The Independent has led us to a great suggestion for an unofficial motto for the Fred Thompson presidential campaign: Vote Fred Thompson 2008… Or 2009, Maybe. He’ll Get Around To It, Okay?

Fred Thompson’s supporters are getting downright ticked off at the candidate’s series of delays and excuses for not getthing his formal presidential campaign going on time. Fred Thompson is still officially exploring the possibility of becoming a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, but now that there’s just a few months before the primaries begin, Thompson is failing even to meet his exploratory campaign’s fundraising goals.

Rumors are that Fred Thompson just has a hard time getting out of bed in the morning and making himself work on the campaign. As the Independent puts it, “procrastination has cost him some of his lustre. He also has a reputation for laziness, and there are claims that he does not have the energy for presidential campaign.”

Well, Fred Thompson certainly is positioning himself well to appeal to the lazy procrastinators among American citizens. Of course, that’s not the most reliable group of Americans. Most of them still haven’t gotten around to filling out a registration to vote, you see, and even those who do register find it to be just too much work to get out and actually vote.

The sloth seems to have infected Fred Thompson’s once bright and cheery supporters, the self-described FredHeads, who don’t even bother to complain when we criticize Fred Thompson any more… too much work.

Unity08 has just electronically filed its report itemizing contributions of at least $200 for the first six months of 2007. You can read it here yourself.

There are many important pieces of information to sift through here, and you can trust that I will. But the figure that jumps out most immediately is that $460,000.00 — a majority amount of all contributions to Unity08 in the first six months of 2007 — came from just three people:

1. Robert Bingham, technology investor. Loaned $250,000.00 to Unity08 on May 15, 2007, contributed outright $500 on February 1, 2007 and contributed outright $4,500 on April 26, 2007. Total contribution to Unity08 to date: $255,000.00. These monetary contributions occurred before news emerged that Douglas Bailey was ousted as CEO of Unity08 and Robert Bingham was to be the new CEO of Unity08 in public, on June 4 of 2007 on KPBS.

2. George Vradenburg, Past VP for Global and Strategy Policy at AOL, current President of the Vradenburg Foundation, current Member Council on Foreign Relations. Loaned $100,000.00 to Unity08 on June 11, 2007 and contributed outright $5,000 on February 1, 2007. Also contributed outright $5,000 to Unity08 on August 14, 2006. Total contribution to Unity08 to date: $110,000.00.

3. Martin “Marty” Capdevilla, founder and president of Frontier Trading Inc., a grocery export business in San Diego. Loaned $100,000.00 to Unity08 on June 22, 2007.

The IRS filing shows that without the massive contributions from these three individuals, Unity08’s expenses would have outstripped its expenses in the first six months of 2007 by more than $23,000. These loans were the difference between Unity08 being solvent and Unity08 being broke. What’s more, the expenses listed for the first six months of 2007 do not include any charges from Weiss Linescale Corporation, the market research firm which is currently executing the first round of voting in Unity08’s presidential selection process under some unknown conditions. Unity08 would not have been able to proceed with its presidential selection process without the massive contributions from Bingham, Vradenburg and Capdevilla.

In short, Unity08 has put itself in a circumstance of high dependence upon the largesse Bingham, Vradenburg and Capdevilla. As Richard Emerson noted more than 40 years ago, dependence puts one in another’s power. This is not planning for a Sunday School Picnic we’re talking about here. Unity08 plans to nominate and elect its own candidates for president and vice president of the most powerful nation on the planet. So it’s entirely appropriate to ask questions, and to expect some answers to them:

1. What are the terms of these loans?

4. Has Unity08 or Unity08 leadership made any promises or assurances to Bingham, Vradenburg, Capdevilla, or any person or body associated with them? If so, what are they?

In the summer of 2006, when Unity08 debuted on the public scene, it promised to act “in the spirit of greater financial transparency, which is sorely lacking in politics today.” In January of 2007, Unity08 deleted that pledge from its website.

Unity08 can answer these questions quickly and completely, demonstrating its commitment to the spirit of greater financial transparency, which indeed is sorely lacking in politics today. Or Unity08 can refuse to answer these questions, demonstrating something different altogether, and leading those citizens who aren’t in the corporation’s inner circle to wonder and to speculate.

Often, we’re tempted to think of politics in merely human terms, but the impact of misguided political ideologies goes far beyond our own dwellings, to even the most remote places on Earth. Just one example of the connection of human politics to the health of non-human life is the grey whale.

Miles out into the Pacific Ocean, starving grey whales have been taken to the brink by the right wing obsession with oil. That same obsession with oil may also finally push them into extinction.

Imagine whales so thin that you can see their ribs. That’s what scientists have been seeing in Pacific waters, identifying grey whales migrating between the Arctic and the Gulf of Mexico. The prevailing theory is that the whales are having trouble finding enough to eat, due to a combination of overfishing and climate change.

