SENATE JUDICIARY LEADERS INTRODUCE BILL TO RESTORE HABEAS RIGHTS FOR DETAINEES

[kpete]

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Senate Judiciary leaders introduce bill to restore habeas rights for detainees
Katerina Ossenova


US Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , and current ranking member of the committee Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)have introduced a bill which would restore habeas corpus rights to military detainees and amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). A key provision in the MCA, which President Bush signed into law last month, strips US courts of jurisdiction to consider writs of habeas corpus filed by detainees classified as enemy combatants.

Introducing the bill S. 4081, http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200612/120506.html Leahy said:

This bill would restore the great writ of habeas corpus, a cornerstone of American liberty for hundreds of years that Congress and the President rolled back in an unprecedented and unnecessary way with September's Military Commissions Act. Habeas corpus provides a remedy against arbitrary detentions and constitutional violations. It guarantees an opportunity to go to court, with the aid of a lawyer, to prove one's innocence. The Military Commissions Act eliminated that right, permanently, for any non-citizen determined to be an enemy combatant, or even "awaiting" such a determination. That includes the approximately 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today, people who work for American firms, raise American kids, and pay American taxes.

Last month, US Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) introduced legislation that would restore habeas corpus rights to military detainees and make other amendments to the MCA. Since its passage, the MCA has come under fire not only from Democrats but also from the judiciary, human rights groups and foreign countries. Lawyers representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay petitioned < the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in early November to declare the suspension of habeas rights unconstitutional. In an amicus brief in the case, seven retired federal judges urged the appeals court to rule that parts of the MCA violate the Constitution. McClatchy Newspapers has more.[br />
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/senate-judiciary-leaders-introduce.php

[halobeam]

1. k & r

[Lerkfish]

2. so NOW spector wants to do this? I'm glad, but jeez.

[Wiley50]

15. Beware of trusting "Single Bullet Theory" Spectre

He was part of the Warren Commission, Remember?

[Lerkfish]

20. exactly. That's why I said that.

don't trust the guy.

[Lugnut]

32. I live in PA

He makes me sick. He personifies flip-flop.

[IndyOp]

39. Very, very wary of Spector. I keep thinking he may be

next in line for President. There have now been 4 Republican Presidents associated with the assassination and/or cover-up. Why not one more?

:(

[pacalo]

43. Really! Why didn't Spector openly fight the bill before it passed??!!

[proud patriot]

3. YEAH !

:patriot:

[Beetwasher]

4. Sanity Beginning It's Slow Ascension

We can only hope, and hope it's not too slow an ascension as well.

[Suich]

5. When this bill passes, can shrub veto it??? n/t

[Hosnon]

7. Yes. nt.

[Suich]

10. Thanks!

This should be interesting...

:hi:

[Hosnon]

11. Surely...and I don't think we have enough for an override:( Hopefully,

public pressure to not veto the bill will deter him from doing so.

His legacy already blows because of Iraq...it'd serve his own interest to not leave office having stripped away at Habeus Corpus.

[jsamuel]

6. happy to be the 5th rec, keep your eye on Spector

you never know which way he will flip next.....

[cali]

8. Leahy said over a month ago

that this was first on his agenda. Glad to see snarlin' arlen backing it as well. And I love what Leahy said.

[malaise]

9. Oh Yes!

Let's go Dems!!

[tritsofme]

12. Great timing Specter!

I'm sure Bush will be more than happy to give up his new powers after you just gave them to him!

[newyawker99]

13. This is good news!!

:thumbsup:

[LSK]

14. K&R

Nice to see Specter on board too. Maybe this bill could override a veto by Bush.

[Vinca]

16. Specter introduced an amendment to the bill that would have

retained habeas corpus, but it was voted down. I couldn't - and still can't - understand why he went on to vote for the bill. Thank heavens Pat Leahy is on top of this.

[AikidoSoul]

17. It looks hopeful

that some sanity has entered the Congress of the United States.

Hopefully the restoration of Posse Comitatus is next.

[AikidoSoul]

18. K & R

and blessings upon Leahy....

[lovuian]

19. Its about time

Alleluia

[Greeby]

21. Wouldn't get your hopes up

Explain to me where this bill to restore Habeus is going to get enough votes in a Senate that voted to strip Habeus in the first place :shrug:

[Kokonoe]

35. Well I'm no expert, but I seem to recall that Bush is going on trial

for war crimes. You see since US law does not give avenue for anyone accused of terrorism, then it falls under international jurisdiction. It's just a case of covering their asses.

[TahitiNut]

22. This bill would have to be re-introduced in the 110th Congress.

I don't believe such legislation carries over.

[stevedeshazer]

25. You're right. The slate is wiped clean after each Congress ends

It's probably CYA for Specter as he winds down his career as a right-wing enabler who pretends to be moderate.

