Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, the Senate needs your voice

[ViolaLee]

I got this email from Senator Patrick Leahy today. He's trying to restore our constitutional rights but the Republicans are threatening to filibuster. (Remember when the Republicans whined and screamed about the Dems threatening to filibuster for the past 6 years? Pretty funny). So if you'd like to see our constitution restored to it's original glory, please call your Senators, as Mr. Leahy is asking us to do. The vote could be tomorrow, so this is an urgent request. The Senate needs us to speak up for our rights.

Yesterday, we wrote to you about our Habeas Corpus Restoration Act which is currently being debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Thanks so much to the thousands of you who have already signed on as citizen co-sponsors, helping us build momentum for this critical legislation!

Unfortunately, a number of Republican Senators are once again trying to block our efforts by threatening to filibuster our amendment.

There's going to be a vote on the bill that could come as soon as Wednesday -- that's tomorrow -- to try to beat back their filibuster, and we'll need 60 votes to do it.

Help us end the Republican filibuster of our Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Click here to call your Senators now! (http://restore-habeas.org/)

As of right now, we're just a handful of votes away from the 60 votes we need to overcome the Republican filibuster.

That's where you come in. We've developed an online tool to help you call your Senators, urge them to support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, and then report back on where they stand so we can track our progress towards 60 votes.

This is people-powered democracy at its finest -- and we need your help to make it work.

Help us end the Republican filibuster of our Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. Click here to call your Senators now! (http://restore-habeas.org/)

The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act gives us a chance to reverse one of the Bush Administration's many assaults on our civil liberties, help restore our place in the world, and better secure our nation.

A vote to break the Republican filibuster could come as soon as Wednesday morning -- so please help us restore habeas corpus rights by calling your Senators now!

Your phone calls could make the difference between victory and defeat. We urgently need your help.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy Chris Dodd
U.S. Senator U.S. Senator

P.S. It will just take a minute or two -- but it's extremely important. Please click here to call your Senators, urging them to support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act -- and then report back with the results of your call. Thanks so much for your help!


Call your Senators now! (http://restore-habeas.org/)

Paid for by Leahy for U.S. Senator Committee, Inc.
PO Box 1042
Montpelier, VT 05601


Check this page to see which way the Senators have said they will vote to see if yours need a phone call from you.

http://restore-habeas.org/whip/total.php

[dgun]

William K Wolfrum (blogger) touched on this same subject today.

Source (http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2007/09/18/restore-habeas-corpus/)

It is truly shameful that we have to fight to get habeas corpus back. But we do have to fight for it.

From Restore-Habeas.org:

This week, we have a critical opportunity to restore habeas corpus.

The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act gives us a chance to reverse one of the Bush Administration’s many assaults on our civil liberties.

We all want to make America safe from terrorism, but becoming a nation that sanctions the unlawful detention of its own residents — detaining and jailing them without the chance to appear before a judge — does not make us safe. Instead, it violates a value that we have held dear for centuries — safeguarding our individual freedom before arbitrary state action.

FireDogLake puts it best: The Constitution needs your help today.

My comments:

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

source: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml

——

Up is down, black is white, everything is nothing, lie is truth: words are just words.

All words need to come into compliance with our propaganda is some interpreting, and it doesn’t matter how bizarre or ludicrous we get as long as we get there.

[NortheastCynic]

So exactly what does this Act do? Specifically.

-NC

[ViolaLee]

It restores habeas corpus rights to all people detained by the United States as allowed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 (Reported in Senate)

S 185 RS


Calendar No. 220

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 185

[Report No. 110-90]
To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 4, 2007
Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. BROWN, Mr. SALAZAR, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. DODD, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. OBAMA, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. BYRD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


June 26, 2007
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (e).

(b) Title 10- Section 950j of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:

`(b) Limited Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.'.

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.
Calendar No. 220


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 185

[Report No. 110-90]

A BILL
To restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110RYmYfg::

[DANG]

We're good hereBoxer, Barbara D CA yes
Feinstein, Dianne D CA yes
Shame that we should have to pass a bill for something thats clearly already written in the Constitution.

Revoke the Patriot Act.

