Leahy, Dodd Introduce Bill To Restore <i>Habeas Corpus</i>
By Nicole Belle Monday Sep 17, 2007 1:04pmThis week, we have a critical opportunity to restore habeas corpus.
The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act gives us a chance to reverse one of the Bush Administration's many assaults on our civil liberties.
We all want to make America safe from terrorism, but becoming a nation that sanctions the unlawful detention of its own residents -- detaining and jailing them without the chance to appear before a judge -- does not make us safe. Instead, it violates a value that we have held dear for centuries -- safeguarding our individual freedom before arbitrary state action.
You can sign on to co-sponsor the bill here.
Chris Dodd guest blogged over at Taylor Marsh on the importance of restoring habeas. And Christy at FDL has a list of congress critters we're targeting for phone calls. C'mon...the Constitution needs your help today.
Login or Register to post comments.
The sin is that we ever lost it!
Good for them!!!!!! It will show us who now is in favor of restoring our rights!
A lot off topic, but see this - http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/weather/09/18/typhoon.wipha.ap/index.html
Why can't we evacuate this many people before a major hurricane. Wonder what Katrina victims think of this.
Has anyone else read Broken Government by John Dean? My God, you won't believe just how badly the repugs destroyed our government. After reading it, I'm willing to cut democrats a little slack. They're TRULY trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again with the repugs hamstringing them all the while. PS the Fed just cut rates to 4.75%
Strawberry, I have read some of Dean's other books and I'm putting the one you mentioned on my "to get" list. Thank you for the heads up. Funny how someone from the Nixon era has to show us what a stinkin' mess this administration is and has been. Remember when he wrote, "Worse than Watergate"? Man, he wasn't kidding.
Kudos to Dodd and Leahy. I want to read Dodd's new book
I hate to say this , but Dean's book is actually dead on , and after Worse than Watergate, I did not think we could get "Worser", but here we are....Big Thank You to Leahy and Dodd for trying to restore some sense of order and Justice..
Nice plan, but it wont work.
1. Bush will never sign it.
2. You'll never get enough congressmen to overturn his veto.
Bravo to Dodd and Leahy.
This could start a trend! Maybe they'll eventually re-instate all of our (once) unalienable rights. And we could (maybe) have free, fair and open elections! Well, I can dream...
Damn straight I signed!
Zenrage @ 8:
Let Bush veto it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I feel a song coming on... "... I see your true colors shining through" (hint, they ain't red,white, and blue)
I wholly agree with restoring Habeas.
But Restore-Habeas.org is paid for by "Dodd for President".
I wish our elected officials were interested enough in this issue that it didn't take a Presidential campaign to pay for it!
I imagine they're afraid to restore this, lest it look to the uncritical masses that they're soft on terrorism...
I kinda think Chris Dodd should be president.
Yawn. A little grandstanding, maybe a little publicity, then the Decider vetoes the thing, the Kool-ade drinking Repubs and Lieberman line up. Nothing gained. Either impeach Bush and Cheney or just go home.
[...] Crooks and Liars » Leahy, Dodd Introduce Bill To Restore Habeas Corpus [...]
Hurrah!
Doesn't matter if Bush vetoes it. It's time to show him he's not welcome in this town anymore.
And it's time the dems, any dems, show some backbone. A vote on this will put a nice black mark against any damn blue dog who wants to support W.
Sucker for the underdog, but have liked his campaign the best, so far.
Billary can be his VP!!
Clark SofS
(Richards back to SofI)
Ramping closer and closer to 250 comments on the student being tasered at UF, and less than 20 on this thread. Seems like there's always something shiny to distract us from the real danger. That tasering incident is nothing compared to what could happen if HC is totally obliterated. :(
What a F'd up country we've become.
Zenrage @ 8:
1. Bush will never sign it.
2. You'll never get enough congressmen to overturn his veto.
I wouldn't be so sure about that because the Libertarian wing of the Republican party was livid over the revoking of Habeas Corpus. Even Arlen "the Weasel" Spector has signed on to this.
Your right that Bush won't sign it, But congress not getting enough votes to over-ride his veto is an open question. Judging by how many congressmen/women broke with the President over immigration and the closeness of the 08 elections, I think they can pull it off.
The current batch of Repugs want to distance themselves from Bush and so many of their members are already pissed over this issue and 22 of them are up for reelection that I think the prevailing political winds favor this!
lol, Bush would veto the Bill of Rights.
