
UPDATE: The hearing has been moved to 10:00 am ET.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has a hearing scheduled this morning, to begin at 10:30 am ET (in Dirksen 226), regarding gutting habeas protections for prisoners under American control. No word as yet on the witness list — I’m working on finding out who will testify and will update when I do. It doesn’t look like C-Span will be covering this hearing this morning (but they will be covering a Senate Democratic Policy Hearing on war planning, which should be a good one — there are a number of retired generals who will be testifying regarding Donald Rumsfeld’s bungling of the war planning and facts that have been hidden from the public – it will be on C-Span3 beginning at 1:30 pm ET).
We have covered this habeas issue quite a bit — see here, here, here, here, here, and here for starters – but I wanted to highlight some backstory on the reasons we have habeas corpus in the first place. You need to know why it is that this is was so important to the Founders of our nation — and why it ought to be so important to all of us now:
Of all of the legal protections that we hold as American ideals and as examples to other nations as embodied in our Bill of Rights, the right of habeas corpus is the only civil liberty to be held so important by the Founders that it was included in the Constitution itself. This week, the United States Senate voted to restrict that right of petition for grievance.
Such restriction was for enemy combatants held outside the United States, so why should any citizen care? Because a restriction on this fundamental right for some could mean restrictions for all of us down the line.
A right to challenge being held by the government for improper reasons is at the heart of our democracy — where such right was established to secure our rights to liberty and freedom, and to stop imprisonment of opposition candidates for political reasons.
The right of habeas corpus is our firewall against the tyranny of the majority — it dates back to the Magna Carta, which bound the king to the rule of law. To threaten habeas corpus protections tears at the very fabric of rights in this nation.
Here is why: if you are arrested under false or bogus charges, or without any charge whatsoever as reason for your detainment, you have a right to petition a court to ask that the charges against you be detailed and justified under the laws of this country. The state must justify its right to hold you under the law, or you must be set free — they cannot hold you without just cause.
What the Senate is asking is that we simply trust that our government is doing the right thing, and that they are only holding guilty persons in our name, and that the military tribunals who have been holding hearings on detainments will adequately address all constitutional problems when many of these detainees have had difficulties in gaining access to legal counsel, and that all of this being done in the name of the United States should be considered acceptable when we afford one standard of justice to our citizens and a completely different standard of justice to those we deem not worthy of it simply because they are non-citizens held in our legal custody.
This is simply wrong. What’s worse, there are also proposed provisions in the current torture bill under debate that would strip jurisdiction from federal courts as well. If you want to know why all of this is important — just read this.
Please take some time this morning to contact the offices of the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and remind them — again — that the habeas provisions are too important to be frittered away. Please, if you live in Pennsylvania or Michigan, take the time to contact Sens. Specter and Levin — they are going to be key to blocking these abominable provisions.
Here are the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. You can phone toll free through the Capitol switchboard at 888-355-3588 and they will transfer you to the various Senate offices. (UPDATE: Seems there is a problem with the capitol switchboard number this morning. You can find individual Senator and Representative numbers here.) Here is also a list of FAX numbers for each member of the Judiciary Committee, in case you want to call and FAX:
Arlen Specter, Chairman – Pennsylvania – Fax (202) 228-1229
Orrin G. Hatch – Utah – Fax (202) 224-6331
Patrick J. Leahy – Vermont – Fax (202) 224-3479
Charles E. Grassley – Iowa – Fax (515) 288-5097
Edward M. Kennedy – Massachusetts – Fax (202) 224-2417
Jon Kyl – Arizona – Fax (202) 224-2207
Joseph R. Biden, Jr. – Delaware – Fax (202) 224-0139
Mike DeWine – Ohio – Fax (202) 224-6519
Herbert Kohl – Wisconsin – Fax (202) 224-9787
Jeff Sessions – Alabama – Fax (202) 224-3149
Dianne Feinstein – California – Fax (202) 228-3954
Lindsey Graham – South Carolina – Fax (864) 250-4322
Russell D. Feingold – Wisconsin – Fax (202) 224-2725
John Cornyn – Texas – Fax (972) 239-2110
Charles E. Schumer – New York – Fax (202) 228-3027
Sam Brownback – Kansas – Fax (202) 228-1265
Richard J. Durbin – Illinois – Fax (202) 228-0400
Tom Coburn – Oklahoma – Fax (202) 224-6008
We may never undo all of the Constitutional damage done by the Bush Administration during the course of our lifetimes — it may take more than one generation, frankly, to untangle this mess. But we can at least fight to save the pieces of the Constitution that seem to be up for grabs — and this is one fight well worth having. Thanks so much for all of your efforts on this.