[ViolaLee]

Yeah, thank god we're good here. I hope that the others get some letters about this. Sometimes I wonder if Americans even care about the constitution anymore?

[potter]

Yeah, thank god we're good here. I hope that the others get some letters about this. Sometimes I wonder if Americans even care about the constitution anymore?


a very valid question which I wouldn't have even considered 10 years ago.

[ViolaLee]

Well, we failed. We didn't get 60 votes to block the Republican filibuster :( Why are the Republicans dead set on destroying our constitution? Fear will be the downfall of our country. Terrorists are not going to destroy us. We will be destroyed from within, by cowards.
Mr Leahy sent me another email today.

I want to thank all 17,000 of you who signed on as citizen co-sponsors of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act and lobbied your Senators by phone and email -- as well as the millions of other Americans who share our commitment to this critical issue. Yesterday's 56-43 vote clearly showed that a majority of the Senate -- and a majority of Americans -- favor the restoration of our basic civil liberties.

Congress made a mistake of historical proportions when it suspended habeas rights a few years ago -- and unfortunately Senate Republicans made another mistake yesterday by mounting a filibuster and failing to allow us to restore it. The good news is we've picked up 8 more votes since the Senate voted to suspend habeas corpus last fall, but we still need 4 more Senators to reach a filibuster-proof 60 vote margin.

I am disappointed that we did not succeed yesterday -- but we're not giving up, not by a long shot. Defending the Constitution is not always politically easy, especially in a time of war. But our nation is at its greatest when it stands up for the Constitution, during the best of times and the worst of times. That's why I believe in the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, and why my colleagues and I are still working hard to pass it.

I am proud to have led the bipartisan effort to restore our fundamental rights along with my colleagues, including Senator Chris Dodd, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Arlen Specter, and many others. Our bill had widespread support from conservatives, liberals, and independents alike.

With hard work and with the strength of our Constitution, I am confident that we will ultimately prevail. I thank you and my fellow Senators who stood up for an America that upholds its basic values and rights. I'm not backing down and will keep you posted on how you can help us restore habeas corpus rights in the coming weeks.

Thank you for your continued support.


Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator

I am confident that our constitutional rights will be restored and our country will stand proud once again.

If any of you feel strongly about this, I urge you to make your voices heard next time Patrick Leahy tries to do this.[hr]

Yeah, thank god we're good here. I hope that the others get some letters about this. Sometimes I wonder if Americans even care about the constitution anymore?


a very valid question which I wouldn't have even considered 10 years ago.
Me either. I'm actually still shocked we are dealing with this. I took our great country for granted most of my life. No more though, I will fight for it with all my might.

Cheers.

[ViolaLee]

Our founding fathers thought habeas corpus was the most important amendment for our liberty and republic. Hamilton would accuse Bush and the Republicans blocking this bill of being despots and tyrants today.

Here is what Alexander Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers.

Bill of Rights

Document 7

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575--81

28 May 1788 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss7.html)

The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provisions in our constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been in all ages the favourite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital. "To bereave a man of life (says he) or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person by secretly hurrying him to goal, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."

[ViolaLee]

WASHINGTON (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus1oct01,1,3555387.story?page=1&track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-nation) -- The Supreme Court today opens a new term that includes a rich mix of cases -- on election law, sentencing in drug cases, executions by lethal injection, age bias in the workplace and the rights of employees who put their money into 401(k) accounts.

The court will also consider -- again -- whether the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a right to plead their innocence before a judge.

Three years ago, the justices ruled that the right to habeas corpus written into American law extended to the terrorism prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba. This seemed to open the door to hearings before an independent judge.

But the Bush administra- tion balked, and last year's Republican-controlled Congress changed the law to say that foreign-born "enemy combatants" did not have a right to habeas corpus. Now the high court faces a historic decision on whether to overrule both the president and Congress on a war-related matter.

The dispute turns on the Constitution, which says "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended" except during times of "rebellion or invasion." Civil libertarians have urged the court to say that Congress violated this provision when it took away from the Guantanamo prisoners the right to go to court.

I hope they will uphold the constitution and rule to respect the law of our great country.

