Leahy, Specter to introduce habeas legislation.
Leahy, Specter to introduce habeas legislation.
On Friday, Sens. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) plan to introduce an amendment restoring the habeas corpus protections stripped as a result of last year’s Military Commissions Act. The legislation would restore basic civil liberties to roughly 12 million legal permanent residents of the United States. From Leahy’s statement:
Last year, Congress committed an historic mistake by suspending the Great Writ of habeas corpus — not just for those confined at Guantanamo Bay, but for millions of legal residents in the United States. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing in May on this bill illustrated the broad agreement among people of diverse political beliefs and backgrounds that the mistake committed in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 must be corrected. This Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 has 25 cosponsors, and the Senate Judiciary Committee passed it last month on a bipartisan basis.
Habeas corpus was recklessly undermined in last year’s Military Commissions Act. Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the elimination of habeas rights was an action driven by fear, and it was a stain on America’s reputation in the world. This is a time of testing. Future generations will look back to examine the choices we made during a time when security was too often invoked as a watchword to convince us to slacken our defense of liberty and the rule of law.
Contact your senators and urge them to support the Habeas Restoration Act.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why do they hate America so much that they’re giving the terrorists rights they don’t deserve?
July 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pmHabeas corpus in un-American.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:44 pmLeahy and Conyers have to be expelled from congress!!!
They waste time and money on partisan witch hunts!!!
Chuck “I don’t give a fuk” Schumer also needs to be fired for being a media-whore!!!
July 10th, 2007 at 4:46 pmwow, did MommyRove let you all out to play at the same time? First 3 posts!
July 10th, 2007 at 4:48 pmkudos to you all!
Hey, I was being sarcastic! Sorry it wasn’t obvious.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:48 pmWhitey: ever notice you don’t see any of these trolltards in the same place at the same time???
I’m just sayin’…
July 10th, 2007 at 4:49 pmIt is utterly astonishing that we have to enact a Habeus RESTORATION Act for heavens sake! How dare these thugs think they have a right to change Habeus Corpus! Haven’t these clowns ever READ the Constitution? I can’t believe it has come to this, where we are having to try to restore a basic tenet of our sacred Constitution because of these crimnal Republicans in the WH. It’s disgusting, America is in an incredible mess due to these jerks.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:51 pmImpeach Gonzales and send in agents with warrants to collect the RNC data and ALL other documents being held back by the WH and the Justice Dept.! This has got to be stopped!
good, it’s a start. It’s time to end the practice of endless detentions, torture, no habeas and the like.
Everyone has the right to challenge their detention. Secret trials are repugnant to the ideals of a free society…..and they make us less safe.
Some additional reading:
“Secret Trials Endanger Security”
July 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/secret_trials_endanger_security
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War as well.
He was attacked for much the same reasons.
Those in the North who spoke out too loudly or too often in sympathy with the South’s ‘War of Northern Aggression’ could be imprisoned.
Just an interesting side-point.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pmLeahy and Conyers have to be expelled from congress!!!
They waste time and money on partisan witch hunts!!!
Chuck “I don’t give a fuk†Schumer also needs to be fired for being a media-whore!!!
Comment by Mr. President — July 10, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Mr. Pee, we’d all appreciate it if you actually responded to articles posted, and didn’t just cut-and-paste the same comments from thread to thread.
That strategy is doomed to wind up with irrelevant or off-topic posts by you. For instance, you accuse Leahy and Conyers of “wastiing time and money on partisan witch hunts” in a thread dealing with Leahy sponsoring legislation, and not mentioning Conyers at all. And then there’s Schumer, who hasn’t been the subject of a thread here in weeks.
I’m just a little concerned. You seem like you’re under stress. Maybe heat stroke. A nice glass of Kool-Aid ought to fix it.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:54 pmSo what’s the Vegas line on how long it takes Specter to vote against his own legislation?
