Senate committee passes habeas bill.
By on Jun 7th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Senate committee passes habeas bill.
“Today the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an important bill to restore habeas corpus, the sacrosanct Constitutional right to challenge government detention in court, by a vote of eleven to eight.” Watch this new ad by the Alliance for Justice on defending habeas:
UPDATE: Reuters article is HERE.
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
Bush
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
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
VETO!!!
June 7th, 2007 at 12:17 pmpace yourself, jake……
June 7th, 2007 at 12:25 pmSo, Jake. By wanting a veto, you are saying that you are actually FOR torture?
I figured you were that kind of guy.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:25 pmSo, what. It probably won’t get out of committee, but if it does miraculously become law while Bush is in office, he and his devoted followers won’t pay it any mind.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:26 pmLooks like just another day photo-op at congress.
Wow, restoring something that by the Constitution was illegally suspended.
VETO!!!
Comment by Jake
Spoken by a pure fascist a$$hole.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:26 pmby a vote of eleven to eight.â€
who are the eight? … and the eleven, for that matter…
10 Ds on the committee, 9 Rs… which one?
June 7th, 2007 at 12:26 pmi agree with the VETO post, but not for the same reasons.
the veto pen is mightier than the sword, and since chimpy has both those toys a veto is all but certain.
wait to hear that front door battered in…and don’t think agreeing with little nero and his court of sycophants is going to save anyone!
June 7th, 2007 at 12:28 pmI hope those eight get what they deserve in the next election. YOU’RE FIRED! How can they vote against the friggin’ constitution. Screw each of them – violently, too. Christ on a crutch. Disgusting.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:29 pmby a vote of eleven to eight.â€
who are the eight? … and the eleven, for that matter…
10 Ds on the committee, 9 Rs… which one?
Comment by katy — June 7, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
I believe that Arlen Specter is the Republican backer.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:32 pmHow the hell could 8 vote against? That’s fucking depressing.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:33 pmRemember people, PLEASE IGNORE JAKE the FAKE, he is only here to disrupt the threads, he is an immature loser who gets his kicks by posting totally inane crap. Loser and hated in real life, and hated here more.
Hating losers like Jake the Fake daily
June 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pmIf Chimpy vetoes this bill, then no one can have a reason to defend him any more.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:35 pmmay i be excused to go whack cornyn onna head again? jeebus that guy has a thick head! i’ve worn out two louisville sluggers in two months!
June 7th, 2007 at 12:38 pmI believe that Arlen Specter is the Republican backer.
Comment by bluefish — June 7, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
would’ve been my guess…
another C Y A moment for arlen… oh well…
June 7th, 2007 at 12:42 pmVETO? Seriously, Jake? Are you saying you’re actually AGAINST Habeas Corpus? Something the founding fathers saw fit to include in the very Constitution of this country? Something which expressly prohibits the government from throwing you or I in a jail cell, oh, I dunno, forever, without the ability to challenge that detention?
Sure, the suspension of Habeas does not apply to U.S. citizens, YET. But, to use an overused talking point from another subject (gun control), where does it stop? First, it’s “foreign enemy combatants” (or, full auto machineguns), then it will include those suspected of helping out “terrorists” here and abroad (or, semi-automatic pistols, etc). Next thing you know, you’ll be able to get thrown in the clink becuase you bought a copy of The Satanic Verses or Mein Kampf (pea-shooters).
Wake up Jake, our freedoms are being eroded before your (blind) eyes…
June 7th, 2007 at 12:43 pmThis congress has a long way to go but has already exceeded the previous congress.
Jake, are you that premature in the bedroom as well. Let alone that shortsighted and narrow minded as to think this bill is a bad thing.
typical knee jerk reaction. Jake, cut those puppet strings.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:02 pmGood, but Bush might veto it since he is against the Constitution.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:09 pmPlease post the role call vote for this one as soon as it is available. Given the vote totals, it may be difficult to get this sort of information from our media these days.
Thank you for reporting on this crucial issue!
June 7th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThe monsters being held in Guantanamo are not American citizens or legal residents. The American Constitution doesn’t apply to them.
Only us, the idiots and ridiculous people from the left want to give American Constitutional rights to non-Americans or legal residents.
pathetic!