Hurrah for this. Leahy's official site had a great quote in the article announcing this.
My take: The Road BACK to Democracy
Zenrage @ 8:
But it should be pushed. It is immoral not to try.
A patriot would try and fail, rather than never try at all.
Here's a question: why the hell should we need to reinstate habeas corpus when it's guaranteed in the Constitution? Isn't the fact that this bill needs to be sponsored at all proof that Bush has already violated his oath? What happens when he inevitably veto's it? Why don't we start trying to pass every provision in the Constitution one by one and see which ones get past him?
This is a pointless exercise in political theatrics, if you ask me. Congress needs to DEMAND that the Constitution be upheld, and this just isn't good enough. The PATRIOT ACT needs to be removed in its entirety. It's just disgusting that we can't get the votes to overturn a veto on this matter.
This is good news. Just this morning I was listening to the podcast of "This American Life" dealing with the loss of habeas corpus (#331: Habeas Schmabeas). I thought, "Why hasn't Congress moved to restore it?" Guess they have.
SoSickOfIt @ 11:
Exactly. Simply not passing bills because of anticipated vetoes is tantamount to ceding the legislative power to the president. And although successful vetoes prevent bills from becoming law, they do not prevent Congress from passing them again and again, and forcing issues to become part of the next campaign. And this particular issue happens to be so vital to the survival of freedom in general that we must learn precisely where each and every member of Congress stands.
MyGodBeatsYourGod @ 19:
I have too, actually. And my first choices tend not to win either. Dodd has been at the forefront of the issue from the beginning. His stories about his father's prosecution of the Nuremberg trials are heartfelt and fascinating.
Heh, I was thinking something along the lines of:
President Chris Dodd
Vice President Barack Obama
Sec. of State Bill Clinton
Sec. of Defense Wesley Clark
Sec. of Health and Human Services Howard Dean
Sec. of Energy Al Gore
Sec. of Peace and Security (formerly Homeland Security) Dennis Kucinich
Attorney General Russ Feingold
Sec. of Delivery of Justice to Neo-Cons Cindy Sheehan
Or something like that. 'Tis fun to dream, anyway. :)
Has anyone read the bill? I looked at the bill as shown at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110NyV5Ej::. Section 2.b. inserts the paragraph below, which seems to restrict citizens' rights to challenge the military commission process. How does this bill restore Habeas Corpus?
(b) Title 10- Section 950j of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
`(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.'.
Took them long enough. Why this didn't happen the day after the striking down of Habeus Corpus is a mystery.
But of course, they're innocent until proven guilty.
SoSickOfIt @ 11:
Why should he care about not signing it? Bush isn't running for re-election.
Rasputin @ 21:
All talk and no action. They claim to be anti-bush because its popular to do so. They'll never give back Habeus Corpus.
Nice idea... Even more than that, An excellent idea that we should never of had to deal with.... Yes habeus corpus needs restored... But Leahy as water carrier? ...Hmmm, his track record for sticking to his guns... on well, on anything, is pretty weak so far.......JD
Hope you stick to ... if you guys do ... then thank you to Senators Leahy and Dodd.
I want to see Busholini veto this bill. If THAT doesn't cause some serious blowback in this country, then yes, we're truly finished as a nation.
I would have much rather seen this bill applied as an amendment to the Iraq war funding bill it would have been much harder for Bush to veto. The other amendment that needs to be added is the revocation of the war crimes immunity granted to Bush and his cronies as part of the MCA.
If Bush vetoes this bill, isn't that grounds for impeachment?
I mean, it is certainly an abuse of his constitutional duties. He would be blatantly defying the Constitution.
Habeus is in the Constitution. BushCo ignores Habeus. BushCo is violating the Constitution and the Oath of Office.
CHIMPEACHMENT IS IN ORDER!
Ryoko @ 34:
The 185,446th line in the sand?
John Mitchell @ 28:
A good question deserves a good answer. :) So, here goes:
First, so that people know, Sec. 2(b), quoted above, is preceded by Sec. 2(a), which reads:
Naturally, this begs the question, "So, Section 2241 of title 28, subsection (e) of the United States Code?" Why, that would be the section the previous Congress tacked onto the law to take away the habeas rights otherwise provided, and make them inapplicable to Bush's Military Commissions. So, that would be gone.
Next, comes the part John Mitchell quoted, which amends Section 950j of Title 10 of the United States Code. What's that? Well, it's part of the Military Commissions Act. And how is it amended here? Let's take a look:
So, what do we know about Section 2241 of Title 28? Well, we already know that the insidious subsection (e) is gone. It also happens to begin thusly:
And it keeps going. You can read it here.
So, the answer to John Mitchell's question is essentially that Bush can have his Military Commissions, but by restoring Section 2241 of Title 28, and then making it applicable to those Commissions, habeas corpus is back in place.
:)
While you're emailing stuff, email this to Leahy: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010505 and ask why this person is being considered for AG. Mail it to Schummer, too. He likes Mukasey.
The line that got was "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is said to have told his American captors that he wanted a lawyer and would see them in court. If the Supreme Court rules--in a case it has agreed to hear relating to Guantanamo detainees--that foreigners in U.S. custody enjoy the protection of our Constitution regardless of the place or circumstances of their apprehension, this bold joke could become a reality." (My emphasis) He seems to be saying that seeing a lawyer and having a day in court for these detainees is a joke. No wonder Bush wants him. And if an interview I heard on Day to Day on Monday is correct, Mukasey's not too keen on habeas corpus, either.
If Mukasey is the type of person this administration wants as AG, then kiss any notion of reinstating habeas corpus goodbye. It just ain't goin' happen.
Oops, sorry. You can read Section 2241 of Title 28 here.
Karen @ 40:
Good job Karen!
I just got an e-mail from Leahy saying that the breakdown right now is:
51 yea
7 Nay
42 Undecided
He's urging everyone to call their Senators right now because the vote could come as soon as Wednesday. They have set up a web tool to help facilitate the calls!
http://restore-habeas.org/
Heh, musk is being groomed as the next AG and it sounds like he's pro bush well in advance. Hell writing in the Wall Street Journal ah hehehehe ... Rupurt so clever lol ... I hate it when it's always more of the same ... more of the same ... so have a closed trial for serious security concenrs give some legislative body oversight and unseal the record in 6 months or 3 months ... indefinate incarcaration, redacting the constitution, advocating torture etc is not the american way. How come these law makers and enforcers are so uncreative ...?
Habeas was never lawfully denied; why is Congress trying to "restore" something that they, the President, and US government cannot lawfully do: Ignore the Constitution.
This bill, absurdly, asks us to believe that the Congress can have a "vote" on whether to "restore" the Constitution. That is meaningless. The original bill and this bill are both unconstitutional, illegal, and contrary to their oaths.
Prosecute the Members of Congress and President for this non-sense.
WE NEED TO HAVE THIS BILL STRIPPED OF ALL THE AMENDMENT DEM AND REP AND JUST HAVE IT BE HABEAS CORPUS. I AM ALL FOR DURBIN'S IMMIGRATION ACT, AND PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING KENNEDY IS FOR ( SAVE THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, OF COURSE THAT WASN'T FUNDED...) IN ANY CASE I HAVE BEEN ENCOURAGING DEM SENS TO ELIMINATE AMENDMENTS AND JUST FOR FOR HABEAS CORPUS. THE AMENDMENTS ARE GONNA BITE US (DEMS) IN THE ASS. BUT THATS MY HUMBLE OPINION.
SIGN UP! It barely takes 60 seconds... whether or not you think it will be effective, it is evidence of the "people's" business being done at the congressional level.
Get Real @ 43:
Well put.
...
Get Real @ 43:
Well, unconstitutional laws are in effect until the courts officially declare them unconstitutional. Therefore, it's better for Congress to repeal them now, rather than allow X more number of people to be prosecuted under them waiting for the Supreme Court to render a verdict. Moreover, it's the Roberts Court, so who knows whether they'll even hold the law unconstitutional. We already know that Scalia believes that non-citizen enemy combatants don't have Constitutional rights, and plenty will argue that the law only applies to non-citizens. Or they could just disregard argument altogether, and let the law stand.
So, sure, in principle, there is no need for Congress to repeal a law that has no Constitutional legitimacy, but the Constitution is only as good as the people who operate under it.
Karen;
Thanks. A lot of useful information..... It's appreciated...JD
Karen @ 38:
Thanks for the response. I had spent a little time trying to find out what subsection e of section 2241 of Title 28 was, but I couldn't find it (nor could I find section 950j of Title 10). Note that the link that Karen provided doesn't have a subsection e. In any case, while I certainly support the removal of the portions of previous bills that eliminated the writ of habeas corpus, it seems that the current bill still tries to prevent challenges to the military commissions process, and thus seems to be a rather weak challenge to the Bush administration's extra-legal activities.
Criminal Co-Conspiricy between Democrats and Republicans to allow Bush's self signed Pardon and Immunity From Prosecution for war crimes as stated in Hamdan Vs Rumsfeld incorporated into the Military Commissions Act to remain LAW.
It is in the MCA our Rights were attacked. The Military Commissions Act needs to be repealed in it's entirety; not only Habeas Corpus.
And we Berkeley students still have to deal with the man who took it away
(deep sigh)
http://clog.dailycal.org/665/the-clogbirgeneau-wishes-yoo-a-happy-consti...
Ask yourself why Dodd, Obama, Clinton and every other Dem didn't feel it was important enough to filibuster? I hold them all equally responsible for letting the removal of Habeas Corpus happen in the first place. The Dems need to grow several spines and lots and lots of gonads. The Repubs have no problem putting secret holds or threatening a filibuster, which now send the Dems cowering. They all disgust me.
Neither the president nor the congress has or ever has had the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus except under the provisions of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, which enumerates military invasion or armed insurrection within the territory of the United State's as the only contingencies that can justify such action.
John Mitchell @ 49:
Odd, isn't it? even disturbing. The link's not including (e), that is. And yes, a casual search of the legal websites open to the public would not reveal 950j, or almost any of the other Military Commissions Act code sections either. Why would there be such a lag in publishing on such sites only for the MCA? At least, it seems to be only for the MCA. Most of the stuff on Findlaw and like sites is quite current.
And yes, this bill would do nothing more than apply habeas corpus to the MCA. Is that enough? Heh, in my opinion, nothing short of putting the entire maladministration on trial at the Hague is "enough." This is probably fairly described as the least Congress can do, but that doesn't make it any less important. I mean, it's habeas corpus, for crying out loud! Moreover, I imagine, an act so limited in scope (but nevertheless profound in consequences) is probably what its authors feel has the best chance of overcoming a filibuster.
And actually, to be perfectly honest, I would rather see more such esoteric bills. Part of what makes legislation so ridiculous in this country is the attachment of irrelevant riders with their peculiar "fine print." At least this bill (so far, knock on wood) isn't facially contingent on some authoritarian measure that would make us wince with as much pain as the law it seeks to amend.
Ethan @ 51:
Are you a Boaltie, Ethan? I studied under John Yoo. Sat in his office for some interesting chats on the Constitution. Pleasant chap for a man with such hideous views.
bk @ 52:
Well, to some extent, Dodd at least, now agrees with you.
[M]y decision not to pursue a filibuster of the Military Commissions Act in the fall of 2006 was something that I deeply regret[.] I can't think of a worse vote we cast . . .
---Chris Dodd
Call your Pastor, Priest, or Rabbi too. Use the churches and synagogues: it's faster. One word from these people reaches many. The 'ole Rove technique.
Karen @ 47:
Again... well said Karen and you've raised a very good point that has the Dem leadership in congress tied in knots, though they seldom have raised it publicly and that is The current state of the SCOTUS and their fear of what legal precedents they may hand down now that we know they have ripped up the concept of stare decisis.
At this time it is better to knock down an illegal Act in congress than take the chance that Roberts and Scalia will hand down a decision that will for ever destroy the protections we have for our constitutional rights.
Call your Senators... the vote could be as early as tomorrow and use the tracking tool that Leahy has set up... it helps gauge the support:
http://restore-habeas.org/
Sadly the blogs are full of stories on the tasered college kid at the Kerry event, but that kids rights are only protected by Habeas Corpus.
It's atrocious it even needs to be debated.
The entire Military Commissions Act, not just the habeus corpus issue needs to be repealed. Habeus corpus restoration is good, but if restoring it becomes and excuse for leaving other abominable acts on the books, sorry.. that's not good enough. It's a half-assed measure that threatens the well-being of everyone in the country.
We need the "Great Repeal".
I truly appreciate the thoughtful comments by all on this site, but especially those by Karen and John Mitchell. As for Chris Dodd, I'm afraid that he is not as independent as we need. Gen Clark's endorsement of Clinton has caused me to actually consider voting for her, something that was highly unlikely before. However, John Edwards has thrown down the gauntlet by saying he would like all health benefits for congress and the exec branch abolished by '09 if they do not pass a helath care bill for all Americans. By doing so, he has raised the bar and, despite some mis-steps, deserves to be the front runner. I only wish Clark had run again. But then I still wish Mario Cuomo had run...
Login or Register to post comments.