July 10th, 2007 at 4:56 pmWhat I find amazing is that they think they have to introduce a bill to “save” HC. It can not be taken away…at least certainly not in the situation this country is in today. They are fighting on this administration’s terms. Its a stupid tactic.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pmamerica is one big stain on the planet right now….
July 10th, 2007 at 4:58 pmSo what’s the Vegas line on how long it takes Specter to vote against his own legislation?
Comment by spit take — July 10, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
A question of when, not if.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pmComment by SGT Higgins
I would think that having half the country in revolt falls within the guidelines of suspending habeus corpus.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pmWho needs habeas? Get a bible, just look at all the nifty uses I found for mine:
1> Rip out a page a make a paper airplane.
2> Toilet paper, just watch those edges.
3> Kindling for small forest fires. (See #1)
4> Swatting flies.
5> Paperweight
6> Door prop
7> Baby booster chair, and if the baby craps on it, no big deal.
Feel free to add yours, maybe next I “GOD” will publish a book called 1001 things to do with your bible.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pmThis is our future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8W6ID8jk4A
July 10th, 2007 at 4:59 pmThe parallels with Lincoln are interesting. I believe America is in a state of civil war, which began when the Republics stole the 2000 election.
Think about it: once they have taken your vote, they have made you a slave.
That’s why the left and right in America are going to fight.
PS: Did Honest Abe also make torture national policy?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:00 pmHABEAS!!!!!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:00 pmPS: Did Honest Abe also make torture national policy?
Comment by Perry Logan
I’m thinkin’ No….I could be wrong but that’s never happened before, and it would set a bad precedent.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:02 pmComment by Future troll — July 10, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Do I know you?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:02 pmzippy-the posts seemed to be spacd out JUST LONG
July 10th, 2007 at 5:03 pm(OOPS) enough for a quick handle change…
July 10th, 2007 at 5:03 pmI would think that having half the country in revolt falls within the guidelines of suspending habeus corpus.
Comment by dlet
I wasn’t trying to say it was/was not justified.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:03 pmjust an additional historic reference. Thank Civil War Times magazine, not me.
#20: Sir, maybe you do, sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93HFV01ybLg&mode=related
July 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pmLeahy and Conyers have to be expelled from congress!!!
Can you vote in their districts, blowhard? I thought not.
Your opinion of those fine patriots is 100% irrelevent.
Ya whiny little snot.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pmMr. Prez-#20-you should. you ARE him.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:05 pmOkay.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:06 pmFuture Troll-Is that what you listen to while Rove whips you and Condi crushes your balls with stilettos??
July 10th, 2007 at 5:07 pmEgreggious-oops! Sorry..
:)
July 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm#16 and #20: Jesus, what a cornucopia of fascist imagery! Who produces crap like this?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:10 pmmuslims, the new japanese… idjit mindset…
when will people ever get it?… well, most do… thankfully…
wakin’ up and smellin’ the coffee…
July 10th, 2007 at 5:10 pm…
Future Troll-Is that what you listen to while Rove whips you and Condi crushes your balls with stilettos?
Uh. No. :) But if that floats your boat, it’s ok you know.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:11 pmI propose passing a law that will only give habeas corpus protection to democrats. We republicans don’t need habeas corpus stuff because it’s too complicated to understand what it is. Plus I suspect that it’s for wussies anyway. You libs can keep it, wussies.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:13 pmOkay.Comment by Mr. President
Bwahahaha! Looks likke even Mr. President was disturbed by the insane troll.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:13 pmHiggins, get your facts straight first Lincoln attempted to suspend habeus corpus during the civil war and was told by congress that he would need to go to the supreme court to suspend a constitutionally guaranteed right. The supreme court ruled against Lincoln and denied his claim to suspend habeus corpus. Second half the country is not in revolt we are in disagreement with the President suspension of the people’s rights in privacy within their own home and the suspension of a person’s right to trial and due process.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pmThis law is unnecessary. The Bush administration is in violation of the Constitution by denying habeus corpus rights.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pmHey patrick1. You time as a troll is well overdue. Why don’t you just give it a rest and retire?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:16 pmEgreggious-oops! Sorry..