I wonder if Al Qaeda considered the human rights of the American soldiers it torture and took apart its stomachs and private parts while they were still alive.
Where is the left wing outrage, the left wing outcry towards Al Qaeda, why aren’t we on the left demanding that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezzbollah follow international law and human rights?
why do we on the left compare the real torture that Al Qaeda carries out on its prisoners to American soldiers putting panties on the heads of Muslims, or wrapping a Muslim with an Israeli flag?
Not even POWs during WWII had the Constitutional rights that us, the pathetic left want to give to the pigs in Guantanamo.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:15 pmVETO? Seriously, Jake? Are you saying you’re actually AGAINST Habeas Corpus? Something the founding fathers saw fit to include in the very Constitution of this country? Something which expressly prohibits the government from throwing you or I in a jail cell, oh, I dunno, forever, without the ability to challenge that detention?
Sure, the suspension of Habeas does not apply to U.S. citizens, YET. But, to use an overused talking point from another subject (gun control), where does it stop? First, it’s “foreign enemy combatants†(or, full auto machineguns), then it will include those suspected of helping out “terrorists†here and abroad (or, semi-automatic pistols, etc). Next thing you know, you’ll be able to get thrown in the clink becuase you bought a copy of The Satanic Verses or Mein Kampf (pea-shooters).
Wake up Jake, our freedoms are being eroded before your (blind) eyes…
Comment by drew_ill — June 7, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
This is a lot of stupid left wing nonsense. We on the left love dumb and idiotic puppets like drew_ill.
Habeas Corpus is a Constitutional right that belongs to American citizens and legal residents of the United States.
Why do we on the left keep on insiting that these monsters need to have Constitutional rights that our founding fathers only intended Amricans to have?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:17 pmWhy do we on the left keep on insiting that these monsters need to have Constitutional rights that our founding fathers only intended Amricans to have?
Because they aren’t monsters. How many innocents need to be tortured for you to feel safe? The rights outlined in the Constitution only legally apply to Americans – but the rights themselves come from ideals for all of humanity. People have the right to have a fair trial. I don’t care where you’re form, or what you’re accused of. As the video says – the government makes mistakes. That’s why it’s important to be fair.
~Sean
June 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pmWhy do we on the left keep on insiting that these monsters need to have Constitutional rights that our founding fathers only intended Amricans to have?
Because they aren’t monsters. How many innocents need to be tortured for you to feel safe? The rights outlined in the Constitution only legally apply to Americans – but the rights themselves come from ideals for all of humanity. People have the right to have a fair trial. I don’t care where you’re form, or what you’re accused of. As the video says – the government makes mistakes. That’s why it’s important to be fair.
~Sean
Comment by Sean — June 7, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
They are not monsters? really? you know them? you’ve met them?
so i guess you stood aside and allowed these to torture American soldiers and then you turn around and claim that theya ren’t monsters?
you were there when they cut the head of their prisoners, so you can claim they aren’t monsters, right?
shut up my tool, they are monsters, and your sympathy for these monsters shows how us on the far left are but idiotic tools for the terrorists.
they want YOU to defend them.
and if everyon deserves their day in court, why aren’t you raising hell against Al Qaeda for killing people without giving them a day in court? why?
why do we left wing idiots always go against our own, yet we keep quite against the real abuses that are committed by America’s enemies?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:37 pm11 to 8… absolutely disgusting… who were the unAmerican deniers of Habeas?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:40 pmGood time to re-post this exchange between David Gregory and Pres. Bush:
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there’s another important test. These critics include John McCain, who you’ve mentioned several times this morning.
And that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, “Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions,” and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that as commander in chief?
BUSH: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That’s my reaction.
Tell us, trolls, why George Bush supports our own flesh and blood being captured and held in a foreign prison, indefinitely, and having evidence withheld that might possibly clear them of any charges?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm“They are not monsters? really? you know them? you’ve met them?”
and you know that they ARE, because you’ve met them, charged them, tried them?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/16/usdom13015.htm
“Fewer than half were caught on battlefields in Afghanistan or by U.S. troops. A majority were turned over by Pakistan (often for cash bounties).”
June 7th, 2007 at 1:52 pm“Habeas Corpus is a Constitutional right that belongs to American citizens and legal residents of the United States.”
