Restoring habeas.
By on Jun 6th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Restoring habeas.
“A day after two military judges ruled against the Bush administration’s system for trying terrorism detainees,” the Senate Judiciary Committee announced it was preparing to approve legislation to restore habeas corpus on Thursday. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “said he would be willing to bring such legislation to the floor.”
UPDATE: Contact your senators and urge them to support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act.
UPDATE II: FireDogLake has a list of Judiciary Committee members you can call.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Habeus Corpus in America? What is the world coming to?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:42 amNice start, but why not just toss the entire “Patriot Act” where it belongs, Harry?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:43 amhe doesn’t need to legislate to restore habeas – all that needs to be done is just follow the constitution and bill of rights…you know, the law..
there’s nothing in the constitution or bill of rights to allow such habeas restrictions, so it should come to an end. now.
Some reading:
“To Whom Does the Bill of Rights Apply?”
June 6th, 2007 at 9:45 amhttp://www.populistamerica.com/to_whom_does_the_bill_of_rights_apply
Why does the Senate Judiciary Committee hate the troops?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:45 amBut no habeus for Scooter!
June 6th, 2007 at 9:46 amYes Harry Reid, but will you try to pass the bill for real or just bring it to the floor to be voted down?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:46 amLooks like the trolls are still snoring under their bridge.
I would love to see them come in here and try to defend Chimpy’s destruction of habeus corpus.
I would love to see them try to justify Chimpy’s torture gulag.
I’m reading the recently declassified Pentagon Inspector General report on torture. It says torture was widespread in the gulag.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:48 amIts a difficult read, you have to translate Military to English.
The Trolls must be waiting for the talking points. It’s gotta be difficult to come up with an argument against constitutional protections.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:50 am“There’s nothing in the constitution or bill of rights to allow such habeas restrictions.” Nothing in this case anyway.
The actual phrase in the Constitution says the privilege of habeus cannot be revoked except in war or insurrection. We are not legally at war and there’s no insurrection yet. Although Vermont looks promising.
The neocons try to say that the word “privilege” means habeus is not a right, but that’s bullshit. Habeus is a fundamental civil right that goes back to the Magna Carta.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:50 amScooter got habeus. He was tried and convicted in Federal court.
The neocons say there was “no underlying crime” so Scooter should go free or only get his wrist slapped.
But if there was no underlying crime, why did Scooter et al. COVER IT UP?!?
Valerie Plame was NOC undercover. That is a FACT. And her “brassplate” cover company, Brewster Jennings was also undercover. Libby, Cheney, Rove and probably Chimpy all conspired to commit TREASON.
BTW, there was no underlying crime in Clinton’s impeachment. Clinton lied on a civil depo in a case that was dismissed. But the Repukes went ahead and impeached him anyway.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:54 amTom3 (9),
Actually, the Constitution says, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” So, the standard is “rebellion or invasion” and not just “war”. The habeus restriction recently imposed has even less Constitutional support (if possible).
June 6th, 2007 at 9:55 amIt’s about time. This should have been the first thing on their agenda. I’m going to love to see Bush veto this bill. It will be another really big nail in his coffin.
“Looks like the trolls are still snoring under their bridge.”
Please, don’t encourage them. It’s very discouraging to see the trolls and the troll enablers take over a thread and make it impossible to read. I’m beginning to think that some people are here strictly to play with the trolls.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:55 amRemember when the White House insisted that Congress pass the Military Commissions Act right away, just before the election, or else we wouldn’t be able to try captured terrorists efficiently?
Oopsie.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:00 amThanks for the clarification Peter.
I bet the neocons think that were invaded on 9-11 so it is okay to suspend habeus and torture people.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:03 amAbout effing time.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:04 amTom3 sez:
The neocons contend that the right of Habeas Corpus is not a constitutionally granted right. In this, they are entirely correct.
Habeas Corpus is not a constitutionally granted right…it is a constitutionally guaranteed right. It is a right that is assumed to exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and expressly guaranteed to continue.
It’s an important distinction, and one the neocons are attempting to leverage into revocation of the right. But this claim does not hold water. Regardless of whether the right was preexisting or new at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers expressly enumerated it, which means that it cannot be revoked unless one of the enumerated conditions (rebellion or invasion) is met, or Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution is repealed.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:12 am#9 #10
June 6th, 2007 at 10:14 amRight on Tom3
There is always that pesky double standard too. The MSM loves to lie to us, but we will never accept TYRANNY
TMM ~ Next thing you know the cons will be arguing that yes, there has been an invasion, you know, in Iraq…
June 6th, 2007 at 10:18 amRUCerious sez:
For that argument to hold water, we’d have to annex Iraq.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:20 am16,
I think that the neocons try to depart from the law by arguing for a ’state of exception’ that they believe is implied by the habeus provision even though it is not stated.
They might further argue that ‘conditions have changed’ due to 9/11 and that a state of exception can be declared in order to defeat terrorism, justifying the suspension of habeus corpus.
Of course, Bush’s GWOT doesn’t actually have a definite end by nature…
June 6th, 2007 at 10:23 amNo problem, Tom,
I think it is important for us to force this administration to make these ludicrous arguments in public – to force them to twist the language in such tortured ways to support their claims. Personally, I’ve felt their past willingness to take the positions they’ve already taken (to justify warrentless wiretapping in violation of FISA’s specific clauses dealing with provisions during wartime by citing the autorization to use force as giving “war powers”, for example) to be completely outrageous and blatantly impeachable. That they would have the gall to argue, as they did in 2000, that we didn’t have TIME to actually count all the votes – it was more important to declare Bush the winner on schedule, was just the first of a long line of unforgivable positions which should be completely anathema. If we truly had a free press, everyone would know that they had so often made these disgustingly un-American arguments.