:)
Comment by whiteyfresh — July 10, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
It’s OK. I just didn’t want to get lumped in with those morons. After all, unlike Mr Pee, I believe that tattoos are real.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:17 pmBesides, you’re not worthy of Zooey.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:17 pmComment by Cambria — July 10, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
FLA
July 10th, 2007 at 5:17 pmDo I know you?
Comment by Mr. President
Watch out future-Troll, don’t drop the soap, Mr. P likes to get to know all other trolls, in a biblical sense, he is kinda weird that way
July 10th, 2007 at 5:18 pmIt should be interesting to see who goes on record as voting against this.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:18 pmThe parallels are dizzying! Bush is also the first President since Lincoln to lose a major city.
Giving as male hooker a press pass, however, is definitely a new one. Verily, the Republics have taken us places where no human has gone before.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:19 pmAfter all, unlike Mr Pee, I believe that tattoos are real.
Comment by Egreggious — July 10, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
LOL Good one.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:19 pmFuture Troll-Is that what you listen to while Rove whips you and Condi crushes your balls with stilettos?
Uh. No. :) But if that floats your boat, it’s ok you know.
Comment by Future Troll — July 10, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
I never said it wasn’t….
P1 is a fake troll!keep it up yo…
July 10th, 2007 at 5:20 pm(psssst…he’s actually a gnome. don’t tell anyone!!)
#41: I’m sure you enjoyed it.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:20 pmWhat garbage….a few members of Congress continue to aid the enemy by offering them sanctuary.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:20 pmWatch out future-Troll, don’t drop the soap, Mr. P likes to get to know all other trolls, in a biblical sense, he is kinda weird that way
Comment by Wayne — July 10, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
LOL Reminded me this bit of satire.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:21 pmBesides, you’re not worthy of Zooey.
Comment by Future troll — July 10, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
why are you bringing Z into this??
July 10th, 2007 at 5:21 pmThis law is unnecessary. The Bush administration is in violation of the Constitution by denying habeus corpus rights.
Comment by Republicans Can’t Govern — July 10, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
that’s what i was thinking… what is this really about?
yes, it WILL be interesting to see the votes…
July 10th, 2007 at 5:22 pm.
What garbage….a few members of Congress continue to aid the enemy by offering them sanctuary.
Comment by m12 — July 10, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Habeas corpus is garbage? LOL You better hope you have it if you ever need it!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:23 pmComment by Cambria — July 10, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
No I wasn’t. I am a fan of many Metropolis artists.
Voyeuristic, vile, and victorious!
In the U.S.S.A., baby!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:23 pmI wonder why no one mentions also restoring Posse comataus which the Military Commissions Act also killed.
The Posse Comatatus Act restricted the use of US military on the civillian population. Also in the act it stripped the States control of their National Guard and also gave the President the right to label anyone he chooses, without any restrictions as an enemy combatant, such as anti-war protestors or anyone speaking out against our Fascist-in Chief.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:24 pmHabeas corpus is garbage? LOL You better hope you have it if you ever need it!
Garbage when it extends to these enemy combatants, absolutely.
We need to give them a taste of Islamic justice.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:24 pmWe need to give them a taste of Islamic justice.
Comment by m12 — July 10, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
———————————————————————
Not a bad idea.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:25 pmIt’s absurd that this legislation is even necessary!
Habeas corpus is an unalienable right! No government – local, state, federal – can legitimately take it away. To deny habeas corpus is criminal, a crime against WE THE PEOPLE and our Constitution.
This is THE MOST IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. The president (and Congress) is sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Yet that weasel, Gonzo, uses the language of the Constitution to disparage habeas corpus. He’s not fit to serve in our government.
BTW – when will the Supreme Court get around the reading the 9th amendment? It’s been in there for a couple of hundred years.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:25 pm#41: I’m sure you enjoyed it.