Climate change is being brought about by the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum. It’s ironic, then, that the quest for even more petroleum threatens the Arctic sanctuary key to the survival of the Pacific grey whale.

The starving whales must make their way up to the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea, to the north of Alaska. Once there, they depend upon what have historically been rich supplies of food, enabled by a combination of cold, clean, peaceful waters and strong upwelling currents.

That food supply, already compromised by climate change, may soon be reduced even further by a plan hatched by the Bush White House to lease out large areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas to companies seeking to drill for petroleum and natural gas. That activity, even if major oil spills are avoided, will disturb what ecological integrity remains, leaving even less for the starving grey whales to eat.

William Megill, who studies the grey whales, reminds us that the problems affecting the Pacific grey whales extend far beyond the grey whales themselves. “I hesitate to get too alarmist,” he says, “but this summer will tell a lot about the future of our planet.”

(Sources: Alaska Wilderness League, The Independent, July 10, 2007)

Oh, I know he doesn’t say it that way, but Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has proposed huge levels of new federal spending on immigration.

Mr. Giuliani has sent me a letter in which he writes:

I have a sign at the front of my desk that says, “I’m responsible.” I want you to look at the Twelve Commitments attached to this letter and hold me accountable for implementing them.

One of Giuliani’s Twelve Commitments:

End illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.

Giuliani says he is committed to ending illegal immigration. Not decreasing it. Ending it. The only way to end illegal immigration is to implement a Korea-style zone with mines and multiple razor-wire electrified fences along the entire length of the U.S. - Mexico and U.S. - Canada borders. But there’s more. We’ll also have to post constant armed guards every 100 feet along the more than 12,000 miles of saltwater coastline, plus the Great Lakes coastline too. That’s the only way to end illegal immigration, and it will bankrupt our nation. But Giuliani’s made his commitment, so there you go!

Then there’s Giuliani’s commitment to identifying every non-citizen in our nation. This is a more intensive process than the decennial U.S. Census, which will cost an estimated $11.3 Billion in 2010. To find and identify every non-citizen in the nation requires looking for people many of whom are undocumented, many of whom do not have social security numbers, and who may be even hiding. Citizens will have to regularly be stopped and told to supply identity papers to make sure they are not really non-citizens. When government agents somehow finally find every non-citizen in America, they will have to be identified. That means they’ll have to be questioned, and definitive records will have to be shipped from home countries. Where those records don’t exist, the U.S. government will have to send people overseas to interview family members and other known contacts. And so we have another intrusive, hugely expensive big government program.

Big government. Huge amounts of new spending. That’s what Rudolph Giuliani has committed himself to…

… unless he’s not being serious when making commitments he says we should hold him to.

Almost two years ago, I wrote an article about a web site called Katrina No More, which was dedicated to following the scientific and political debate about the relationship between global warming and the power and frequency of hurricanes.

Sadly, Katrina No More is no more. Looking for updates after reading an article at Scientific American about new research that provides an even stronger link between global warming and hurricane activity, I went back to Katrina No More, and found nothing but a Forbidden message, telling me about a 403 error. It’s a shame that the Katrina No More web site is down after less than two years.

There is, however, another Katrina No More web site that is up, this one at KatrinaKnowMore.org instead of at KatrinaNoMore.org. Clever name shift. The site that remains, however, has not been updated since May, 2006.

Perhaps today, with the news of the new study confirming a link between global warming and hurricane activity, would be a good day for the people at KatrinaKnowMore.org to get back in the game. I’ll be checking back.

It started back in 2003, when President George W. Bush got a report from the Pentagon that warned that climate change was a greater threat to national security than terrorism. Bush tried to cover up the report.

Then in 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit, and soon after, a scientific study linked global warming and hurricane intensity. Republicans criticized the study. By the spring of 2006, scientists had responded to those criticisms, strengthened their analysis, and found that, even when skeptics’ criticisms of the study were taken into account, there was a still a strong link between global warming and hurricane intensity.

So, skeptics came forward with more criticisms. They questioned whether the number of powerful hurricanes might have appeared to have increased over the years, as global temperatures have increased, simply because technology has enabled us to find and describe hurricanes more accurately in recent years.

What did the scientists do? They didn’t dismiss the new criticisms. They sought to examine the criticisms through statistical analysis, to see if they had merit. They assumed that the critics were right, and adjusted their analysis to include the presumption that as many as five hurricanes per year had been missed before the development of satellite tracking technology. They found that, even if those hurricanes really had been missed, the association between global warming and hurricane strength remains.

That’s how science works. It’s open to criticism, and it becomes stronger because it incorporates criticism into its findings in order to get a better model of reality. Progressives support the integrity of the scientific process, opposing Republican efforts to use government power to distort scientific analysis for political purposes.