I was looking around at other rulings by the Supreme Court on habeas corpus and read some opinions. Here's a part of one.

RASUL v. BUSH

As it has evolved over the past two centuries, the habeas statute clearly has expanded habeas corpus “beyond the limits that obtained during the 17th and 18th centuries.” Swain v. Pressley, 430 U. S. 372, 380, n. 13 (1977). But “[a]t its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its protections have been strongest.” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 301 (2001). See also Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 533 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result) (“The historic purpose of the writ has been to relieve detention by executive authorities without judicial trial”). As Justice Jackson wrote in an opinion respecting the availability of habeas corpus to aliens held in U. S. custody:

“Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint.” Shaugh-nessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 218–219 (1953) (dissenting opinion).

Consistent with the historic purpose of the writ, this Court has recognized the federal courts’ power to review applications for habeas relief in a wide variety of cases involving Executive detention, in wartime as well as in times of peace. The Court has, for example, entertained the habeas petitions of an American citizen who plotted an attack on military installations during the Civil War, Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 (1866), and of admitted enemy aliens convicted of war crimes during a declared war and held in the United States, Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), and its insular possessions, In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1 (1946).
The question now before us is whether the habeas statute confers a right to judicial review of the legality of Executive detention of aliens in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not “ultimate sovereignty.”6
The Supreme Court (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-334.pdf)

This case was decided in favor of the detainees to have habeas corpus rights. But the Bush administration is still ignoring this decision by the Supreme Court. They are still holding people without a trial, a lawyer or charges brought against them.

This is is un-American.

The Center for Constitutional Rights. (http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/gac/)

I don't know which day the court will hear the next habeas corpus case. Does anyone?

[Trish]

This case was decided in favor of the detainees to have habeas corpus rights. But the Bush administration is still ignoring this decision by the Supreme Court. They are still holding people without a trial, a lawyer or charges brought against them.




That's not an accurate statement.

"...The Court then sketched a partial blueprint of the procedures to be observed to provide due process, apparently without regard to whether that process is afforded in an administrative or a judicial tribunal...Exactly some such administrative procedure appears likely to be the lasting legacy of Hamdi and Rasul, rather than the prospect of widespread habeas actions entailing detailed factual inquiries in federal court. In fact, after those June 2004 rulings, the Defense Department swiftly established special “combatant status review tribunals” at Guantanamo to hear out the evidence presented by both government and detainee and then to determine whether the prisoner is in fact an enemy combatant and thus subject to continuing detention. The procedures generally seem to follow the outlines set forth in Hamdi, even though the government could easily have taken the position that those prescriptions were limited to citizens detained as alleged enemy combatants and thus were inapplicable to the foreign nationals held at Guantanamo..." (Martin, n.d., Offshore detainees and the role of courts after Rasul v. Bush: The underappreciated virtues of deferential review, P. 17&18, http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/
bctwj/25_1/05_TXT.htm).

As to the statement that the detainees are not allowed lawyers, that is also incorrect. The counsel for David Hicks, Asif Iqbal, and Shafiq Rasul were:

"Joseph Margulies*
Minnesota Bar No. 208528
MARGULIES & RICHMAN, plc
2520 Park Avenue, South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
612-872-4900
612-872-4967 (FAX)

__________________________
Michael Ratner*
William Goodman
Anthony DiCaprio
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10012
(212) 614-6464
(212) 614-6499 (FAX)

_________________________
Stephen Kenny*
CAMATTA LEMPENS, PTY LTD.
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
345 King William Street
Adelaide, SA 5000
(011) 618-8410-0211
(011) 618-8410-0566 (FAX)

__________________________
Clive A. Stafford Smith**
Louisiana Bar No. 14444
P.O. Box 50753
New Orleans, LA 70150-0753
(504) 558-0440

__________________________
Gareth Peirce**
Birnberg, Peirce and Partners, Solicitors
14 Inverness Street
London NW1 7HJ
United Kingdom
0207-911-0166
0207-911-0170 (FAX)

___________________________
Jon W. Norris
D.C. Bar No. 426105
The Law Office of Jon W. Norris
641 Indiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 546-1500
(202) 842-2622 (FAX)

__________________________
L. Barrett Boss
Bar No. 398100
ASBILL MOFFITT & BOSS, Chtd.
1615 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 234 9000 (x119)
(202) 332 6480 (FAX)

*Mr. Margulies, Mr. Kenny, and the Center for Constitutional Rights appear for Petitioners Terry and David Hicks.