[TahitiNut]

28. Yup. Smells like more Kabuki. I'll wait for the 110th Congress and see their 'virtue.'

These are the same corrupt and cowardly corporate crony pols who let that abomination of 'legislation' through to cover the flatulent asses of the war criminals in the Whiteore House .

[cali]

29. Bullshit.

Senator Leahy was OUTRAGED over the torture bill, and he will not let go of this. I can guarantee that. I'm so fucking sick of people tarring all legislators with the same brush. Why don't you consider educating yourself and reading up on what Leahy and others have done in the past.

[TahitiNut]

31. Does the "Specter Amendment" to the Military Commissions Act ring a bell??

It was Specter's prior weak-kneed attempt to remove the habeas corpus exceptions from this abominable piece of shit legislation. It failed 48-51-1 with Ben Nelson (D-NE) voting 'Nay' with his fascist friends. Why do I say "weak-kneed"? Because this abomination contained other sleazy provisions ... and should've been entitled "The Fascist Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free While Imprisoning Others For Life Act." It not only runs roughshod over the habeas corpus provision of the Constitution, it trashes many decades of Geneva Conventions international agreements and attempts to put all military above even the UCMJ for participating in these Kangaroo Courts. In other words, a purported license to commit war crimes.

Do you remember these provisions (among others) ... ?

(Sec. 4) Makes inapplicable to commissions UCMJ provisions concerning: (1) contempt; (2) speedy trial; (3) self-incrimination warnings; and (4) pretrial investigations.

(Sec. 5) Prohibits a person from invoking the Geneva Conventions in any habeas corpus or other civil action to which the United States, a current or former officer, employee, or member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its states or territories.

<snip>

(Sec. 7) Amends federal criminal justice provisions to deny any court or judge jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of, or to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of, an alien detained outside the United States who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Makes the provisions of this section effective upon enactment, and applicable to all cases, without exception, pending on or after enactment which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

(Sec. 8) Amends provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 relating to the protection of U.S. government personnel engaged in authorized interrogations to: (1) require (currently authorizes) the U.S. government to provide counsel and pay the legal fees of any such personnel with respect to any civil action or criminal prosecution arising out of an authorized interrogation; and (2) make such provisions effective with respect to actions occurring between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005.

You say ... "I'm so fucking sick of people tarring all legislators with the same brush."

We'll pass for a moment on why I should give a shit about you being "fucking sick" (to which I might venture an agreement) and merely deal with "tarring all legislators with the same brush." It's called partisan politics - the kind of partisan politics where a "Democrat" is regarded as electable and a "Republican" unelectable - merely because of the "tarred brush" of party affiliation. Well, that sure did show itself to be the pole star on this abominable piece of legislation, didn't it? If Ben Nelson (D-NE) isn't bad enough, let's consider the following folks:

Carper (D-DE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)

Every one of these "fine Democrats" voted 'Yea' on the WORST piece of criminal legislation I've seen in my lifetime. Indeed, I think it ranks right up there with the worst 1% in the history of this nation, It makes the (so-called) Patriot Act look like "My Pet Goat" in comparison.

Even beyond this, those 34 'fine Senators' who voted against the MCA (including Lincoln Chafee) COULD'VE dug their heels in and, failing on a filibuster, halted business in the Senate by denying it 'unanimous consent' ... something ANY Senator could do but (due to "civility" in the 'club') don't.

A final thought ...
Why don't you consider educating yourself and reading up on what it means to remain civil and pose a valid argument and offer relevant facts without neurotically attacking others whose posts you demonstrably fall short of comprehending and whose familiarity with the subject you apparently don't even come close to appreciating?

[Vidar]

23. Good for Leahy. Specter's weather vane is functioning. Recommended.

[RiverStone]

24. K&R!

[nam78_two]

26. K&R/nt

[Land Shark]

27. Folks, there's much more than just habeas rights to restore

habeas is like the procedure requiring the govt to prove you're held lawfully, but then there are unlawful (now "lawful") conditions and procedures that were the other parts of the bill, like admitting evidence obtained under coercive torture, etc.etc.

If this is all there will be, a restoration of habeas, than it's like stealing a million dollars, putting back $400K and calling it kicked, recommended, and a huge success for justice. It's a step in the right direction, are they stopping here??

[cali]

30. No. They won't be stopping here.

I've heard Senator Leahy speak to the issue of torture and coersion.

[librechik]

42. no, they are revisting the Military Commissions Act, too

there will be a new debate at least. Be patient--it's not even January yet!

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/11/us-senator-proposes-amendments-to.php

[FogerRox]

46. LS, IIRC Big difference bewteen Leahys bill & Dodds bill

Leahys bill deals with restoring Habeus for NON CITIZENS. MCA deals with labeling CITIZENS as enemy combatants, thusly they get no Habeus.