The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are outnumbered (as you can see from the above list), but the fight is worth having anyway — despite it being a battle we may lose in the short run. In order to fully win it, we have to have control of both houses of Congress. Let’s just think of this as even more incentive to kick some ass in November — but in the meantime, let’s spend some time today reminding the members of Congress that they have to actually DO their jobs in order to keep their jobs.
(The BBC Magazine also did a brief historical review of habeas corpus evolution a while back that I thought might be of interest to some readers. You can read it here.)
UPDATE: Witness list is out:
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, Ret., President and Dean, Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, NH; Thomas P. Sullivan, Partner, Jenner & Block, Chicago, IL; Mr. Bruce Fein, Partner, Fein & Fein, Washington, D.C.; Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, United States Navy, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Arlington, VA; Mr. David Rivkin, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Bradford Berenson, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.
Only one panel. That’s awfully short considering the gravity of the subject matter, don’t you think?
Related posts:
- HJC Schedules “Get Democrats to Cave on PATRIOT” Hearing
- House Judiciary, Sens. Schumer, Reid Call for Break Up of Insurance Trust
- Breaking: Senate Judiciary Approves Sotomayor Nomination – 13 to 6
- State Secrets Bill Passes House Judiciary, 18-12
- Tortured Logic: Judge Richard Leon Delivers Habeas Smackdown





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Yeah and Specter says he has “problems” with the bill. That gets a great big ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ from me.
Does he just have a pull-ring on his back to say “ihaveaproblemihaveaproblem” before he caves in?
Fitz!
and Fiona
The single most important concept in “modern” history
the backbone of every persons freedom
WTF are they thinking??
Oh, guess I shoulda said “Fitz” huh?
Christy
I don’t know if you are planning a seperate post on this, but i really don’t want to lose sight of the retroactive self pardon for war crimes that bush has in this bill.
It is clearly in response to a memo Alberto Gonzales wrote when he was still WH counsel that warned Bushie that senior WH officials had exposure.
Making it retroactive to the Clinton Admin. is a smokescreen.
dratty @ 3
Nah,
You got there first, you say whatever you want.
I’m just a traditionalist.
The Judiciary Committee is going to discuss changes in the right of habeas corpus?
That’s so piquant of them.
(Who needs one of those “Word A Day” calandars when I’ve got FDL?)
Here’s a banner/bumper sticker I made in May, 2004. Seems particularly relevant today.
Are you kidding me? How come screwing with enumerated Constitutional rights is not some kind of political third rail? Why doesn’t the ghost of James Madison strike them dead for even thinking of crazy crap like this?
Spector is so getting one of those torture postcards.
Josh is suggesting getting in touch with the same folks to urge a release of the NIE that is reported to state that the war in Iraq has made America less secure.
TPM
Have you all see this puff piece in the WashPost this morning:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00747.html
It seems as though Bush really feels the pain of all the families of service people who have died fighting the War on Terror ™. Can you tell the election is rapidly approaching?
Folks are giving the Post heck in the comment section.
A powerful post again, Christy.
Anyone noticing that the toll free Senate and House numbers are disconnected? Are we that broke as a nation, that we can’t afford to pay our phone bills?
There’s no question that the Habeus issue is absolutely critical to us remaining a nation bound by the law…
However, I’d suggest that while we are in phone banking mode, that we also call every senator we can to tell them that we DEMAND that the full NIE that was reported this weekend be released publicly BEFORE the elections.
So many issues, so little time…
so, I’m calling DiFi’s office this morning… help me think here… point one is on habeus provisions… point 2 is on no review by the courts, 3: (gawd! I need more coffee!), I think of it here in a second.. oh yeah, no retroactive immunity…
I would like to see the Senators introduce a list of “alternative techniques” not allowed… no rape of women or children (who could object to that?) would be a good place to start… and no retroactive immunity for any of the acts on the list… if Georgie Porgie has no idea what outrages on human dignity are, I think we should spell it out for him…
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”
Churchill – November 21, 1943
Will our efforts really do any good ?….I mean…… aren’t they all “in a comma”
just sayin….
Larry
If you can’t get through to your senators on the toll free line and want to call them anyway, here’s a link to DC office numbers (not toll free) for the entire senate.
http://www.senate.gov/general/…..rs_cfm.cfm
C-SPAN has three channels here in Tampa. Surely one of them will cover the hearings.
all righty, time to feed the dogs, hit the showers and then the phones… have a productive day, everyone!
OT — Imus has his sideman Rob in his Bill Clinton persona sitting in with the guest band this morning with a dig at Chris Wallace. The band–Cheap Trick.
Thanks for this post, Christy. If they don’t want to take America’s phone calls, we’ll just spend our phoning time on GOTV.
Hey, Chavez called Bush Satan, now Falwell’s comparing Hillary to Lucifer. Sad commentary on Falwell’s constituency, according to the MSNBC pundit.