Actually, Mr President, you are wrong. The Military Commissions Act stripped legal residents of any rights under Habeas Corpus as the President can name anyone in the world, anywhere, anytime an ‘enemy combatant’ or ‘he’s a bad man’ and immediately remove that right. The text is written such that doubt is also cast on the right of American citizens to also be named ‘enemy combatants’ under the same act.
And if Jose Padilla could be allowed to speak, what would he say about being an American, arrested on US soil, held in a brig without access to counsel, tortured by sensory deprivation and sleep deprivation for nearly 4 years, before being charged with a charge that had nothing to do with why he was supposedly detained in the first place? And Mr Bush: “well he’s a bad man”.
You’re full of sh*t, Mr President.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pm“e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. (2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”
Go ahead, Mr President, you can admit your error right now, or STFU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Alleged_unconstitutionality
BTW, Clinton is a lot smarter than you. I would choose a dumber president to impersonate.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pmHow do you know they’re monsters? The Admin has released HUNDREDS of them over the years. But you’re certain these guys, the ones still there, now those guys are definitely monsters. Obviously. Just check out the list of convictions. Oh wait….
June 7th, 2007 at 2:06 pmHabeas should apply to everyone. We treat others as we would like to be treated. Just because there are some sick bastards out there, doesn’t mean we need to treat them in kind. That is a ridiculous argument. We are America. We should act better than them.
And whatever happened to Repubs arguing government is the problem? Now government must be trusted blindly not to abuse the military commissions act? No oversight, no nothing.
Comment by President Clinton — June 7, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
—–
None of the prisoners in Gitmo have been charged or convicted of acts of terrorism against the U.S. They have simply been labeled as unlawful enemy combatants, which allows the Bush administration to hold them indefinitely and without putting them on trial.
I’d say if you were arrested overseas and were denied habeas corpus and were held indefinitely in a prison, you’d be crying like a baby and wish you were back on U.S. soil. And if our president gave a shit about you, he’d be demanding from day one that you be returned to America. Remember when 10 of our people were held against their will for 11 days when our spy plane made an emergency landing in China? Did Bush sit quietly and let the Chinese authorities handle things? Hell no. He demanded from day one that they, and our spy plane, be released.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:15 pmWhich of these Headlines seems most improbable?:
(a) “Senate committee passes habeas bill”
June 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm(b) “Paris Hilton gets Masters in Physics”
(c) “Bill O’Reilly goes entire show without tossing an insult”
Larry! I found a link on the Kucinich story. I posted it in yesterday’s ThinkFast. Sorry, I don’t have it still.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:24 pmIt’s not much of a post, though.
Larry…b
June 7th, 2007 at 2:25 pmdefinitely b
And she’s out of jail now too!
#25 Terry…The text is written such that doubt is also cast on the right of American citizens to also be named ‘enemy combatants’ under the same act.
Many months back Barack Obama was on The Al Franken show. They were discussing the Military Commissions Act. Al Franken stated that U.S. citizens were exempted from being named “Enemy Combatants”. Barack Obama quickly replied something like “That’s Correct”. And then he commented that the Act is written so poorly he wouldn’t have voted for it.
I e-mailed Obama (my Senator) and told him, respectfully, I believe you’re incorrect. Both Jonathan Turley and Glenn Greenwald have stated that the language is such that the President can name anyone anywhere an Enemy Combatant. And regarding how poorly the act is written I suggested to Obama that it was written poorly intentionally, to allow the President to interpet it any way he desires.
I never got a reply from my Senator.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pm#30 Wilco,,,Yes I read the article. It makes me very upset. I’m still trying to understand what forces are in play to start such a movement against Kucinich. I’m not sure we can blame the Repubs. 100% for this.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:31 pmChimpy will veto it, like the coward, weenie, dictatorial-wannabe pig that he is.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:49 pm“I suggested to Obama that it was written poorly intentionally, to allow the President to interpet it any way he desires.
I never got a reply from my Senator.
Comment by Larry from C — June 7, 2007 @ 2:29 pm”
Sinister isn’t it? Guess the ‘C’ is easy to guess now, eh? :) In general, as a legal resident, it is almost to the point now that I can thrown out of the country for ’stepping on the cracks in the pavement’. Actually the list of felonies is greatly expanded – including drug posession, DUI and so on.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:52 pmHabeas Corpus is a Constitutional right that belongs to American citizens and legal residents of the United States.