Comment by Future troll
Nope, he doesn’t like non-trolls, and I don’t swing that way =)
July 10th, 2007 at 5:26 pmAn 800-year old legal principle, one that every one of our Founders held dear, and these cowardly conservatives want to do away with it because of a few religious fanatics with box cutters. Is there anything more cowardly and unamerican than a modern American conservative?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:27 pmWe need to give them a taste of Islamic justice.
Comment by m12 — July 10, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
We can be just like the Muslims if we try hard enough.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:29 pmThis is what happens when degenerates bugger their way into power.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:29 pmGarbage when it extends to these enemy combatants, absolutely.
We need to give them a taste of Islamic justice.
Comment by m12
When a Democrat gets elected, we will make sure to suggest that he/she declare YOU an enemy combatant for speaking out against Democrats, and apply what you wish for others to you.
See how the Military Commisions Act will affect even you now, idiot?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:30 pmWhen a Democrat gets elected, we will make sure to suggest that he/she declare YOU an enemy combatant for speaking out against Democrats, and apply what you wish for others to you.
See how the Military Commisions Act will affect even you now, idiot?
I am an American citizen. The MCA defines procedures for foreigners.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:31 pma few members of Congress continue to aid the enemy by offering them sanctuary.
What garbage. A few rightwing screechers think it’s necessary to trash the Constitution because of a band of thugs halfway around the world. If George Washington was alive, he’d slap your cowardly ignorant ass into the stone age.
Bedwetting brats like you aren’t fit to live in this great country. If you don’t like habeas corpus, why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t have it?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:31 pm“Garbage when it extends to these enemy combatants, absolutely.”
WHO determines who is an enemy combatant? Do you know that the vast majority of the people sent to Gitmo are NOT IN ANY WAY enemy combatants?
Here was the process that sent the majority into Gitmo: The U.S. offered a big money award for turning in terrorists and enemy combatants, no questions asked. People took the money, and turned in people they disliked. Those people were put into Gitmo.
This is why we need due process.
BTW – in the Declaration, it says “all men are created equal” and that they have unalienable rights. It DOESN’T say that only citizens of the American government (which didn’t yet exist) have such rights. In fact, IT IS THIS VERY THING which makes America special. So, get with the program…if you call yourself an American.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:31 pmIt’s absurd that this legislation is even necessary!
—- Publicus
Not really, repealing the Military Commissions Act would be much better, restoring it all back.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pmQUESTION: “Is there anything more cowardly and unamerican than a modern American conservative?”
ANSWER: “NO”
July 10th, 2007 at 5:33 pmI am an American citizen. The MCA defines procedures for foreigners.
Comment by m12
shows you never read the actual law, moron
July 10th, 2007 at 5:33 pmI suggest you read it and you will know fear knowing a democrat will have those powers in 2009.
Bedwetting brats like you aren’t fit to live in this great country. If you don’t like habeas corpus, why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t have it?
If you don’t like our President, why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t have him?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:34 pmm12: “I am an American citizen. The MCA defines procedures for foreigners.”
#1: Jose Padilla is an American citizen.
#2: The constitution does not say only citizens are subject to our rights.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:34 pm#49: Zooey is the only one we listen to – at least to some extent. She is the mistress of TP.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:34 pmGarbage when it extends to these enemy combatants, absolutely.
We need to give them a taste of Islamic justice.
Comment by m12 — July 10, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
So you are hard of understanding. Let’s read again:
Last year, Congress committed an historic mistake by suspending the Great Writ of habeas corpus — not just for those confined at Guantanamo Bay, but for millions of legal residents in the United States.
It’s not just the Guantanamo prisoners of Bush! You wouldn’t know Islamic justice if it hit you in the face – you don’t even know American justice.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:35 pmI’m not opposed to a law to restore habeas corpus, but IT IS absurd that we need one. BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE LEGITIMATELY TAKEN AWAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. It is an unalienable right.