We need science to be truly open so that we can understand the threats we face as they really are, not as the Republicans wish the threats would be. Both because of what science reveals to us and for the sake of science itself, we need to elect a progressive President in 2008.

(Source: Scientific American, July 30, 2007)

Look at an Aquafina label and you’ll see the white outline of a mountain. Visit the Aquafina website to click on “water facts” and you’ll see the Pepsi corporation talk about spring water. But is Aquafina spring water? No. Aquafina is tap water. $1.50 a liter for tap water in a plastic bottle.

So, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had a “seizure” yesterday. It wasn’t the first time, you know.

According to the New York Daily News, this kind of “seizure” has happened to John Roberts at least one time before. They report that John Roberts also fell down and lost consciousness while playing golf back in 1993.

This time, he was on a dock in at his vacation home in Port Clyde, Maine. I know Port Clyde. It’s not exactly a bustling metropolis. It’s a sleepy little town by the ocean, with bed and breakfasts and rental cottages. It’s the kind of place that people like John Roberts go to in order to relax.

So, I doubt the suggestion in the Daily News article that these seizures could be brought on by stress. The kind of stress that is required to bring on seizures is pretty rare in places like out on the golf course or on a boat dock at a vacation home. If John Roberts really is having stress-induced seizures that lead him to lose consciousness and fall down while playing golf and walking out on the dock at his oceanside vacation home, then he’s a maniac.

There is something other than stress that can induce “seizures” that make people fall down and lose consciousness: Psychoactive drugs. Remember when Britney Spears all of a sudden lost consciousness and had to be carried out of her birthday party? It wasn’t stress that caused that incident.

How do we know that Justice John Roberts isn’t losing consciousness because he’s on some kind of drug obtained by prescription or on the street?

If John Roberts is taking psychoactive drugs, he wouldn’t be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to do so. His predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was hooked on the psychoactive drug Placidyl for years while serving as Chief Justice, and was often under the influence of the drug while hearing arguments in legal cases before the Court.

The world did not learn of William Rehnquist’s drug habit until he died. Until then, it was all hushed up, and Rehnquist refused to step down.

So, it’s really not out of hand to speculate that John Roberts is having issues of his own with psychoactive drugs. We don’t know that his blackouts are caused by drugs, but on the other hand, we also don’t know that the blackouts are not caused by drugs.

It’s a mystery that may only be solved after John Roberts dies himself. In the meanwhile, all our lives will be shaped by the decisions Roberts makes.

The New York Times has a very good article written by Janny Scott on the eight years’ experience of Barack Obama as a state legislator in Illinois. I strongly suggest it.

According to the Associated Press, doctors examining Chief Justice John Roberts have declared his neurological episode earlier today a “benign idiopathic seizure.” Sounds highfalutin’ and technical, doesn’t it?

“Idiopathic” is fancy-pants doctor speak for “we have no idea what caused this.”

The Unity08 official presidential process has begun. Since I am a registered delegate to Unity08, the registered corporation has sent me a personalized link to complete the first round of voting on what they call “the American Agenda” — the list of issues that are considered “critical” by members.

The way Unity08 has asked which issues are “critical” is very, hmm, interesting, and I’ll talk about that in a little while. But first I’d like to talk about process. Because Unity08 has now commenced with its procedure to select a presidential and a vice presidential candidate, with initial voting beginning already, it has become important to know how and with what security and safeguards Unity08 is proceeding.

It’s not just me saying that Unity08 has started off with its presidential decision-making procedure; Unity08 says so itself. Its e-mail inviting delegates to follow their individualized links reads, “It’s time for your voice to be heard. Welcome to the very first opportunity for you, as a Unity08 member, to help determine the Unity08 agenda. This is not just research for a couple hundred - it is an actual vote of all Unity08 members. You and all members can directly shape Unity08 priorities on issues, candidate qualifications, and even Unity08 operations. There are no criteria for who can participate and we hope that every single member participates!” And Unity08 Vice President Bob Roth himself terms it “The First Vote for the American Agenda.” The determination of which issues are “crucial” will set the parameters according to which the Unity08 candidates will be examined and chosen. Much earlier than for the Democratic and Republican parties, the Unity08 presidential selection has begun. This means it is crucial for the integrity of its process that Unity08 has all its ducks in a row, and that it protects the security of its votes and the integrity of its process, whatever that process is.

Over on the Unity08 boards, Dachannien and em43ny have asked two questions about safeguards for the voting procedure:

1. What steps have been taken, if any, to prevent sockpuppetry (aka, where one person creates a bunch of different accounts to influence the results unfairly)?

2. How do you know people who desire to be delegates are US citizens qualified to vote?

These are reasonable questions. As a delegate, I have not been asked for any verification of my citizenship or my voter registration status, and yet I have been allowed to vote in this first round. Also, for purposes of exploration I have indeed been able to create a second account that could be used for “sockpuppetry.” Although I have not and will not use this second account for ethical reasons, my “sockpuppet” account has been invited to vote.