In the letters I faxed off yesterday to my senators and congressman, after the bullet points on the bad things in the so-called compromise torture legislation, had this sentence: “Perhaps this can clarify the issue for you: if a bill is more reminiscent of Stalinist Russian than of an American sence of justice and Constitutional government, that bill should be rejected.” I thought this framed the issue well.
(By the way, the bullet points I used were:
*Techniques the world, and our own history, consider torture and that we certainly would condemn if suffered by our own soldiers.
*Convictions based on secret evidence.
*A system of gulags where prisoners may be held indefinitely in a Kafkaesque limbo.
*Further concentration of power in the Executive and further abandonment of the concept of Separation of Powers.
beard5 — saw you weren’t feeling well. Hope it’s just a short day of the ick.
you all notice how McCain is now pushing the 9/11 Iraq connection?
jeez – will these guys never give that up?
ruffian @
3
I think they’re thinking that things would be evah so much easier if we didn’t have these freedoms. A thought from that british documentary (the name escapes me and I’m late for work: about how the powers that be on both sides of this current conflict decided long ago that “individualism” was not a good thing and that conformity was the way to go…the two extremes came to the same conclusion independently. So, perhaps our own extremists are thinking they should be the ones to “decide” and to hell with the rest of us…literally.
Great thread, deep discussion, last night: Arianna Has A Few Words About Big Dog
Just Brilliant Christy. This is one of the most important posts of the last few years (of many critical posts). Thanks so much for honing the complexity of the issue into a “one point” target: Magna Carta/Habeas Corpus. Even the fundies have heard of the Magna Carta. Every fifth grader knows what it is. I can envision a full page NY Times ad emblazoned with a copy of the Magna Carta wording (in old English script) with prominent signatories under the headline “Preserve the Magna Carta.” I can see huge signs similarly titled and held up by citizens in front of city halls around the country. I envisage tens of thousands of 8 x 10 inch “Save the Magna Carta” signs created on brittle browned “parchment”- like paper (actually plain paper “aged” with household lemon juice) being held up by protestors in view of TV cameras and news casters at rallies for Democratic candidates. I anticipate a flood of the same being deluged on congressional offices – and the White House in the next few weeks. I can imagine an ocean of political buttons reading “Save the Magna Carta” pinned on the lapels of all concerned citizens – and politicians – this Fall. Brilliant.
dratty @
4
*grin* It’s a custom, not a law.
OT Larry@16.. Gilliard has a interesting take on the “comma”. It is dog whistle speak to the fundies..”Never put a period where God puts a comma” Bush is evil and insane..a bad combination
(OT–Richmond where in Maine are you. Mini-FLD get-together in Belfast at Darby’s 6pm Tuesday. Hope you can join us.)
The capital switchboard number has been disconnected.
Professor Foland @ 30
curious time – right at the end of the session – for it to be disconnected, doncha think?
Seems there are problems with the switchboard number this morning. I’ve updated the post above, but you can find individual Senator and Representative information here.
Richmond at 26 — I spent the whole weekend trying to come up with a wedge issue on this that could be an effective means of stopping the whole of the legislation, and this is the best that I could do. Here’s hoping it’s enough…
sorry i have not read all the comments yet… but wanted to get this out quick…
the committee hearing time has been moved up to 10AM
i just got off the phone with a very nice person at C-SPAN.. they do not even have a camera scheduled to be in the senate judiciary committee hearing room today. but, i have made the urgent request – by phone, voice mail and 2 emails.
the email addys are:
events@c-span.org
congress@c-span.org
it may not be too late to have c-span broadcast this hearing (i think they were caught unawares by the recent scheduling on an unusual day).
thanks!
p.s. MANY MANY THANKS TO CHRISTY FOR THIS POST
Old Sow – Am back home now – left the Bath area late last night because my daughter has an exam this morning. However, thanks so much for the invitation, I would love to have come. Maine is such a beautiful place, now I have to start working off all the lobster, clams, corn, butter, and blueberry pie!
Also, I believe there is an amendment to add habeas to the bill. Apparently it is the Levin-Specter amendment. Might help the staffer if there’s something quite specific they can put you down for.
After Imus, MSNBC turns into True Crime Magazine, so I switched to CNN. Richard Ben-Veniste is on with Soledad O’Brien. Supports the basis of Clinton’s excoriating of Chris Wallace. Strong urging that people read the 9-1-1 report for themselves and they’ll see that Clinton hits the points right.
Call your Congresscritter’s local office if your Senator’s on the Judiciary Cttee. Or call your friends in their states and ask them to call the local offices. Sorry, BushCo, we will be heard.
carolyn urban @ 12
Sorry, but somehow I don’t think this is about bills that haven’t been paid. Either Dirty tricks or semi-intentional incompetence in my view. Remember folks, government is not SUPPOSED to work.