If we had any kind of legitimate government, one that recognizes (as our founders did) that THEIR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY is to protect our unalienable rights, this wouldn’t be necessary.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:35 pmm12: “If you don’t like our President, why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t have him?”
Not necessary. He’ll be gone on 1-20-09. He’ll be on his ranch in Paraquay later that year hiding from the jurisdiction of the World Court.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:36 pm#2: The constitution does not say only citizens are subject to our rights.
It also doesn’t say we need to grant sanctuary to our enemies! Military tribunals have been used at many times in our nations’ history.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:36 pmWe need to do something about GITMO…
DOUBLE IT’S SIZE!!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:37 pmBecause the bill was adopted with lightning speed, and signed in private without anyn media coverage, barely anyone noticed, except for those that read the law, that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, “unlawful enemy combatants.â€
I read every bill passed.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:37 pmIf you don’t like our President, why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t have him?
No, I chose to stay and fight you un-American rightwing traitors, because I’m a patriot, not a fear-ridden bootlicker.
Now I have the pleasure of watching all you dumb nutsacks piss yer panties while Yer Fearless Leader melts down.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:38 pmThe detainees have no rights under our constitution.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:38 pm“It also doesn’t say we need to grant sanctuary to our enemies!”
Still can’t face the fact that the majority of prisoners in Guantanamo were innocent, can you?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:39 pm“It also doesn’t say we need to grant sanctuary to our enemies! ”
Idiot. Lots of innocent people are in these prisons! You are too angry or afraid or stupid to say anything about justice. You want revenge, even if it’s against the wrong people – ordinary citizens rounded up for no reason.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:39 pmIt’s not just the Guantanamo prisoners of Bush! You wouldn’t know Islamic justice if it hit you in the face – you don’t even know American justice.
Islamic justice is where they stone rape victims to death. These anti-American thugs are not part of our great system.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:39 pmSection 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
*sigh*can we impeach yet?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:39 pmHouston Chronicle headline, year 2010: “Ex-Prez Bush Land in Crawford Drunk Tank… AGAIN!”
July 10th, 2007 at 5:39 pm#74: Damn straight, Mr. President!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:40 pm“Garbage when it extends to these enemy combatants, absolutely. We need to give them a taste of Islamic justice.”
Still can’t face the fact that the majority of prisoners in Guantanamo were innocent, can you?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:40 pm“We need to give them a taste of Islamic justice.”
Really? We need to turn our country into an Islamic state? Do tell….
July 10th, 2007 at 5:41 pmIdiot. Lots of innocent people are in these prisons! You are too angry or afraid or stupid to say anything about justice. You want revenge, even if it’s against the wrong people – ordinary citizens rounded up for no reason.
Innocent like that punk who tossed a grenade at one of our soldiers? It’s past time to hang him!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:41 pmIslamic justice is where they stone rape victims to death. These anti-American thugs are not part of our great system.
Comment by m12 — July 10, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Our great system where we do not stone rape victims to death. That’s the definition of a great system. Habeas corpus only exists in mediocre systems.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:43 pmIslamic justice is where they stone rape victims to death. These anti-American thugs are not part of our great system.
Comment by m12 — July 10, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
And just how many in Gitmo are there because of rape? You are not being honest and you are ignoring the truth. “Our great system” just allowed a convicted felon to go on his merry way after committing a crime worthy of treason – the highest crime in the land. Great system alright.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:43 pmThe detainees have no rights under our constitution.
What happens when YOU are detained? Want any rights to present your case? Or to have someone tell you what you’ve been charged with? Or to get a lawyer? Or a trial?
Or maybe they could just shut you out of side in a prison and forget about you. Which way would be justice?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:43 pmComment by Publicus — July 10, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
The detainees have no rights under our constitution.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:44 pmm12: “It also doesn’t say we need to grant sanctuary to our enemies! Military tribunals have been used at many times in our nations’ history.”