Although Unity08 representatives have answered multiple other non-critical questions on the page where Dachannien and em43ny posted their questions, no one from Unity08 has answered their questions as of now.

There are other questions that have not been addressed by Unity08 regarding this first vote as well as future votes. We know from experience that Unity 08 Vice President Bob Roth and Unity08 Chief Operating Office Anya T. Harris pop by this website — and I know from experience that my posts at Unity08.com have been deleted and edited — so I’ll ask my questions here, adding to those by Dachannien and em43ny:

3. Are votes and other responses personally identifiable by Unity08 staff or other individuals? That is, is it possible for someone to determine who voted how? If so, who has access to this information? If not, how is the anonymity of a vote protected while maintaining vote security?

4. Will the voting procedure be audited for security and accuracy? If so, by whom?

5. In the text for its first round of voting, Unity08 refers to itself as a “good, grass roots movement.” Grass roots movements are open. Will aggregated responses to each question from this first vote be publicly posted?

6. Will a multivariate data file consisting of responses to all questions, organized by case, be made publicly available for analysis? If so, how will personal identifying information be protected? If not, by what means can results be verified?

If you have any questions about the process Unity08 has implemented now that rounds of voting have begun, please post them here. I’d like to say I’m sure that Unity08 corporate leadership is sure to answer those questions, “in the spirit of transparency which is sorely lacking in politics today,” to quote Unity08 in 2006. But Unity08 deleted that text, and I can’t say for sure how dedicated to transparency Unity08 actually is. The actions of Unity08 corporate leaders will let us know.

The Library of Congress doesn’t officially have the text of Senator Joseph Biden’s S. 1876 on its Thomas database yet. But the Congressional Record does. Until Thomas catches up, here’s the text of S. 1876, the National Security with Justice Act of 2007:

S. 1876

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “National Security with Justice Act of 2007”.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act–

(1) the term “aggrieved person”–

(A) means any individual subject by an officer or agent of the United States either to extraterritorial detention or rendition, except as authorized in this Act; and

(B) does not include any individual who is an international terrorist;

(2) the term “element of the intelligence community” means an element of the intelligence community specified in or designated under section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4));

(3) the term “extraterritorial detention” means detention of any individual by an officer or agent of the United States outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States;

(4) the term “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court” means the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a));

(5) the term “Geneva Conventions” means–

(A) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

(B) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

(C) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

(D) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516);

(6) the term “international terrorist” means–

(A) any person, other than a United States person, who engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; and

(B) any person who knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A);

(7) the terms “international terrorism” and “United States person” have the meanings given those terms in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801);

(8) the term “officer or agent of the United States” includes any officer, employee, agent, contractor, or subcontractor acting for or on behalf of the United States; and

(9) the terms “render” and “rendition”, relating to an individual, mean that an officer or agent of the United States transfers that individual from the legal jurisdiction of the United States or a foreign country to a different legal jurisdiction (including the legal jurisdiction of the United States or a foreign country) without authorization by treaty or by the courts of either such jurisdiction, except under an order of rendition issued under section 104.

SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec..1..Short title.

Sec..2..Definitions.

Sec..3..Table of contents.

TITLE I–EXTRATERRITORIAL DETENTION AND RENDITION

Sec..101..Prohibition on extraterritorial detention.

Sec..102..Prohibition on rendition.

Sec..103..Application for an order of rendition.

Sec..104..Issuance of an order of rendition.

Sec..105..Authorizations and orders for emergency detention.

Sec..106..Uniform Standards for the Interrogation of Individuals Detained by the Government of the United States.

Sec..107..Protection of United States Government Personnel Engaged in an Interrogation.

Sec..108..Monitoring and reporting regarding the treatment, conditions of confinement, and status of legal proceedings of individuals rendered to foreign governments.

Sec..109..Report to Congress.

Sec..110..Civil liability.

Sec..111..Additional resources for foreign intelligence surveillance court.

Sec..112..Rule of construction.

Sec..113..Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II–ENEMY COMBATANTS

Sec..201..Modification of definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” for purposes of military commissions.

TITLE III–HABEAS CORPUS

Sec..301..Extending statutory habeas corpus to detainees.

TITLE I–EXTRATERRITORIAL DETENTION AND RENDITION

SEC. 101. PROHIBITION ON EXTRATERRITORIAL DETENTION.

(a) In General.–Except as provided in subsection (b), no officer or agent of the United States shall engage in the extraterritorial detention of any individual.

(b) Exceptions.–This section shall not apply to–

(1) an individual detained and timely transferred to a foreign legal jurisdiction or the legal jurisdiction of the United States under an order of rendition issued under section 104 or an emergency authorization under section 105;

(2) an individual–

(A) detained by the Armed Forces of the United States in accordance with United States Army Regulation 190-8 (1997), or any successor regulation certified by the Secretary of Defense; and

(B) detained by the Armed Forces of the United States–

(i) under circumstances governed by, and in accordance with, the Geneva Conventions;

(ii) in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723 (2004);

(iii) at the Bagram, Afghanistan detention facility; or

(iv) at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center on the date of enactment of this Act;

(3) an individual detained by the Armed Forces of the United States under circumstances governed by, and in accordance with chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice);

(4) an individual detained by the Armed Forces of the United States subject to an agreement with a foreign government and in accordance with the relevant laws of that foreign country when the Armed Forces of the United States are providing assistance to that foreign government; or

(5) an individual detained pursuant to a peacekeeping operation authorized by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

SEC. 102. PROHIBITION ON RENDITION.

(a) In General.–Except as provided in subsection (b), no officer or agent of the United States shall render or participate in the rendition of any individual.

(b) Exceptions.–This section shall not apply to–

(1) an individual rendered under an order of rendition issued under section 104;

(2) an individual detained and transferred by the Armed Forces of the United States under circumstances governed by, and in accordance with, the Geneva Conventions;

(3) an individual–

(A) for whom an attorney for the United States or for any State has filed a criminal indictment, criminal information, or any similar criminal charging document in any district court of the United States or criminal court of any State; and

(B) who is timely transferred to the United States for trial;

(4) an individual–

(A) who was convicted of a crime in any State or Federal court;

(B) who–

(i) escaped from custody prior to the expiration of the sentence imposed; or

(ii) violated the terms of parole, probation, or supervised release; and

(C) who is promptly returned to the United States–

(i) to complete the term of imprisonment; or

(ii) for trial for escaping imprisonment or violating the terms of parole or supervised release; or

(5) an individual detained by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center on the date of enactment of this Act who is transferred to a foreign legal jurisdiction.

SEC. 103. APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF RENDITION.

(a) In General.–A Federal officer or agent may make an application for an order of rendition in writing, upon oath or affirmation, to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, if the Attorney General of the United States or the Deputy Attorney General of the United States determines that the requirements under this title for such an application have been satisfied.

(b) Contents.–Each application under subsection (a) shall include–

(1) the identity of the Federal officer or agent making the application;

(2) a certification that the Attorney General of the United States or the Deputy Attorney General of the United States has approved the application;

(3) the identity of the specific individual to be rendered;

(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the good faith belief of the applicant that–

(A) the individual to be rendered is an international terrorist;

(B) the country to which the individual is to be rendered will not subject the individual to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, within the meaning of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York on December 10, 1984;

(C) the country to which the individual is to be rendered will timely initiate legal proceedings against that individual that comport with fundamental notions of due process; and

(D) rendition of that individual is important to the national security of the United States; and

(5) a full and complete statement regarding–

(A) whether ordinary legal procedures for the transfer of custody of the individual to be rendered have been tried and failed; or

(B) the facts and circumstances that justify the good faith belief of the applicant that ordinary legal procedures reasonably appear to be–

(i) unlikely to succeed if tried; or

(ii) unlikely to adequately protect intelligence sources or methods.

(c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.–Section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(g) The court established under subsection (a) may hear an application for and issue, and the court established under subsection (b) may review the issuing or denial of, an order of rendition under section 104 of the National Security with Justice Act of 2007.”.

SEC. 104. ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF RENDITION.

(a) In General.–Upon filing of an application under section 103, a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified approving the rendition, if the judge finds that–

(1) the Attorney General of the United States or the Deputy Attorney General of the United States has approved the application for rendition;

(2) the application has been made by a Federal officer or agent;

(3) the application establishes probable cause to believe that the individual to be rendered is an international terrorist;

(4) ordinary legal procedures for transfer of custody of the individual have been tried and failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed for any of the reasons described in section 103(b)(5)(B);

(5) the application, and such other information as is available to the judge, including reports of the Department of State and the United Nations Committee Against Torture and information concerning the specific characteristics and circumstances of the individual, establish a substantial likelihood that the country to which the individual is to be rendered will not subject the individual to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, within the meaning of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, done at New York on December 10, 1984;

(6) the application, and such other information as is available to the judge, establish reason to believe that the country to which the individual is to be rendered will timely initiate legal proceedings against that individual that comport with fundamental notions of due process; and

(7) the application establishes reason to believe that rendition of the individual to be rendered is important to the national security of the United States.

(b) Appeal.–The Government may appeal the denial of an application for an order under subsection (a) to the court of review established under section 103(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(b)), and further proceedings with respect to that application shall be conducted in a manner consistent with that section 103(b).

SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATIONS AND ORDERS FOR EMERGENCY DETENTION.

(a) In General.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, and subject to subsection (b), the President or the Director of National Intelligence may authorize the Armed Forces of the United States or an element of the intelligence community, acting within the scope of existing authority, to detain an international terrorist in a foreign jurisdiction if the President or the Director of National Intelligence reasonably determines that–

(1) failure to detain that individual will result in a risk of imminent death or imminent serious bodily injury to any individual or imminent damage to or destruction of any United States facility; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order of rendition under paragraphs (3) and (7) of section 104(a) exists.

(b) Notice and Application.–The President or the Director of National Intelligence may authorize an individual be detained under subsection (a) if–

(1) the President or the Director of National Intelligence, or the designee of the President or the Director of National Intelligence, at the time of such authorization, immediately notifies the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the President or the Director of National Intelligence has determined to authorize that an individual be detained under subsection (a); and

(2) an application in accordance with this title is made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the President or the Director of National Intelligence authorizes that individual to be detained.

(c) Emergency Rendition Prohibited.–The President or the Director of National Intelligence may not authorize the rendition to a foreign jurisdiction of, and the Armed Forces of the United States or an element of the intelligence community may not render to a foreign jurisdiction, an individual detained under this section, unless an order under section 104 authorizing the rendition of that individual has been obtained.

(d) Nondelegation.–Except as provided in this section, the authority and duties of the President or the Director of National Intelligence under this section may not be delegated.

SEC. 106. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General.–No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer or agent of the United States or detained in a facility operated by or on behalf of the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, or any other agency of the Government of the United States shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in United States Army Field Manual 2-22.3, entitled “Human Intelligence Collector Operations”.

(b) Applicability.–Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any individual in the custody or under the effective control of the Government of the United States based on–

(1) an arrest or conviction for violating Federal criminal law; or

(2) an alleged or adjudicated violation of the immigration laws of the United States.

(c) Construction.–Nothing in this section may be construed to diminish the rights under the Constitution of the United States of any individual in the custody or within the physical jurisdiction of the Government of the United States.

SEC. 107. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN AN INTERROGATION.

(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel.–In a civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer or agent of the United States relating to an interrogation, it shall be a defense that such officer or agent of the United States complied with section 106.

(b) Applicability.–Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any civil action or criminal prosecution relating to the interrogation of an individual in the custody or under the effective control of the Government of the United States based on–

(1) an arrest or conviction for violating Federal criminal law; or

(2) an alleged or adjudicated violation of the immigration laws of the United States.

(c) Provision of Counsel.–In any civil action or criminal prosecution arising from the alleged use of an authorized interrogation practice by an officer or agent of the United States, the Government of the United States may provide or employ counsel, and pay counsel fees, court costs, bail, and other expenses incident to representation.

(d) Construction.–Nothing in this section may be construed–

(1) to limit or extinguish any defense or protection from suit, civil or criminal liability, or damages otherwise available to a person or entity; or

(2) to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal offense by the proper authorities.

SEC. 108. MONITORING AND REPORTING REGARDING THE TREATMENT, CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT, AND STATUS OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS OF INDIVIDUALS RENDERED TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

(a) In General.–The Secretary of State shall–

(1) regularly monitor the treatment of, the conditions of confinement of, and the progress of legal proceedings against an individual rendered to a foreign legal jurisdiction under section 104; and

(2) not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, submit to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a report detailing the treatment of, the conditions of confinement of, and the progress of legal proceedings against any individual rendered to a foreign legal jurisdiction under section 104.

(b) Applicability.–The Secretary of State shall include in the reports required under subsection (a)(2) information relating to the treatment of, the conditions of confinement of, and the progress of legal proceedings against an individual rendered to a foreign legal jurisdiction under section 104 during the period beginning on the date that individual was rendered to a foreign legal jurisdiction under section 104 and ending on the date that individual is released from custody by that foreign legal jurisdiction.

SEC. 109. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

The Attorney General shall–

(1) submit to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives an annual report that contains–

(A) the total number of applications made for an order of rendition under section 104;

(B) the total number of such orders granted, modified, or denied;

(C) the total number of emergency authorizations issued under section 105; and

(D) such other information as requested by the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and

(2) make available to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a copy of each application made and order issued under this title.

SEC. 110. CIVIL LIABILITY.

(a) In General.–An aggrieved person shall have a cause of action against the head of the department or agency that subjected that aggrieved person to extraterritorial detention or a rendition in violation of this title and shall be entitled to recover–

(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 for each day of the violation;

(2) punitive damages; and

(3) reasonable attorney’s fees.

(b) Jurisdiction.–The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have original jurisdiction over any claim under this section.

SEC. 111. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT.

(a) Authority for Additional Judges.–Section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) is amended–

(1) by inserting “(1)” after “(a)”;

(2) in paragraph (1), as so designated, by inserting “at least” before “seven of the United States judicial circuits”;

(3) by striking “If any judge so designated” and inserting the following:

“(3) If any judge so designated”; and

(4) by inserting after paragraph (1), as so designated, the following:

“(2) In addition to the judges designated under paragraph (1), the Chief Justice of the United States may designate as judges of the court established by paragraph (1) such judges appointed under article III of the Constitution of the United States as the Chief Justice determines appropriate in order to provide for the prompt and timely consideration of applications under sections 103 of the National Security with Justice Act of 2007 for orders of rendition under section 104 of that Act. Any judge designated under this paragraph shall be designated publicly.”.

(b) Additional Legal and Other Personnel for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.–There is authorized for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court such additional staff personnel as may be necessary to facilitate the prompt processing and consideration by that Court of applications under section 103 for orders of rendition under section 104 approving rendition of an international terrorist. The personnel authorized by this section are in addition to any other personnel authorized by law.

SEC. 112. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this title may be construed as altering or adding to existing authorities for the extraterritorial detention or rendition of any individual.

SEC. 113. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title and the amendments made by this title.

TITLE II–ENEMY COMBATANTS

SEC. 201. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF “UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT” FOR PURPOSES OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

Section 948a(1)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking “means”; and

(2) by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting the following:

“(i) means a person who is not a lawful enemy combatant and who–

“(I) has engaged in hostilities against the United States; or

“(II) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States (other than hostilities engaged in as a lawful enemy combatant); and

“(ii) does not include any person who is–

“(I) a citizen of the United States or legally admitted to the United States; and

“(II) taken into custody in the United States.”.

TITLE III–HABEAS CORPUS

SEC. 301. EXTENDING STATUTORY HABEAS CORPUS TO DETAINEES.

(a) In General.–Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:

“(e)(1) The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of any person detained by the United States who has been–

“(A) determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant; or

“(B) detained by the United States for more than 90 days without such a determination.

“(2) The United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of any person detained by the United States who has been tried by military commission established under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, and has exhausted the appellate procedure under subchapter VI of that chapter.”.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.–

(1) IN GENERAL.–Subchapter VI of chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, is amended–

(A) by striking section 950g;

(B) in section 950h–

(i) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following: “Appointment of appellate counsel under this subsection shall be for purposes of this chapter only, and not for any proceedings relating to an application for a writ of habeas corpus relating to any matter tried by a military commission.”; and

(ii) in subsection (c), by striking “, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court,”;

(C) in section 950j–

(i) by striking “(a) Finality.–”; and

(ii) by striking subsection (b); and

(D) in the table of sections at the beginning of that subchapter, by striking the item relating to section 950g.

(2) DETAINEE TREATMENT ACTS.–

(A) IN GENERAL.–Section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-148; 119 Stat. 2742; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) is amended–

(i) in subsection (e)–

(I) by striking paragraph (2); and

(II) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively; and

(ii) in subsection (h)(2)–

(I) by striking “Paragraphs (2) and (3)” and inserting “Paragraph (2)”; and (II) by striking “one of such paragraphs” and inserting “that paragraph”.

(B) OTHER AMENDMENTS.–Section 1405 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3475; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) is amended–

(i) in subsection (e)–

(I) by striking paragraph (2); and

(II) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively; and

(ii) in subsection (h)(2)–

(I) by striking “Paragraphs (2) and (3)” and inserting “Paragraph (2)”; and

(II) by striking “one of such paragraphs” and inserting “that paragraph”.

(c) Rule of Construction.–Notwithstanding subsection (a), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to consider an action described in subparagraph (a) brought by an alien who is in the custody of the United States, in a zone of active hostility involving the United States Armed Forces, and where the United States is implementing United States Army Reg 190-8 (1997) or any successor, as certified by the Secretary of Defense.

That’s a lot to read and digest. Let’s get started.

The following is a piece of news which has to date only been briefly covered by international press: the Toronto Star, the Alalam News Network of Iran, the Financial Times of UK, and TV New Zealand. Two domestic news agencies have provided coverage: Voice of America and the International Herald-Tribune, but both are aimed at international audiences. On the internet more broadly, only Joe Biden’s own blog has noted the news, which has to do with a bill the Senator has introduced to Congress: S. 1876, the National Security with Justice Act of 2007.

Although our news media in the United States has ignored it, Biden’s National Security with Justice Act is important because it is the first bill introduced in either the House or the Senate since the beginning of the 110th Congress in January to deal with extraordinary rendition, the practice by which people are nabbed by the U.S. government, often on U.S. soil, and shipped off to foreign countries where they can be interrogated using means that would be against the law on U.S. soil. Those means, in case you haven’t guessed, are methods of torture.