Richmond @ 26
wow. I wish you were running PR for the Dem Party.
Also, remember that outnumbered though we be, Dems only have to find a little backbone, not a lot. The Congressional session has just a week left. There’s definitely good reason to think that if we make enough noise, this can be stopped. Because on this we don’t have to win, we only have to run out the clock.
Professor Foland @ 37
yes, more here from CCR
Can somebody explain the legal issue here? How can the Senate vote to restrict a Constitutional right? I mean, if the Constitution protects it, then the bill has to be unconstitutional.
The Constitution says: “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
So, what’s the Senate arguing here? That Habeas Corpos never applied to enemy combatants held outside the United States? Or that the because of “public Safety” it doesn’t apply?
Good Morning Gang,
along with phone calls, this is so LTE worthy – most of the public is completely unaware of what McCain and Graham are up to
this wonderful quote via windje above provides a perfect springboard – please dive in
we can not gnash our teeth about public apathy or acquiescence without doing everything we can to inform them of the stakes
A quick report, then back to work.
I just talked to staffers of five judiciary committee members to find out where their bosses stand on the issue of habeas corpus protection for detainees. Here’s what they said:
Specter is opposed to removing habeas corpus from the detainee legislation;
Feinstein hasn’t made a statement;
Levin hasn’t made a statement;
Schumer hasn’t made a statement;
Cornyn stands with Bush (as on everything).
I then told the staffers that I think it’s imperative that we preserve habeas corpus, not just for citizens, but for everyone and to pass my views on to the senators, using some of the arguments in Christy’s post.
I also pointed out that, according to the AP article published last week, the US is holding some 14,000 detaines, including women and children, around the globe — without charge. Of the detainees at Guantanamo, only 10 have actually been charged with a crime.
That actually seemed to get their attention.
Christy, thank you for the post and links.
Professor Foland @
41
I think you’re absolutely right, but “a little backbone” sounds like being “a little pregnant.” Either you’ve got a spine or you don’t, and reports from the XRays taken on the Hill are not encouraging.
Richmond @ 26
Hi Christy, hoping it’s just some bizarre bug over here, as well (headachey, nauseous, and dizzy(like bedspins) treating with advil, and chamomile tea, and crackers)
regarding this save the Magna Carta, I was wondering if this was a good idea or not. I certainly can do medieval looking calligraphy, but would a Senator getting a postcard spend the time needed to read it? The Magna Carta was done in English Bastard Secretary (or near enough) It’s a beautiful script, but not the easiest to read.
No need to apologize Richmond, that was my thought as well. Want to speak to your representative? I don’t think so.
I did get through on toll free numbers that I found in my local phone book. And the toll numbers work too.
OT
cspan2 is showing Dobson and Perkins talking to the powerful and fundie crowd at the the FRC sponsored “Values and 2006 election” thing held this weekend in D.C. right now bashing same sex marriage. It is truly something to behold. It is scary.
“Under the radar” has become the Bush Administration’s standard operating procedure. Steve Clemons is getting signals that a White House plan for keeping Bolton at the UN may be in the works. If true, it would be sprung at tomorrow’s Senate Foreign Relations committee meeting at 2:15 ET, under the agenda line at the end of the agenda “Additional Items may be added.” In Clemons’ view, Lincoln Chafee holds the key to keeping the nomination in committee.
Ever vigilant, firepups!
OT On a previous thread someone was wondering what happened to Socks, the Clinton’s cat. One of my relatives is friends with Betty Currie & I was told that Socks was adopted by Betty.
beard5 @ 47
i believe the original is in Latin.
selise @ 34
I just sent this:
Kennedy is for habeas protections. But you knew that already. Also, his staffer promised to look into the switchboard problem.
I didn’t read all the comments — but that panel is pretty friendly to us. if it was only going to be one panel chosen primarily by Republicans — that was an awfully good set of witnesses.
Habeas is my thing and I have to say that every attempt to completely cut off habeas jurisdiction was met with the Supreme Court reasserting its right to hear all relevant cases — be it through “habeas” procedures or the more ephemeral “all writs doctrine.” But that happened on Rehnquist’s watch and say what you want about him, he was a fierce defender of federal jurisdiction and federal courts prerogative.
Chief Justice Roberts is untested on those issues.
Kafka meet Robin Hood…only in America.
looseheadprop @
5
On the matter of retroactive legalization, last night I posted this. The point being that I don’t get how it will get Bush off the hook. Cruel and inhumane treatment are still viewed as war crimes, and while that may let him off for some things that are humiliating outrages but not “cruel and inhumane,” he and his subordinates still have a lot to answer for. In any case, I hope this ugly, monsterous bill gets tabled until the next congress.