Dodds bill goes farther, deals with restoring habeus for Citizens and non citizens.

[buddysmellgood]

33. I wish more everyone here knew more than 10 people who know why this is important.

[Rex]

34. Here we go.

nt

[Oilwellian]

36. Here's Leahy's statement added to the Bill

It's long but a MUST READ for everyone. I LOVE Leahy.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.

The amendments made by this Act shall--
(1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
and
(2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date
of enactment of this Act.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee and cosponsor the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of
2006. This bill would restore the great writ of habeas corpus, a
cornerstone of American liberty for hundreds of years that Congress and
the President rolled back in an unprecedented and unnecessary way with
September's Military Commissions Act.
I am also pleased to join Senator Dodd as a cosponsor of the
Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act of 2006. That bill would likewise
restore the liberties guaranteed by the writ of habeas corpus. It would
also correct many of the other very disturbing provisions of the
Military Commissions Act by narrowing that act's extremely broad
definition of ``unlawful enemy combatants,'' excluding evidence
obtained by coercion, and allowing defendants to review evidence used
against them.
Habeas corpus provides a remedy against arbitrary detentions and
constitutional violations. It guarantees an opportunity to go to court,
with the aid of a lawyer, to prove one's innocence. As Justice Scalia
stated in the Hamdi case: ``The very core of liberty secured by our
Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite
imprisonment at the will of the Executive.'' The remedy that secures
that most basic of freedoms is habeas corpus.
The Military Commissions Act eliminated that right, permanently, for
any non-citizen determined to be an enemy combatant, or even
``awaiting'' such a determination. That includes the approximately 12
million lawful permanent residents in the United States today, people
who work for American firms, raise American kids, and pay American
taxes. This new law means that any of these people can be detained,
forever, without any ability to challenge their detention in federal
court--or anywhere else--simply on the Government's say-so that they
are awaiting determination whether they are enemy combatants.
I regret that Chairman Specter and I were unsuccessful in our efforts
to stop this injustice when the President and the Republican leadership
insisted on rushing the Military Commissions Act through Congress in
the lead-up to the elections. We supported an amendment which would
have removed the habeas-stripping provision from the Military
Commissions Act. It failed by just three votes. I was saddened that the
bill passed even with this poisonous habeas provision. Since then, the
American people have spoken against the administration's ``stay the
course'' approach to national security and against a rubber stamp
Congress that accommodated this administration's efforts to grab more
and more power.
When we debated Chairman Specter's amendment to remove the habeas-
stripping provision back in September, I spelled out a nightmare
scenario about a hard-working legal permanent resident who makes an
innocent donation to, among other charities, a Muslim charity that the
Government thinks might be funneling money to terrorists. I suggested
that, on the basis of this donation and perhaps a report of
``suspicious behavior'' from an overzealous neighbor based on visits
from Muslim guests, the permanent resident could be brought in for
questioning, denied a lawyer, confined, and even tortured. And this
lawful permanent resident would have no recourse in the courts for
years, for decades, forever.
Many people viewed this kind of nightmare scenario as fanciful, just
the rhetoric of a politician. It was not. It is all spelled out clearly
in the language of the law that this body passed. Last month, the
scenario I spelled out was confirmed by the Department of Justice
itself in a legal brief submitted in a Federal court in Virginia. The
Justice Department, in a brief to dismiss a detainee's habeas case,
said that the Military Commissions Act allows the Government to detain
any noncitizen declared to be an enemy combatant without giving that
person any ability to challenge his detention in court. This is true,
the Justice Department said, even for someone arrested and imprisoned
in the United States. The

<[Page S11199>]