This is why Impeachment is so important. Republicans must be seen to be either taking these unforgivable positions or support their renounciation. Citizens must see how fanatical they really are.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:36 amPrince Myskin sez:
That’s not the angel Gonzo tried to take, PM. He actually claimed that ‘There is no express grant of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution’.
Gonzo should have been disbarred immediately upon uttering such a ridiculous statement.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:39 amBah…post 22 got really messed up….let me try again:
Prince Myskin sez:
That’s not the angle Gonzo tried to take, PM. He actually claimed that ‘There is no express grant of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution’.
Gonzo should have been disbarred immediately upon uttering such a ridiculous statement.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:45 amthat statement by VO5 made me wonder if all the friends i had who took the bar exam back in the late ’70s were taking a different exam than the chimp and gonzo took.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:46 amFor that argument to hold water, we’d have to annex Iraq.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
And Puerto Rico wanted to be the 51th state. Dang…
June 6th, 2007 at 10:47 amLabs,
I’m pretty sure Chimpy never took the bar exam. He was too busy being a failure in business.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:53 amEmails sent — for all the good it will do. But who knows, one of my Senators might pop his head out of his butt long enough to take a break….
June 6th, 2007 at 10:54 amGonzo should have been disbarred immediately upon uttering such a ridiculous statement.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
Absolutely. And there should have been a huge outcry from attorneys all over this country, regardless of party — and there really wasn’t…..
June 6th, 2007 at 10:55 amthat statement by VO5 made me wonder if all the friends i had who took the bar exam back in the late ’70s were taking a different exam than the chimp and gonzo took.
Comment by labs
The Chimp was never an attorney. Gonzo either….oy.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:56 amThere is no good reason why anyone in the House or Senate should vote against the restoration of habeus corpus.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:57 amI
23,
Thanks, I didn’t know that… agree that he should be debarred from practising law.
But following the link, this was what Gonzales said in 2007. Do you know what he said at the time, because what he said in 2007 would surely be laughed out of court?
June 6th, 2007 at 10:58 amI will most certainly NOT lift a finger. These freedoms were won with blood: If my senators have to be “urged” to restore GUARANTEED Constitutional protections, may they burn in hell forever!!!
June 6th, 2007 at 11:12 amRestoring Habeas Corpus? If you read this board and this board only, you’d never have noticed it had gone…
June 6th, 2007 at 11:17 amRestoring Habeas Corpus? If you read this board and this board only, you’d never have noticed it had gone…
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
Very true. I wonder why they’re covering it’s possible restoration?
June 6th, 2007 at 11:21 amMore rights for terrorists! More rights for terrorists!
June 6th, 2007 at 11:33 amIf someone had told me 10 years ago that in the year 200&7 (no that’s not the right way to say it but all our “leaders say it that way so I guess I can too…) that we’d be having to call our Congressional leaders to “restore” habeus corpus I’d have said they were fruit loopy. Here we are.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:38 amHow the hell do we restore habeus with an attorney general who insists there is no constitutional right to it??? He’ll make damn sure he spends our money to fight US on what we believe is right. This my friends is the definition of insanity… Peace.
m12 sez:
Oh good. The trolls are back.
Your morning guy missed his shift, m12.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:48 amm12 said “the right is for terrorists”?
June 6th, 2007 at 11:56 am#37
Yeah, he was probably watching the GOP debates, with real men who know what needs to be done with Guantanemo Bay.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am39,
‘Real men’, hahaha.
And why don’t you support ‘more rights’ for terrorists? I do.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pmWell, well, my comment about HC and TP was deleted……fancy that.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:06 pmNoted Constitutional law scholar Erwin Chermerinsky wrote an excellent article on the subject of Habeas Corpus.
Some Highlights:
http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00000754/
June 6th, 2007 at 12:19 pm#35: If everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist, then why can’t the Bush administration charge them with criminal acts and find them guilty? Oh, right, it’s because they’re “terrorists” because Bush says they are.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:36 pmIf everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist, then why can’t the Bush administration charge them with criminal acts and find them guilty? Oh, right, it’s because they’re “terrorists†because Bush says they are.
It takes time to process the paperwork.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:21 pmLook the trolls are coming out into the light, blinking their crusty eyes and feebly feeling for their arguments…
June 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmLame.
m12 sez:
And exactly how long is that, generally speaking.
You may express your answer in friedmans, if you’d rather not use years as your unit of measure… ^_^
June 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pm#46
I’d say 3-5 friedmans as a rule of thumb.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:59 pmWell, since habeas corpus is protected in the body of the constitution, the law is unconstitutional anyway, so any court that tried these cases would overturn any practice that did not abide by the writ of habeas corpus. But, the main problem is that the “courts” that would even deal with these are military tribunals organized directly by the executive. The only way to “restore” habeas corpus in these cases is to outlaw these “military tribunals.”
June 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pmWell, since habeas corpus is protected in the body of the constitution, the law is unconstitutional anyway, so any court that tried these cases would overturn any practice that did not abide by the writ of habeas corpus.
Says who?
June 7th, 2007 at 12:30 am