Restoring the “natural right” of habeus corpus is not the same as granting sanctuary to our enemies. It’s reaffirming American values. Military tribunals have been used a few times, not many times, and each time they were used, they violated the letter of the constitution. We have a civilian government of, by and for the people. Our system is not run by the military. But, of course, you know all that.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:44 pmLots of innocent people are in these prisons! You are too angry or afraid or stupid to say anything about justice. You want revenge, even if it’s against the wrong people – ordinary citizens rounded up for no reason.
How are we to know who is actually “guilty” if we do not put them on trial?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:46 pmRestoring the “natural right†of habeus corpus is not the same as granting sanctuary to our enemies. It’s reaffirming American values. Military tribunals have been used a few times, not many times, and each time they were used, they violated the letter of the constitution. We have a civilian government of, by and for the people. Our system is not run by the military. But, of course, you know all that.
The civilian government, which has 2 branches that have authorized these tribunals, giving control to the military.
Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt have all used military tribunals. Given what these men have led the country through, perhaps they’re onto something!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:47 pmYou are IMPOSSIBLY STUPID! Because one or more people may be guilty, we need to NOT HAVE DUE PROCESS to find out WHO IS GUILTY and WHO IS INNOCENT? You are ready to execute the guilty and innocent alike!
You are INSANE!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pmMilitary tribunals are A-OK. You can only use them when you’re dealing with some filthy foreign characters, so who cares?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pmThe detainees have no rights under our constitution.
Comment by Mr. President
Under MCA, YOU have no rights if the current President or future President chooses, and you would have no redress in court.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pmI suggest you read the law you ignorant moron
How are we to know who is actually “guilty†if we do not put them on trial?
We will put them on trial, and hopefully execute them, after all the paperwork is filled.
That takes a bit of time.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:48 pmDouble the size of GITMO so more of ‘em can rot and die!
July 10th, 2007 at 5:49 pm#94: Oh, it really bothers you that a muslim could actually be guilty of something, doesn’t it? Typical liberal.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:49 pmRoosevelt put innocent Japanese Americans into prison camps. Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus. Great men, to be sure, committing great mistakes.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:50 pmIf we’re NOT STUPID, we don’t repeat their mistakes! (NOT STUPID, of course, leaves out m12)
ex parte Quirin, 1942
…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:50 pm#100: Wouldn’t you rather intern certain people just to be safe than let them roam free and experience another 9/11? I don’t understand how you could choose the latter.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:54 pmLooks like alot of people are hitting the pages of the full text of the bill, and the servers are timing out right now, but here is a link to use once it settles down.
Makes me wonder how many were suddenly interested in reading the bill today, was working earlier this morning:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122
July 10th, 2007 at 5:54 pmOh, it really bothers you that a muslim could actually be guilty of something, doesn’t it? Typical liberal.
Comment by Future troll — July 10, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Does it bother you that a Muslim could actually be innocent of something?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:56 pmm12 -
Did a grown-up send you that case? Isn’t it great when you can select a case and use it to execute innocent people? Makes you feel good, doesn’t it?
When you’ve actually read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers (you can read, can’t you? or do you just cut and paste?), get back to us. In the meantime, don’t pretend to know anything. It’s just makes you look even stupider.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:56 pmWouldn’t you rather intern certain people just to be safe than let them roam free and experience another 9/11? I don’t understand how you could choose the latter.
Of course the liberals would! They challenge great actions taken by the greatest Presidents in our history for the essential defense of our nation.
Franklin Roosevelt must be wondering what his party has become.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:56 pmYou are ready to execute the guilty and innocent alike!
You are INSANE!
Comment by Publicus
That fits our 28%er neocon trolls to a T unfortunately, Pub
they are totally ignorant of the consequences of the position they take and the consequences of what the rubberstamp 109th congress has done to this country.