- That is now questionable thanks to the MCA…
Comment by President Clinton
President Clinton,
You’ve missed my point I’m afraid, which I thought was clear. The point is that the rights of every citizen in the United States are slowly being eroded, one by one. I’m not concerned with labeling prisoners one thing or another. My concern is simple: My rights as a U.S. Citizen. The MCA threatens to take that all away by simply slapping a label on me and thowing me in prison until I am old and grey. So, why would you therefore be opposed to something that protects you??
June 7th, 2007 at 3:55 pmIt’s interesting that the people who want to label basic human rights as privilages only for US citizens are the same people that think perjury and obstruction of justice are not crimes. The people who think terror suspects should be treated as guilty until proven innocent are the same people advocating for the pardon of someone who has been tried and convicted of felony crimes.
Apparently, some people are above the law while others are denied the law.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:57 pmThe Reuters article confirms my suspicion. Except for Specter, EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL.
Happily, EVERY DEMOCRAT VOTED FOR IT.
This says a lot about the parties.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pmSorry, meant to say “I’m very concerned with labeling prisoners…” Contradicted myself there. Been a long day.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:02 pmMonsters?
Monsters??
The problem, the Whole Problem, is that We don’t know whether the “Human Beings” being held without rights are monsters or not. Being held without being charged, without evidence being presented and without being tried in an open court is WRONG. If they be monsters, then show Us and the world why. Do not ask that We take king george’s word for it. That song has been played out.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pmNotice how much Bush’s supporters sound like terrorists? They use the same tactices. I’m glad us libs aren’t pissing our pants with fear like the neo cowards. Gee, what is with republicans and failure anyway? you guys can’t even defend a fucking paper bag let alone the constitution.Your weak and cowardice, so keep throwing your stones at us “elitists” from your country club, lol. LOSERS!
June 7th, 2007 at 8:40 pmwhy aren’t you raising hell against Al Qaeda for killing people without giving them a day in court? why?
How do you know I’m not raising hell? I’m currently enlisted in the U.S. Air Force. So thanks.
They are not monsters? really? you know them? you’ve met them?
You have?
you were there when they cut the head of their prisoners, so you can claim they aren’t monsters, right?
They are human. That is a fact. I know it’s very hard to accept. I know it’s hard to accept that a human would do such a terrible thing. But it’s true.
Maybe you think I’m splitting hairs by making sure they’re labeled as human. The reason I insist that they aren’t monsters, and are human, is because it stops us from feeling like it’s “us vs. them”, “good vs. evil”, etc. This dualistic thinking is destructive and is incorrect. The solution is to identify and deal with the problem. Not label another human being as “evil”, and then torture and/or kill them.
Look at history. Look at McCarthyism. Look at Hitler. Look at the psychology of someone who is convinced to do a bad thing. In most cases, a good person can be convinced to do a bad thing by this process of mislabeling, and using dualistic thinking. If I can convince you that some group is evil, then you’ll be more willing to do evil things to them. You get trapped in thinking that the ends justifies the means. The solution is to remind ourselves that the “them” is just another part of “us”. And we need to deal with it intelligently. A terrorist is a human being. A very low and disgusting human being, but a human being nonetheless. And there are rights that all human beings inherently have, like a fair trial. We must afford all human beings these rights.
~Sean
June 7th, 2007 at 10:58 pmAnd then you’ll remember the PATRIOT act, realise that this would mean you wouldn’t be voting for a Democrat in the next election, then pipe down with this fake rhetoric.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:44 amYeah. And they’re joined by the rest who think Libby should be in jail.
Sure. That’s the difference between “double standards” and “two completely unrelated standards”.
Seriously, you’re comparing engaging in terrorism to lying.
Why would you do this on purpose ?
Yeah, you covered that in your opening sentence. Historically this has been known as the “International Law Doesn’t Apply To the US” principle. It ain’t new.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:52 amCome on guys…jake’s comment is obviously a joke. Or some sort of trolling…either way it doesn’t really matter, i saw that and i laughed my ass off.
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm