At the end of September, in what many have seen as a betrayal of civil liberties, Congress authorized the use of military tribunals to try suspected terrorists and consented to a degree of leeway in interrogation techniques.
In the almost two weeks following this major legislative victory for President George W. Bush, Massachusetts legislators have been among the most vocal opponents of the administration's newly legitimized powers in the fight against terrorism.
One of the most common concerns among Massachusetts politicians has been that the bill, which also denies habeas corpus to people who are ruled to be enemy combatants or are awaiting a decision on their status, robs suspects of the chance to prove their innocence.
"It's outrageous for them not to be able to challenge the reasons they were locked up," Democratic U.S. Representative Barney Frank told the Daily.
"My problem is not how we treat terrorists," he said. "It's how we treat people who are accused of terrorism."
Democratic U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy agrees with the need to preserve civil liberties. "All detainees should have access to some form of review to ensure that their captivity is justified," Melissa Wagoner, a spokesperson for Kennedy, told the Daily in an e-mail. "It's wrong to take away the fundamental right to file a habeas corpus petition."
These sentiments resounded in the votes of eleven Democratic Massachusetts legislators who voted against the bill. None of Massachusetts' representatives to Congress voted for it, and one, Democrat Martin Meehan, did not vote.
According to Democratic Senator John Kerry, this uniform rejection is an important statement by Massachusetts politicians.
"Massachusetts should be proud that its congressional delegation sent a unified message that America should not shred its moral authority or endanger American troops by standing for torture," Kerry told the Daily through his press office.
He was referring to the leeway that the bill gives the administration in devising interrogation techniques, short of those that involve "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment as defined by a previous piece of legislation.
Democratic State Representative Carl Sciortino (LA '00) is also happy with the message that the state has sent. "I am glad to have representation in Congress that respects the Constitution and the rights of individuals," he said.
A common argument among those that oppose the bill is that it is possible to preserve security while maintaining civil liberties.
"We understand that you can have a very effective...system without sacrificing basic rights," Frank told the Daily. "Yes, we have a right to defend ourselves against people who are doing us harm, [but this bill is] bad public policy."
This resolve has not been felt by all Democrats nationwide. In the Senate, twelve Democrats voted for the bill and in the House of Representatives, thirty-two did.
Frank offered two explanations for why Democrats might vote for the bill. "In some cases it's genuine agreement, but in most cases it's fear of retribution," he said.
Sciortino, although his jurisdiction is in state rather than national politics, said the fear Frank spoke of is a recognizable theme in the Bush administration.
"We're living in an environment where the Republicans are pressing the culture of fear for political gains, and I think this is another example of this gimmick," he said.
Associate Professor of Political Science Richard Eichenberg agreed that Bush is carefully portraying the issue to create the maximum impact.
"He has been framing that bill in terms of being for or against the fight against terrorism," he said.
He said that Massachusetts politicians have been in a unique position to counter this posture because they do not have to worry about maintaining their seats in the November elections.
"They're all in 100 percent safe seats," he said. "The president couldn't touch them if he wanted to. They're politically safe."
Still, he said that given the powerful and emotional depiction of the bill, arguing against it is a difficult task.
"It's very difficult to make a case against the bill on the basis of its constitutional detail precisely because it requires a lot of knowledge of the Constitution and the language of the bill is so complicated and even murky," he said.
Kayt Norris, the president of the Tufts Democrats, agrees. "It's a very uphill battle to explain an issue in a different way than the issue's being portrayed by the Bush administration and the media at large," she said.
Even though their collective will was not strong enough to prevent the passage of the bill, many Massachusetts legislators believe that the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn parts of it.
"Senator [Kennedy] believes the bill's denial of habeas corpus is unconstitutional and looks forward to its challenge in court," Wagoner told the Daily.
Frank has similar hopes. "There are some things that, even if Congress authorizes [them], may be proved unconstitutional," he said.
Due to a production error, a paragraph was accidentally omitted from the print edition of Rob Silverblatt's article, "Mass. pols speak out on torture and tribunals."