Washington Post wrote that the brief ``raises the possibility that any
of the millions of immigrants living in the United States could be
subject to indefinite detention if they are accused of ties to
terrorist groups.''
In fact, the situation is more stark even than the Washington Post
story suggested. The Justice Department's brief says that the
Government can detain any noncitizen declared to be an enemy combatant.
But the law this Congress passed says the Government need not even make
that declaration; they can hold people indefinitely who are just
awaiting determination whether or not they are enemy combatants. It
gets worse. Republican leaders in the Senate followed the White House's
lead and greatly expanded the definition of ``enemy combatants'' in the
dark of night in the final days before the bill's passage, so that
enemy combatants need not be soldiers on battlefield. They can be
people who give money, or people that any group of decisionmakers
selected by the President decides to call enemy combatants. The
possibilities are chilling.
The administration has made it clear that they intend to use every
expansive definition and unchecked power given to them by the new law.
Last month's Justice Department brief made clear that any of our legal
immigrants could be held indefinitely without recourse in court.
Earlier in November, the Justice Department went to court to say that
detainees who had been held in secret CIA prisons could not even meet
with lawyers because they might tell their lawyers about the cruel
interrogation techniques used against them. In other words, if our
Government tortures somebody, that person loses his right to a lawyer
because he might tell the lawyer about having been tortured. A law
professor was quoted as saying about the government's position in that
case: ``Kafka-esque doesn't do it justice. This is `Alice in
Wonderland.' '' We are not talking about nightmare scenarios here. We
are talking about today's reality.
We have eliminated basic legal and human rights for the 12 million
lawful permanent residents who live and work among us, to say nothing
of the millions of other legal immigrants and visitors who we welcome
to our shores each year. We have removed the check that our legal
system provides against the Government arbitrarily detaining people for
life without charge, and we may well have made many of our remaining
limits against torture and cruel and inhuman treatment obsolete because
they are unenforceable. We have removed the mechanism the Constitution
provides to check Government overreaching and lawlessness.
This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It is
designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney administration will never again
be embarrassed by a U.S. Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful
abuses of power. The conservative Supreme Court, with seven of its nine
members appointed by Republican Presidents, has been the only check on
the Bush-Cheney administration's lawlessness. Certainly the outgoing
rubberstamp Republican Congress has not done it, or even investigated
it. With passage of the Military Commissions Act, the Republican
Congress completed the job of eviscerating its role as a check and
balance on the administration.
Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the Government thinks might
have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally
wrong. It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which
America stands. It makes a mockery of the Bush-Cheney administration's
lofty rhetoric about exporting freedom across the globe.
Admiral John Hutson testified before the Judiciary Committee that
stripping the courts of habeas jurisdiction was inconsistent with
American history and tradition. He concluded, ``We don't need to do
this. America is too strong.'' Even Kenneth Starr, the former
independent counsel and Solicitor General to the first President Bush,
wrote that the Constitution's conditions for suspending habeas corpus
have not been met, and that doing so would be problematic.
Under the Constitution, a suspension of the writ may only be
justified during an invasion or a rebellion, when the public safety
demands it. Six weeks after the deadliest attack on American soil in
our history, the Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act rightly concluded
that a suspension of the writ would not be justified. Yet 6 weeks
before a midterm election, the Bush-Cheney administration and the
Republican Congress deemed a complete abolition of the writ their
highest priority. Notwithstanding the harm the administration has done
to national security with its mismanaged misadventure in Iraq, there
was no new national security crisis. There was only a Republican
political crisis. The people have now spoken, and it is time to reverse
the dangerous choices this Congress made.
Rolling back the Military Commissions Act's disastrous habeas
provision will set the stage for us to approach that issue in a way
consistent with our needs and our values. We should take steps to
ensure that our enemies can be tried efficiently and quickly and to
prevent our courts from being tied up with frivolous suits. But
abolishing the writ of habeas corpus for millions of legal immigrants
and others, denying their right to get into court to challenge
indefinite detainment on the Government's say-so, is not the answer.
I hope that others will hear the call of the American people for a
new direction and work to correct these and other problems with the new
law, including the gutting of the War Crimes Act, which I was proud to
help spearhead with strong bipartisan support in 1997.
I will keep working on these issues until we restore the checks and
balances that make our country great. We can ensure our security
without giving up our liberty.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s4081.html

[jillan]

37. I just love it that Leahy is going to be the chairman of this committee

He's got to be my favorite Dem!

[DemoVet]

38. One point, though....

In his introduction, Leahy states :

"It guarantees an opportunity to go to court, with the aid of a lawyer, to prove one's innocence."

One doesn't go to court to prove one's innocence, one goes to court to compel the state to prove one's guilt. That's a much higher standard that's been the cornerstone of our justice system for over two centuries.

[Mind_your_head]

48. Yes, that's right!

Thank you for pointing out that very important difference/point!

"One doesn't go to court to prove one's innocence, one goes to court to compel the state to prove one's guilt."

[IWantAChange]

40. If it comes to a Dubyha veto on this might the MSM pick up the import of

Habues Corpus rights and Dubyha's disregard for the Constitution and 700-800 years worth of History??

[jazzjunkysue]

41. * Passed these laws like he was going to be King forever. A Dem. pres

could use this law to turn around and arrest Spector. At least some of these boneheads have a long enough attention span to get that these laws will bite them in the tush if left to sit on the shelf long enough to be tested.

[focusfan]

44. i wish they would reinstate Habeas Corpus

that idiot shouldn't have banned that law

[we can do it]

45. Great - But What About OUR Habeas Rights?

[meuniermr]

47. Why would Arlen own himself like this?

If the bill somehow comes up, this congress or re-entered in the next, Specter can't s**tcan it because Leahy's name is on it!