A few people (at other blogs) have suggested that we should focus on the elections and not let the rape-and-torture bill distract us. “If and when we win the elections, we can repeal or pass whatever we want.” But it would take a veto-proof majority in both houses to have that sort of power. If this bill goes through, it’ll be with us at least until Bush leaves office.
email from the ACLU this morning:
WHAT KIND OF NATION ARE WE BECOMING?
Bills being voted on TODAY would redefine torture and legalize warrantless wiretapping. Please call your elected representatives ASAP and urge them to oppose the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S.3901 and H.R. 6054), and the Cheney-Spector “National Security Surveillance Act (S.2453).
1. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3901 and H.R. 6054) would do the following: make the core protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions essentially irrelevant and unenforceable; prevent criminal or civil lawsuits from being brought against CIA operatives and other government officials who had used, ordered or supplied the rationale for torture or in other ways violated the Conventions; give the president the authority to declare what is ˆ and what is not a grave breach of the War Crimes Act. The president would have the unilateral authority to declare certain forms of torture and abuse legitimate; allow the president to declare any foreigner anywhere an “illegal enemy combatant” and detain him or her without trial; strip detainees of the right to habeas corpus, including those Guantanamo detainees with pending cases. They would have no ability to challenge their detention or the conditions under which they are being held; permit evidence coerced from prisoners to be presented against them, if a judge found that it was “reliable”; permit detainees to see whatever evidence is presented to juries, but in summarized or redacted form. This could mean, for instance, that the name of an accuser would be blacked out, making it impossible for the detainee to challenge the reliability of the accusations. This has been hailed as a significant “compromise” between the White House and Republican dissidents, but it actually gives the Congressional stamp of approval to abusive interrogations and deprives detainees of human rights and the basic constitutional right of Habeas Corpus.
2. Terrible bills on warrantless surveillance are pending in both the Senate and the House. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved S.2453, the “National Security Surveillance Act,” drafted by Vice-President Cheney and Committee Chair Arlen Spector. The bill: gives the president the option of complying, or not complying, with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Fourth Amendment protections; rewards the president’s failure to follow federal laws on wiretapping and disclosure by authorizing a broader spying program than the president has admitted to; makes the domestic spying program legal, increasing the government’s statutory power to examine all international conversations and emails and expanding the ability to conduct warrantless physical searches of Americans’ homes.
The Senate Judiciary Committee also approved Senator Mike De Wine’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program Act of 2006 (S.2455. This bill: ratifies the NSA program and weakens the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; limits disclosures about the program to a small subcommittee and attempts to limit access to this information by other elected federal officials; makes judicial oversight and warrants optional. The bill would allow Americans’ phone calls and emails to be monitored for 45 days without any court oversight, and makes court review after that period optional. punishes whistleblowers who make unauthorized disclosures about the program. They can be sent to prison for 15 years and fined one million dollars.
Please call immediately and ask your Senators and Representative to do everything in their power to block this dangerous legislation. Before Congress legislates, it should have a thorough investigation of what exactly the Administration has been doing with its expanded post 9/11 powers.
OT– Dobson just said that nobody in Congress has come out against what Chavez said except for some pantywaist comments.
Now he conflates Iran and Chavez and is mocking the liberals.
(I guess that is why Rangel and Pelosis spoke up– too bad these folks didn’t hear that)
Dobson: GWB is the most prolife preznit ever and when it comes to the GWOT– he gets it. (big applause)
Perkins : those people only want to sit down to a table strapped with explosives — and the democrats want to talk to them.
Sears: bashes the ACLU.
Dobson: Not all Muslims are violent, There are 1.2 billion Muslims, but a small percentage of a big number is a big number. Millions of people want to kill us.
Now Dobson talking about him and his son killing bears in Canada and tells a dumb story– then says “any of you that don’t like hunting– get over it.”
I brought a parchment copy of the Magna Carta home with me from the gift shop of Salisbury Cathedral where one of 4 original copies resides. I bought it for my husband’s office–he is a law professor.
There are some things in the document that might offend modern readers along the lines of “If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands.”
Now it is still a critical piece of our legal history and structure but my husband decided against putting it up in fear that someone would be troubled by those bits.
woo-hooo!!!!
the senate judiciary committee webcast is working today! very unusual – hope it doesn’t crap out on me… i am recording an mp3…
go to this website, and click on the webcast button for the real player stream.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2416
live blogging the hearing…
spector thanks everyone for coming on the unusual day…
Read ‘em and weep.
_____
HR 6054
SEC. 6. SATISFACTION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
(b) RIGHTS NOT JUDICIALLY ENFORCEABLE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—No person in any habeas action or any other action may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto as a source of rights, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose in any court of the United States or its States or territories.