They would only understand if a Democrat got in and turned that law on them ( which is doubtfull a Democrat would use it as such )
July 10th, 2007 at 5:59 pm#104: They’ll have plenty of time to prove their innocence.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:59 pmm12, the key words are at the beginning of your citation, “the law of war…”
We’re not at war. No war has been declared. Only congress has the right to declare war. No state has declared war on us. A notable terrorist has personally declared war on us, but that’s not a state.
Now, in 1942, the year of your citation, two large industrial powers DID declare war on us, so military tribunals were at least standing on firm ground then, but not today.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:00 pm#107: You make it sound like we don’t understand what’s at stake. We would never play fast-and-loose with the law and constitution when it comes to loyal citizens. But if you’re conspiring against our nation…
July 10th, 2007 at 6:01 pmm12: “Franklin Roosevelt must be wondering what his party has become.”
Rush Limbaugh: “Franklin Roosevelt is dead. His policies live on but we’re trying to do something about that too.”
July 10th, 2007 at 6:02 pm#109: “No war has been declared”. Tell that to the wounded, MIA and KIA.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:02 pmFuture troll: “You make it sound like we don’t understand what’s at stake.”
It’s been painfully clear that you don’t for quite a while now.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:03 pmWe’re not at war. No war has been declared. Only congress has the right to declare war. No state has declared war on us. A notable terrorist has personally declared war on us, but that’s not a state.
Now, in 1942, the year of your citation, two large industrial powers DID declare war on us, so military tribunals were at least standing on firm ground then, but not today.
Tell that to the numerous Democrats in Congress who refer to the conflict in Iraq as a war.
The Joint Resolution passed in 2003 was specifically in line with Congress’s policies set in the War Powers Act!
July 10th, 2007 at 6:05 pmTell that to the wounded, MIA and KIA.
Comment by Future troll
Our wounded already know that, especially the ones that are kept in substandard conditions or are kicked to the streets abandoned by the Administration, you blind fool
July 10th, 2007 at 6:05 pmWe would never play fast-and-loose with the law and constitution when it comes to loyal citizens.
That’s exactly the case used whenever the government turns against loyal citizens. The McCarthy hearings were aimed at “disloyal citizens”. The Palmer raids were aimed against “disloyal citizens”. The Japanese-American internment was aimed at “disloyal citizens.”
The question is: WHO DETERMINED THEY WERE “DISLOYAL CITIZENS”? And who’s doing it now? Some of those people are innocent and some are
July 10th, 2007 at 6:07 pmguilty.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:07 pmm12: “Franklin Roosevelt must be wondering what his party has become.â€
In less time than we’ve been at war in Iraq, FDR had defeated Japan, fascist Italy, and the Nazis. Bush can’t even defeat a third-world nation half the size of Texas. What a useless bag of snot Bush is.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:08 pmFuture Troll: “Tell that to the wounded, MIA and KIA.”
Whether or not they or anyone know it, it’s true. No war has been declared. For that and a number of other reasons, this is an illegal war.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:09 pmm12: “The Joint Resolution passed in 2003 was specifically in line with Congress’s policies set in the War Powers Act!”
This administration never lived up to the terms of that resolution. And, whether or not the War Powers Act is even constitutional is a matter of debate.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:11 pmTell that to the numerous Democrats in Congress who refer to the conflict in Iraq as a war.
Comment by m12 — July 10, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
And that means… exactly WHAT, You’re12?
July 10th, 2007 at 6:38 pmIn less time than we’ve been at war in Iraq, FDR had defeated Japan, fascist Italy, and the Nazis. Bush can’t even defeat a third-world nation half the size of Texas. What a useless bag of snot Bush is.
Comment by Arthur C.
Maybe Bush should round up all Middle Easterners in the U.S. like FDR did of the Japanese.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:52 pmAs usual reporters and members of congress forget that German Americans and Italian Americans were also denied writ of habeas corpus during World War II. This is not a race issue. Furthermore, those who were stripped of habeas corpus during WWII in the U.S. were neither combatants nor terrorists.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:26 pmtimmy: “Maybe Bush should round up all Middle Easterners in the U.S. like FDR did of the Japanese.”