**Mr. Stafford Smith and Ms. Peirce appear for Petitioners Asif and Mohammed Iqbal, as well as Petitioners Rasul and Bibi.

Mr. Norris and Mr. Boss appear as local counsel for all attorneys.
(Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus, FindLaw.com, p. 20, http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/rasulbush021902pet.html)

Now you, I, or others may not agree that the changes instituted at Gitmo since the 2004 Supreme Court ruling are adequate, or any number of other issues involved. However, making incorrect statements about such matters is not helpful in resolving anything.

And let's not forget....making incorrect statements has resulted in charges of lying against some folks! We wouldn't want to be accused of double standards!

[dgun]

They are still holding people without a trial, a lawyer or charges brought against them.

As to the statement that the detainees are not allowed lawyers, that is also incorrect. The counsel for David Hicks, Asif Iqbal, and Shafiq Rasul were:

Trish, your statement does not refute Viola's statement. Viola's statement was general: "people". Where as you specified a few inmates that apparently have been granted lawyers.

Now you, I, or others may not agree that the changes instituted at Gitmo since the 2004 Supreme Court ruling are adequate,

Basically, you just stated that: "Now, we all know that Bush and his bunch will try to weasel out of the ruling in one way or another. But who cares."

However, making incorrect statements about such matters is not helpful in resolving anything.

Nothing is incorrect Trish. As long as you adopt the hyper-relativist approach used by Bush and his bunch of morally defunct assmonkies. I mean, honest to God, sometimes they sound like chimps squawking and squealing and spinning around in their own shit.

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

[ViolaLee]

"You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."

My favorite quote for people who think it's OK to violate the constitution.

Trish, they have allowed SOME of the detainess lawyers....the rest of them are still sitting there without charges, hearings, trials, lawyers....for years and years.

I think you should take your own advice about lying before you accuse others.

[micfranklin]

The fact that Habeas Corpus was even taken away still pisses me off.

[NortheastCynic]

I don't get it. The Bush Administration ignored the Constitution...the supreme law of the land...So we're going to make an inferior law in an attempt to re-establish the previously ignored supreme law.

This seems like political theatre. If violating Habeus Corpus is unConstitutional [which it is], then that is all one needs. Writing a law that essentially says [See Constitution, United States] is fairly nonsensical.

-NC

[Trish]

Trish, your statement does not refute Viola's statement. Viola's statement was general: "people". Where as you specified a few inmates that apparently have been granted lawyers.

Now you, I, or others may not agree that the changes instituted at Gitmo since the 2004 Supreme Court ruling are adequate,

Basically, you just stated that: "Now, we all know that Bush and his bunch will try to weasel out of the ruling in one way or another. But who cares."

However, making incorrect statements about such matters is not helpful in resolving anything.

Nothing is incorrect Trish. As long as you adopt the hyper-relativist approach used by Bush and his bunch of morally defunct assmonkies. I mean, honest to God, sometimes they sound like chimps squawking and squealing and spinning around in their own shit.




I am aware that ViolaLee's statement was general. It was that very generality that made the statement untrue. Had the statement said "some" or even "many" or "at one time" or in any way indicated that the statement was not meant to apply to the general detainee population, your point regarding my response would be well-founded. However, there was no attempt to specify to which "people" the comment applied. Since Hicks, Rasul, and Iqbal were three of the "people" referred to, ViolaLee's comment applied to them as well as the remainder of the detainees, and my assertion was accuarte. However, discounting the three detainees involved in the 2004 petition does not invalidate my point.

“NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, June 4, 2007 – Following suit from events earlier in the day, a military judge tonight dismissed the terrorism charges against Yemeni detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan… Joseph McMillan, one of Hamdan’s civilian attorneys, argued….”Wood, 2007, Judge Dismisses Charges Against Second Guantanamo Detainee, American Forces Press Service, para. 1 & 7, http://www.pentagon.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46288)
“"The government has detained these individuals for more than four years, without a trial or judicial hearing, and has had unfettered access to each detainee for that time," said the report, written by lawyers who represent two of the detainees. The lawyers — Mark Denbeaux, a law professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, and Joshua Denbeaux — were assisted by Seton Hall law students.” (Baldor, 2006, Lawyers: Many Gitmo Detainees Not Accused, para. 6, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0208-02.htm)
“Last month Seton Hall law professor Mark Denbeaux, who along with his son Joshua, represents two detainees at Guantanamo, released a ground-breaking report (pdf) that used data supplied by the Defense Department to determine how the DOD decided which detainees should be designated as enemy-combatants” (Jeralyn, 2006, para. 1, Second Report on Guantanamo Detainees Released, Talk Left, http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/03/20/522/08541)

As can be seen, Gitmo detainees do indeed have attorneys. If the above articles do not illustrate that fact sufficiently, then the upcoming Supreme Court docket should be enough proof. I seriously doubt that any of the detainees are going to argue their cases before the Supreme on their own. I am quite sure they will have legal representation.

I am not quite sure how you arrived at your interpretation of my comment, "Now you, I, or others may not agree that the changes instituted at Gitmo since the 2004 Supreme Court ruling are adequate, or any number of other issues involved." I did not "basically" state anything remotely resembling your interpretation. I said that while some may not agree that the measures implemented to comply with the 2004 court ruling are sufficient, stating that the Bush administration was ignoring the ruling was incorrect. Procedures were changed to comply with 2004 ruling. My comment stands as is.

Your assertion that "Nothing is incorrect Trish" is itself incorrect. ViolaLee made incorrect statements and I backed up my points with source information. That very source information, combined with the information I posted in this response, supports my statement and invalidates yours.[hr]
"You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."

My favorite quote for people who think it's OK to violate the constitution.

Trish, they have allowed SOME of the detainess lawyers....the rest of them are still sitting there without charges, hearings, trials, lawyers....for years and years.

I think you should take your own advice about lying before you accuse others.


Let's get one thing perfectly clear before we proceed further if you please. At no time did I accuse you or anyone else of lying. I said you made an incorrect statement. You did and I backed up my assertions with sources. I never called you a liar nor would I.

Making incorrect statements does not constitute lying unless there is a deliberate intention to deceive. ANYONE can be incorrect, mistaken, and just plain wrong without lying. And that was my point.

As to your comment that the Gitmo detainees remain without representation, charges, trials, etc. I would urge you to do a bit more research before making such blanket statements. I am confident that you will be able to find any number of sources that disprove your statement. [/b][hr]Habeus Corpus has not been taken away. There is ongoing legal argument as to whom Habeus Corpus applies, but it has not been taken away.

The Bush Administration has not ignored the Constitution. They have used a narrow interpretation of the Habeus Corpus provisions and been called on that interpretation in a court of law - the highest court of law in the land. They amended procedures to comply with the court rulings. Attorneys for the detainees are continuing to argue their points in the court and the government is responding. That's the way the judicial system works. The administration is not ignoring the Consitution - it is arguing its position in a court of law within the framework of the Constitution. Whatever ruling is reached by the court, the government will have to comply. Exactly what measures will be required is speculative until the ruling is handed down.

[ViolaLee]

There's no need for an argument as to who habeas corpus applies to as the constitution applies to the US government and restricts what it can and cannot do to the individual. Habeas corpus applies to anyone held, detained, imprisoned by the US government.

Are you actually arguing that people are not being held at gitmo without charges brought against them, without a trial, without a lawyer?

You have posted the few who have had a trial. Are you trying to say the rest have had a trial as well?

My statement is factual. There are people being held by the US government for many years now, without habeas corpus. And that is a constitutional violation.

You are a Bush apologist Trish.

Good luck with that. It's a sinking ship.

[Trish]

TThere's no need for an argument as to who habeas corpus applies to as the constitution applies to the US government and restricts what it can and cannot do to the individual. Habeas corpus applies to anyone held, detained, imprisoned by the US government.

Are you actually arguing that people are not being held at gitmo without charges brought against them, without a trial, without a lawyer?

You have posted the few who have had a trial. Are you trying to say the rest have had a trial as well?

My statement is factual. There are people being held by the US government for many years now, without habeas corpus. And that is a constitutional violation.

You are a Bush apologist Trish.

Good luck with that. It's a sinking ship.



The reason we have courts in the first place is that there is often a disagreement as to what is "right" and what is "wrong." Whether the government is acting constitutionally in its interpretation as to who is and is not covered by habeus corpus will be decided in a court of law. If there were not a disagreement on this point there would be no need for the matter to be heard. The government asserts one thing and the detainees through their legal representatives assert another. Both sides think they are right - the court will decide. That's the way the system works.

You assertion that some of the detainees do not have lawyers was once correct. However, due to court rulings ALL Gitmo detainees now have the right to legal representation. The Bush administration, the Pentagon complied with the court rulings.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Fourteen "high value" terrorism suspects at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison have been offered the right to ask for attorneys, the Pentagon said Friday.

"Like all other detainees at Guantanamo, the high-value detainees have the opportunity to contest" their status as so-called "enemy combatants," said Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Defense Department spokesman.

The prisoners include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Neither he nor the others had access to lawyers while they were being held in secret CIA prisons for various lengths of time, nor since they were transferred from CIA custody to Guantanamo a year ago.

Each had "personal representatives" when their cases were taken before review boards in a series of hearings since March to determine if they could be classified enemy combatants. Each was later given that classification, which the Bush administration says allowed it to hold them indefinitely and prosecute them at military tribunals.

When the Pentagon first opened the prison at Guantanamo Bay in 2002, terrorist suspects were held there incommunicado. Their names were not released and they were not allowed attorneys. But a series of court challenges has forced the Pentagon to change rules, including allowing them to have lawyers, starting about two years ago.

Like others held at the facility, the 14 will now be allowed attorneys to contest their status. So starting several weeks ago, they were given forms to request a lawyer for that process" (U.S. offers attorneys to 'high value' Gitmo detainees, 2007, USAToday, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-28-gitmo_N.htm).

Trials are being held. Decisions are being reached - including decisions to drop charges and release detainees. The detainees DO have lawyers - the last 14 who were without lawyers are now in the process of obtaining them. There are charges being filed, charges being dropped, trials held, sentences handed down, detainees released, turned over to other governments who will dispose of the matter as they see fit. Your assertion that the Bush administration was "ignoring" the Supreme Count decision of 2004 was wrong...plain and simple. You could have found all this information for yourself were you interested in knowing the truth rather than simply raging at the storm.

As for me being a Bush apologist, that too is incorrect. I simply believe that the continuing spreading of incorrect information is harmful to all of us.

[ViolaLee]

Last year the republican congress on the Bush admin's request, suspended habeas corpus. It has not been restored yet.

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 representatives from diverse political beliefs and backgrounds that the mistake committed in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 must be corrected. The Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, S.186, the bill on which this amendment is based, has 30 cosponsors. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported it on a bipartisan basis. I hope Senators will review the Committee report on this measure.

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.

The Great Writ of habeas corpus is the legal process that guarantees an opportunity to go to court and challenge the abuse of power by the Government. The Military Commissions Act rolled back these protections by eliminating that right, permanently, for any non-citizen labeled an enemy combatant. In fact, a detainee does not have to be found to be an enemy combatant; it is enough for the Government to say someone is “awaiting” determination of that status.

The sweep of this habeas provision goes far beyond the few hundred detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, and it includes an estimated 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today. These are people who work and pay taxes, people who abide by our laws and should be entitled to fair treatment. Under this law, any of these people can be detained, forever, without any ability to challenge their detention in court.

This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American.

Top conservative thinkers, evangelical activists, and prominent members of the Latino community have all spoken out on the need to restore these basic American rights. General Colin Powell, like many leading former military and diplomatic officials, has spoken of the importance of these habeas rights. He asked, “Isn’t that what our system’s all about?”