I’ll post the text of Senator Biden’s bill in a moment, but first allow me to quote from Biden’s remarks in the Congressional Record this past Wednesday, July 25, as he introduced S. 1876:

One of the defining challenges of our age is to effectively combat international terrorism while maintaining our national values and our commitment to the rule of law, and respecting individual rights and civil liberties. To fight terrorist organizations whose tactics include blending into our cities and communities and attacking civilian populations engaged in the activities of everyday life, we must have robust and agile intelligence capabilities. Rendition, detaining a terrorist operative in one foreign country and transfering him to the United States or to another foreign country to face justice, has proved to be one effective means of taking terrorists off the streets and collecting valuable intelligence.

Despite its effectiveness, however, the U.S. Government’s use of rendition has been controversial. Foreign governments have criticized the practice as ungoverned by law and on the basis of its alleged use to transfer suspects to countries that torture or mistreat them or to secret, extraterritorial prisons. The toll the rendition program, as currently practiced, has had on relationships with some of our closest foreign partners is evident from their responses.

Italy has indicted 26 Americans for their alleged role in a rendition. Germany has issued arrest warrants for an additional 13 U.S. intelligence officers. A Canadian Government commission has censured the United States for rendering a Canadian/Syrian dual citizen to Syria. The Council of Europe and the European Union have each issued reports critical of the U.S. Government’s rendition program and European countries’ involvement or complicity in it. Sweden and Switzerland have each initiated investigations as well. Today, the United Kingdom issued a report predicting that the U.S. Government’s rendition program would have “serious implications” for the intelligence relation between the U.S. and U.K., one of our most important foreign partners. Rendition, as currently practiced, is undermining our moral credibility and standing abroad and weakening the coalitions with foreign governments that we need to effectively combat international terrorism.

The controversial aspects of the U.S. Government’s use of rendition have also not escaped the notice of the propagandists and recruiters who fuel and sustain international terrorist organizations with a constant stream of new recruits. Allegations of lawlessness and mistreatment by the U.S. make their job easier, adding a refrain to their recruitment pitch and increasing the receptivity of their target audience.

Our counterterrorism authorities should not only thwart attacks, take dangerous terrorists off the streets, and bring them to justice; these authorities should also strengthen international coalitions, draw Muslim populations around the world closer to us, and deprive terrorists of a recruitment narrative. In our long term effort to stem the tide of international terrorism, our commitments to the rule of law and to individual rights and civil liberties are among our most formidable weapons. They are what unite foreign governments behind us in effective counterterrorism coalitions. They are what unite public opinion in support of our counterterrorism efforts and in condemnation of the terrorists and their tactics. They are what prevent the recruitment of the next generation of international terrorists.

This bill maintains rendition as a robust and agile tool in our fight against international terrorism, but it brings that tool within the rule of law, provides additional safeguards against error, and prohibits rendering individuals to countries that will torture or mistreat them or to secret, extra-territorial prisons.

The bill establishes a classified application and order process, presided over by the FISA court that: 1. ensures that each rendition is preceded by a searching inquiry into the identity of the individual to be rendered and his role in international terrorism and 2. prohibits rendition to countries that torture or mistreat detainees or to secret, extraterritorial prisons beyond the reach of law. It ensures that citizens of, and individuals lawfully admitted to, the U.S. receive the due process and individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It ensures that a terrorist suspect detained by the U.S. has the opportunity, through a writ of habeas corpus, to argue in a court of law that he is being held in error.

This bill also closes a hole intentionally left open by the President’s recent Executive Order on the treatment of detainees. The President’s order is notably silent on some of the more controversial techniques the CIA has allegedly used in the past, such as waterboarding, extreme sleep deprivation, extreme sensory deprivation, and extremes of heat and cold. When we countenance this treatment of detainees, we diminish our ability to argue that the same techniques should not be used against our own troops.

We cannot continue to equivocate and dissemble on this matter. We need to send a clear message that torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees is unacceptable and is not permitted by U.S. law. Period. Therefore, my bill prohibits all officers and agents of the United States from using techniques of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

As I said at the outset, this bill grapples with one of the defining issues of our age, how to effectively combat terrorism without sacrificing our national values and abandoning the rule of law. If we continue to pursue a rendition program ungoverned by law, without sufficient safeguards and oversight, we will perpetuate a short term solution that exacerbates the long term problem. We will take individual terrorists off the streets at the expense of the foreign coalitions that are essential to our efforts to combat international terrorism, at the expense of facilitating the recruitment of a new generation of terrorists who are just as dangerous and far more numerous.

This is not a trade-off we have to make. We can have a robust and agile rendition capability governed by the rule of law and subject to sufficient safeguards and oversight. That is what the National Security with Justice Act creates. I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the other branches of Government to work with me to refine this legal framework so that we not only take today’s terrorists off the streets, we strengthen our standing and credibility among foreign governments and the global