Sure, timmy, because as we all know, it was the rounding up of Japanese Americans that won the war, not the storming of beaches, fighting it out in the trenches, and bombing runs over Tokyo.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:42 pmPoor Timmy. Lassie left him in the well just a Little too loong.
July 10th, 2007 at 7:48 pmThank God somebody’s trying to Save the Constitution!
Fools
July 10th, 2007 at 8:06 pmAnd that means… exactly WHAT, You’re12?
If they’re voting for authorization to go to war, describing it as a war, trying to remove our troops from what they call a war, and bashing the President for how he has run what they call a war, guess what?
It’s a war!
July 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pmIn less time than we’ve been at war in Iraq, FDR had defeated Japan, fascist Italy, and the Nazis. Bush can’t even defeat a third-world nation half the size of Texas. What a useless bag of snot Bush is.
Then you should support leaving the troops in Iraq until 2009 so Hillary can do what is (in your opinion) a proper job.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:37 pmThe Circuit Court confirmed the denial of habeas corpus request of Hermann Schleuter confined on Ellis Island as a Dangerous Alien Enemy, a legal resident from Germany, on January 2,1947; stating further that Schleuter’s claims that his hearing was improper, as counsel was denied him, that the quality of the hearing could not be questioned ,inasmuch as he was not entitled to a hearing at all.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:41 amThe court also affirmed that Truman’s order to deport 700 legal alien residents by proclamation 2055 was within the powers the presidency had even if exercised well after termination of the war.
If you don’t like our President, why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t have him? — Comment by m12
m12: you must’ve therefore thought that President Clinton was a fine President. If you didn’t like him, you would’ve left the country. Nice to see you on board. In fact, I’ll put you down as a Clinton supporter.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:00 amAnyone who dislikes Habeas Corpus, all I’ll do is pretend I’m a gov’t official.
I now declare you a terrorist, and I can now officially detain you forever without you being able to challenge it in court.
How about them apples?
July 11th, 2007 at 7:53 pmThe Judicial branch should have taken care of this – where was the Supreme Court in all of this?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:50 pmThe judicial branch has declared that the people in Guantanamo do not have the right to have any rights.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pmThat includes habeus corpus. The SC decided that they might have rights, but only when the Congress changed the rules.
It took a military judge to tell everyone what we’re doing at Guantanamo is wrong and should be stopped.
How the hell are they supposed to challenge their detentions when they can’t even get a lawyer or even see the evidence of their supposed crimes?
Whoops. That was a mistake-they’re all guilty, aren’t they?
BTW #133 has it right-anyone can be imprisoned without trial forever without Habeus rights. That is why it is so important to restore them.
You can’t just suspend some people’s rights to habeus and not others-it is all or none.
The Comments by m12 and Mr. President show me why this country is in such bad shape
July 12th, 2007 at 12:37 amLetter To A Soldier In Iraq
Dear John,
What I must write you is difficult to express and so very painful, but undoubtedly even more so for you to read.
While you have been bravely fighting these several years in Iraq, originally keeping our homefront safe from the clutches of that former threat to all mankind Saddam Hussein, a profound change has entered my heart and very soul. I fear I have come to love an other, and a gulf wider than Persia is far from here has opened between us.
I have realized the strength and principle which made our existence together an ideal was in the end but an illusion. Some might say the man I’ve determined to give up the best years of my life for is not so much a man as the ideal of what a man thinks he may be.
Either way, his compassionate presence and overwhelming power of authority has made me weak. I writhe and shudder at his awesome touch and swoon at the further possibilities he may yet hold for our nation as a whole.
Forgive me dear, but His war in Iraq has exacted this terribly tragic toll, and as well cost you and I whatever faith and security we had for one another in this once glorious democracy.
You will always remain my most precious, memory…
Habeus Corpus
July 16th, 2007 at 5:23 am