(2) CONSTRUCTION.—Paragraph (1) may not be construed to affect the obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions.
SEC. 8. RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.
This Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply retroactively, including—
(1) to any aspect of the detention, treatment, or trial of any person detained at any time since September 11, 2001; and
(2) (2) to any claim or cause of action pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
S 3929
SEC. 103. AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The President is authorized to establish military commissions for the trial of alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses specifically made triable by military commission as provided in chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, and chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as enacted by this Act).
(b) CONSTRUCTION.—The authority in subsection (a) may not be construed to alter or limit the authority of the President under the Constitution and laws of the United States to establish military commissions for areas declared to be under martial law or in occupied territories should circumstances so require.
SEC. 107. TREATY OBLIGATIONS NOT ESTABLISHING GROUNDS FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, 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.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act 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. 108. IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES.—The provisions of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention for the United States to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encompassed in common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or international source of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection (d) of such section 2441.
INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT.—
(A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
_____
King George the All Powerful.
spector – habeas corpus can only be suspended in times of rebelion or war, which we don’t have now
Jane S. @ 60
and lest we not forget, 86 years after the signing of the Magna Carta, all the Jews were expelled from England.
Leave Chavez to the GOP to bash about. We have other things to do.
leahy up…
wish we could have had more time to prepare for this hearing
hope this hearing will not be “sound and fury signifying nothing”
this time, it’s personal . . .
poured my outrage and frustration about this and torture in to letters to Senator’s Straightalk and Pyle –
already faxed Sen. Straightalk’s, am printing out Christy’s archived post (linked above)and will include it in my fax to Sen. Pyle. imagine, an easy to follow factual and ethical refutation of his abomination is hanging out here for anyone to read
I want them both to know they can fool some of the people some of the time . . .but there are hundreds of thousands of us out here who do know this is no one’s friggin’ compromise , that plenty of us have heard Professor Turley, etc.
no, despite my current fuzzy headed state, I have no illusions about influencing either of these morally deficient bastards – just want them to know they’re not fooling everyone
btw, loved, loved, loved, tweaking Sen. Straightalk about all the love Allen is getting in Virginia and national press and that the shiny Maverick schtick was subject to same in the next 18 mos.
Thank you Selise– got it on now.
Sholom @ 43
Short explanation:
1. Senators, not only Supreme Court justices, take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
2. This means that it is their job, not only the job of the courts, to vote only for bills that are constitutional.
3. However, Senators violate the Constitution by adopting a bill with unconstitutional provisions (like the removal of habeas corpus protections).
4. Then rights are violated for years until a case can make its way up through the courts. Along the way varous courts, staffed with right-wing judges, refuse to interpret the Constitution properly.
5. Eventually the matter gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Samuel Alito has replaced Sandra Day O’Connor.
6. Meanwhile, Justice Stevens retires or dies (hasn’t happened yet, but he is the oldest Justice, about 87 now).
7. Bush makes one more appointment before leaving office; Lieberman squeaks through in Connecticut and votes to cut off Senate filibuster against right-wing extremist nominee.
8. Yeah, it was unconstitutional, but the result????
o/t
fyi – Montana Senate Debate on CSPAN3 now – am lovin’ the big guy !
immanentize #55–Would you be willing to give us your best guess on how the current Supreme Court would decide on this, understanding that Roberts is an unknown (although maybe some of his DC circuit court work is a guide?)…
Maybe this is the way this bill will be killed — there are only five days left for these nuts to pass it or go home and save their jobs. They are far more motivated to do the second.
PS LHP if you are still here — re: comments days ago on HW Bush — I totally agree, what I should have said was “not AS evil” rather than “not SO evil.”
xxox
Leahy– “this is unAmerican” and he gets applause.
Demand the release of the April NIE on the increase of terrorism. We the people deserve the truth about this ill-fated war in Iraq, and we must put an end to the cover-ups.
Scheuer just said Clinton completely lied to Chris Wallace about OBL.
leahy – a total of 5 people have been charged under military commissions, and they may charge another 14 more.
what about the other 500?
see page 81 of proposed bill – indefinate detention
“this is unamerican!, this is unamerican!”
{applause from the gallery, spector shuts them down}
Follow Clinton’s lead, read Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, go to chapter 10, page 227, Before and After September 11, and have a nice day. We were happy with Clinton and we did not known it !
angie @ 69
thank goodness! i suck at live blogging… you go angie!
The Congressional session has just a week left. There’s definitely good reason to think that if we make enough noise, this can be stopped. Because on this we don’t have to win, we only have to run out the clock.
I would make this an explicit talking point. Rushing through an ambiguous bill that goes directly at the founding principles of our country just makes no sense. These issues should be considered in deliberate, open hearings, not dealt with in a bill cobbled together in a back room in the White House.
leahey is doing great!
affects all non-citizens, including those living in the us
… does does not make us safer..