Perhaps most powerful for me was the testimony of Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who was working in his office in the Pentagon as Judge Advocate General of the Navy on September 11, 2001, and saw first hand the effects of terrorism. His credibility is unimpeachable when he says that denying habeas rights to detainees endangers our troops and undermines our military efforts.

Admiral Guter testified: “As we limit the rights of human beings, even those of the enemy, we become more like the enemy. That makes us weaker and imperils our valiant troops, serving not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the globe.”

He was right. Whether you are an individual soldier, or a great Nation, it is difficult to defend the higher ground by taking the lower road. The world knows what our enemies stand for. The world also knows what this country has tried to stand for and live up to – in the best of times, and the worst of times.

Now, as we work to reauthorize the many programs that compose our valiant armed forces, it is the right time to heed the advice of so many of our top military lawyers who tell us that eliminating basic legal rights undermines our fighting men and women; it does not make them stronger.

I am proud to call up our amendment, Senate Amendment 2022, which now has 19 cosponsors, and seek its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I especially want to thank Senator Specter and acknowledge his strong and consistent leadership on this issue. Senator Specter and I came to this floor to offer this amendment back on July 10, when this bill was initially being considered, and thereafter. I hope all Senators will now join with us in restoring basic American values and the rule of law, while making our Nation stronger.

It is from strength that America should defend our values and our way of life. It is from the strength of our freedoms, our Constitution, and the rule of law that we shall prevail. I hope all in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, will join us in standing up for a stronger America, for the America we believe in, and support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200709/091707c.html

And about the forms to request a lawyer that your article mentions:

FORMER GHOST DETAINEE AT GUANTÁNAMO TO RECEIVE LAWYERS
CCR FILES VISIT REQUEST TO SEE CLIENT MAJID KHAN IN EARLY OCTOBER


Synopsis

On September 28, 2007, attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a visit request with the Defense Department to see their client, Majid Khan, who was transferred one year ago from secret CIA detention to Guantánamo.

Two attorneys from the Center received Top Secret SCI clearance this week, higher than many members of the military who conducted the detainees’ Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT’s), and expect to finally meet their client after a year of fighting for access. The request was made for visits either the week of October 8 or the week of November 5.

Said CCR attorney Wells Dixon, “We are glad the government finally agrees that Majid is entitled to immediate access to his counsel, and we fully expect they will approve our pending visit request and allow us access to him in Guantánamo within a few weeks.”

Majid Khan wrote by hand at the bottom of a form offering to have the American Bar Association help him retain counsel, “I think I already have a lawyer at CCR, but I never received any official letters from my lawyers (Gitanjali S. Gutierrez)… Please send me a lawyer or representative who can brief me with my options. Also please, if you can send me basic introduction criminal law books with all law terms, etc. Also I would like to know what has media said about me and full copy of tribunal CSRT about me, which was available on the Internet. (Thanks in advance).”

Said Shayana Kadidal, Managing Attorney of the Center for Constitutional Rights Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative, “What is disturbing about the form given to the detainees is the way the government is trying to make a fundamentally flawed process look legitimate by invoking the name of the American Bar Association. The Detainee Treatment Act review is so limited it doesn’t even come close to a substitute for habeas corpus.”

Center for Constitutional Rights (http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=tkqBlem3rU&Content=1121)

[preservanation]

ViolaLee, your offer of proof is Shayana Kadidal, Managing Attorney of the Center for Constitutional Rights Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative.
It is nothing more than a person's opinion
Because you agree with that opinion still doesn't make it fact.
And as for Leahy, he is a Dem Senator.
They warp the truth and spin info for a living.
Look what they are doing to Rush, if you need an example of this.

[Professor]

Even though it failed I still called Obama's office.

[Trish]

The Detainee Treatment Act review is so limited it doesn’t even come close to a substitute for habeas corpus.”

Center for Constitutional Rights (http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=tkqBlem3rU&Content=1121)
[/quote]

And that is precisely to what I was referring in my original response in which I said:

"Now you, I, or others may not agree that the changes instituted at Gitmo since the 2004 Supreme Court ruling are adequate, or any number of other issues involved. However, making incorrect statements about such matters is not helpful in resolving anything."

