to countries that practice torture for interrogation. As one intelligence official described it in the Washington Post, "We don't kick the sh*t out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the sh*t out of them.”

Yesterday we wrote about the new anti-terror bill being pushed through Congress by Republicans anxious to get it passed and signed into law by Bush before Nov. 2. Here's more--go grab your Pepto Dismal, you'll need it:

S. 2679 contains the largest expansion of federal powers since the USA PATRIOT Act, with the most serious consequences for civil liberties, that have been proposed since the demise of the much-maligned "Domestic Security Enhancement Act," also called "Patriot Act II." While the Domestic Security Enhancement Act provoked a firestorm of criticism and never proceeded beyond the drafting stage, a number of its contentious provisions have been given new life in S. 2679.

Check out Section 110 of the bill.

Here it comes. Just in time for the looming election. Republicans are attempting to pass significant additions to the Patriot Act via hurried proceedings in the Senate, including provisions from last year's Patriot Act II. The chances are good they will succeed. Their goal is to have the legislation, S. 2679, the "Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004, signed by Bush before November 2. For more, and for what you can do to protest, visit here:

ACLU: here and here.

"Instead of considering new laws to further erode our privacy and freedoms, the Senate should be reviewing the Patriot Act to bring it in line with the Constitution."

The opposition to that point of view is organizing. Read about the letter from law enforcement types in today's Washington Times supporting The Patriot Act. The names on the list alone are frightening--Ted Olson, Rudy Giuiliani. And they've formed a new group--"Coalition for Security, Liberty and the Law."

Let's not let Congress pass another law without adequate time for relection and open debate. Act in haste, repent at leisure.