What I simply do not understand is why, if we are supposed to be engaged in a mission to democratize the Middle East, we seem to be systematically eliminating – or significantly eroding – all of the elements that are hallmarks of a democracy.
In this country, all citizens are endowed with the entire panoply of rights, even when some of those citizens may not be the best kind of people. We don’t accord rights so that criminals can go free, but to ensure that the voices of the innocent are not silenced and justice is not denied on the basis of who is or is not in power at a particular time, or what the prevailing sentiment is in the country.
Why are the standards set by our own judicial system, or the international standards set by the Geneva Conventions not sufficient or relevant anymore?
More importantly, why do people not worry that the breaching of the wall between us and them does not increase the chances that someone in power at some point will decide that these are tactics and policies that could work on a domestic level, right here in our own cities and communities?
We know that Bush does not care how the world sees us – he still believes we are viewed in much more positive terms than we actually are. We know he does not see the hypocrisy in our applying one set of standards to our own citizens (for now) and another to those we suspect of terrorist connections, and that hypocritical action only increases the anger directed at us. We know that Bush does not understand that holding to our principles is not the equivalent of being soft on terror or signal weakness. There is strength in principle.
The Judiciary Committee needs to hold the line, hew to the principle and assert the importance of making sure that those democratic principles are present in all of the matters and issues like this. These ideals and principles and rights and privileges are like sand, that can slip through our fingers if we are not vigilant.
Time for these committee members to lose the partisan agenda and vote like the citizens they are. Their votes will tell us a lot about what kind of country they want and see in our future.
leahy-
when the terrorist brought down the twin towers, they did not bring down our constitution and the rule of law
This is going to be the mother of all How Would a Patriot Act weeks for us as these guys try to punch out all their wedge issues for the election. We are going to get blasted with a lot of hard core desperation, so hang on pups! Don’t let a disconnected phone line stop us!
When the terrorists brought down the twin towers, they did not bring down our Constitution.
Brings up the NIE.
We have failed to try a single detainee.
We suddenly have to get this done in a week, when this has been going on for 5 years.
My apologies, re: raising the text of the magna carta. I suspect I wasn’t entirely clear.
Torturing enemies to get a confession and information is a hold over from the worst of the medieval period.
Holding people without reason (habeus corpus) is likewise a holdover from the worst of that period.
My thinking was….send a protest to our representatives in Washington in a form that *looks* medieval, to drive the point home.
My point was to use the hand/script/font of the Magna Carta (but in English, or…if you’re using the current source of my calligraphy Englische.) to further drive home the point.
I suspect my thinking, while typing the earlier comment wasn’t entirely clear. (still might not be)
“Can somebody explain the legal issue here? How can the Senate vote to restrict a Constitutional right? I mean, if the Constitution protects it, then the bill has to be unconstitutional.”
_____
Happens all the time. That’s why we have a Supreme Court. The Constitution (Article III) also gives the Supreme Court the last word on treaties, like, uh, Geneva.
Bush could give a shit. He’s playing for time, to the extent that he even cares.
_
Box Turtle bringing up all the good that they have done so far…
These are enemies of the US captured on the battlefield and are not citizens.
Is there any way to add Senators and Representatives to the Spotlight feature? I honestly think there is more for these people to learn via the posts that go up here than in any phone call or letter or e-mail we could send.
angie – who’s this guy up now?
- claims all the detainees were captured on the battlefield… [what bs, we have all kinds of reports of people being snatched in all kinds of places]
immanentize @ 55
But who would have standing to bring a case to the SCOTUS? If you combine the secret renditions, military tribunals, and suspension of habeus corpus, you get Kafka’s Trial all over again.
Here’s the word to the unlucky folks who would like to challenge such a law from the Administration: We can’t tell you who is being detained, if anyone. We can’t tell you what evidence there is against them, if any. We can’t tell you what techniques, if any, were used to develop that evidence. We can’t tell you where they are being held, if they are being held at all. Sorry about that . . .
And if you can’t get an answer to any of those questions, you can’t bring a case. SCOTUS won’t take a case that says “If Peterr is arrested in the future and denied his habeas corpus rights, he must be released.” They only will act AFTER the fact, not before.
Or could one seek an injunction to the law, challenging its constitutionality and asking that its enforcement be prohibited, and push it up the legal ladder that way?
selise– it’s Cornyn from TX
You may not think it possible, but Cornyn is worse than GWB. Red-neck all the way.
Hutson up first. Former JAG.