While there is contention that the measures The Pentagon/Bush Administration implemented to comply with the 2004 court ruling are not sufficient, adequate, or broad enough, changes were indeed made. Rather than refuting my position, the emphasized text you supplied supports my contention completely.

And the remainder of the two articles support my position that the detainees are receiving judicial process.

I would urge you to look at the specific language in parts of the articles you quoted. Specifically, in the first article. Contrast the language of "Last year, Congress committed an historic mistake by suspending the Great Writ of habeas corpus..." with "Habeas corpus was recklessly undermined in last year’s Military Commissions Act." So which was it? Was habeus corpus suspended or was it undermined? Although the words "suspend" and "undermine" have certain similarities, they are not synonymous. I honestly believe that such indiscriminate use of language is a deliberate to obsfucate. Words have specific definitions for a reason - to convey precise meaning. While some words can be used interchangeably without altering meaning, others cannot. Too, even the words that can be used somewhat interchangeably alter perception. For instance, feasting and gorging. When used as a description of eating, the first produces a positive image, while the second a negative, when both can be used to represent overeating.

Also take a look at the following sentences: "The Military Commissions Act rolled back these protections by eliminating that right, permanently, for any non-citizen labeled an enemy combatant. In fact, a detainee does not have to be found to be an enemy combatant; it is enough for the Government to say someone is “awaiting” determination of that status." You know now that these statements are no longer accurate. The ongoing litigation between detainees and the US government are NOT of necessity permanent. Even if the court decides in the new cases in favor of the government (which from the legal commentaries I am hearing is a very BIG "IF"), the results cannot be determined as "permanent" since as long as there is division as to who is covered by habeus corpus, there will be new cases litigated in the courts. Any one of those cases has the potential to overturn the status quo, exactly as the 2004 court decision did.

Then there is this: "The sweep of this habeas provision goes far beyond the few hundred detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, and it includes an estimated 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today." In my opinion, the language used in this sentence is used specifically to confuse readers with "lawful permanent residents" with "citizens." There is a big difference there.

[Buck Laser]

ViolaLee, your offer of proof is Shayana Kadidal, Managing Attorney of the Center for Constitutional Rights Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative.
It is nothing more than a person's opinion
Because you agree with that opinion still doesn't make it fact.
And as for Leahy, he is a Dem Senator.
They warp the truth and spin info for a living.
Look what they are doing to Rush, if you need an example of this.

Oh! Poor, poor Rush! See Rush suffer! See them bang on him! Oh my! His big cigar got taken away. Everybody should feel sorry for him.

And screw the constitution! We don't need no stinkin' constitution when we gots people we are SURE is guilty, do we. Republicans are the real Americans while those nasty Democrats just throw around big words that we don't understand.

Sheesh! :sick:

[tony mitra]

I have found this thread, and indeed the exchanges, quite fascinating. Viola Lee is fast becomeing a heroine of mine, along with Professor who made the choice and called Obama's office.

This is how democracy is supposed to work. Let us hope the American society, along with the rest of us, will hold human rights on a higher platform than overzealousness in pursuit of imagined terror.

There is something that Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have stated a few centuries ago ; those that sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, deserve neither liberty nor security.

Cheers folks. You guys are great.
:)

[ViolaLee]

Thanks Tony :D I'd love to see more people call their elected officials on lots of issues too.

Trish, IMHO suspending habeas corpus IS undermining the constitution at this time.

[Trish]

Just curious here Tony. Are ALL the people who call their elected representatives to to express their opinions on issues heroes and heroines? Or only those on one side of the political fence?[hr]ViolaLee -

This might come as a shock, but I agree that suspension of the Writ of Habeus Corpus would be undermining the Constitution.

[tony mitra]

Hi Trish,

I think everyone that takes their democracy, their constitution, and the direction their nation is taking seriously, and engages in active participation in the democratic process, is a hero/heroince for democracy, no matter which side of the argument they favor.

And out of them, those that call their representatives to resist degradation or outright denial of civil, human or legal rights to an US or any other citizen, shall be my personal hero/heroine.

Cheers, and take care. Good luck in your studies.
:)