Like many these days, I have been reading an unhealthy amount of literature on authoritarian jurisprudence and statecraft in the years after WWI. One of the most illuminating books to read is the The Dual State by Ernst Fraenkal (1941). In his formulation, the suspension of Habeas Corpus was central to the foundation of the Prerogative State- a state of lawless and arbitrary political power that nonetheless has the official appearance of lawfulness and liberal-democratic legitimacy. The Prerogative State is the hallmark of fascist mastery of Constitutional government.
Here he uses an analysis of Machiavelli to illuminate the condition of prerogative power used by the fascists to assume control of the Weimar Republic under the state of emergency:
“Every nation would allow that there are emergencies in which it is the right and the duty of a government to proclaim a state of siege and authorize the suppression of the common rules of remedy by the rapid methods of martial law. Now what Machiavelli did, or what his followers have been doing ever since, is to elevate this principle into the normal rule for statesmen’s actions. When his books are made into a system they must result in a perpetual suspension of the Habeas Corpus Acts of the whole human race. It is not the removal of restraints under extraordinary emergencies that is the fallacy of Machiavelli, it is the erection of this removal into an ordinary and everyday rule of action”
He goes on to point out that the abuse of states of emergency for prerogative power is quite old:
“It is interesting that in the early seventeenth century…an attempt was made in England to create the impression of an emergency in order to provide a legitimate excuse of absolute tyranny. While Parliament was suspended, Charles I tried to raise ship money (a tax) by asserting that peace was threatened by ‘certain thieves, pirates, and robbers of the sea, as well as Turks, enemies of the Christian name….’
His success, however, was shorted lived and the claim made by Charles I to override the law on a ‘fancied emergency’ was defeated in the revolution. The Anglo-Saxon world has since then been wary of ‘ fancied emergencies’.”
angie @ 91
thx!
did i just hear that kennedy is not present? his written statement is being included in the record?
beard5 @ 85
The Magna Carta is the foundation of law and very important–I was just pointing out the actual document is off-putting to modern readers. Telling our legislators that they are undermining a principle that dates back to the Magna Carta is ALL GOOD!
yep.
Dang, this is not being streamed. Thanks angie, selise!
angie @ 93
thanks! trying to keep track of all the speakers for the mp3 recording.
Lets play, Name the repugs torture bill before they do…
We know it will be named in such a way to force votes for it.
My guess is:
Americans FOR punishing terrorist BILL
If there’s a week left…and this “bill” (what else can I call this chapter ripped from Mein Kampf” has to make it through committee and through both full chambers. Then, the two forms of the bill have to be reconciled, right?
Are the Dems such wimps that they can’t slam the hand-brakes on through parliamentary procedure and amendments, etc…even if they don’t want to do out-right opposition. IN fact, I find it hard to believe that some of the incumbant repubs don’t create friction as well.
Oh well…for a moment I forgot where I was living.
hutson – unlike some of the bill of rights, habeas ONLY protects the innocent
We are at a crossroads.
Habeus corpus breathes life into all of our rights. It only protects the innocents, not the guilty.
This is very complicated and important legislation and it is tied to common article 3. Consider Habeus Corpus separately. This goes above and beyond Constitutionality and is it wise?
meta @ 98
meta – you can try to stream it directly from the judiciary committee website:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2416
if my mp3 recording works, i will post a link at the end of the hearing.
We need to set a standard for other countries to meet.
The test has to be what is the right thing to do.
Match our strength against our enemies weakness.
Our strength is who we are.
Their only weapon is terror.
We must resist the temptation to be less than we are.
“we’ve made a mess with Guantanamo, I’m afraid suspending Habeus Corpus will not help”
Thomas Sullivan next. Fmr US attorney who has been involved in representing detainees at Gitmo.
He provided documents to Specter last week showing that many at Gitmo are innocent.
Keep terrorist in jail bill
next up… tomas sullivan – korean vet, lawyer representing gitmo detainees
specter says sullivan approached him last wednesday with documentation showing that detainees are being held who are not guilty of anything
Found the 800 number to the Capitol phone number
http://www.americanpatrol.com/…..rReps.html
(866) 808-0065
I called it, the operator answered and switched me to Senator Kyl’s office. Everyone needs to know that Kyl has been number one advocate for the abolish of habeas corpus over and over again.
Whips into Cornyn and says not all were captured on battlefield. Brings up Rassoul. Brings up the Supreme Court ruling.
He is pissed and debunks Cornyn’s assertions.
sullivan is ripping cornyn a new one… can’t keep up… hope angie gets this… awesome!
Jane S. @
72
OK, a quick guess about the Supreme Court and Habeas jurisdiction (as opposed to procedures). The current state of the jurisdiction issue is found in the Supreme Court’s decision in Rasul
In Rasul, the Supreme Court (with Roberts) decided that juurisdicttion existed to here the habes petitions because of their broad interpretation of the statutory grant of habeas power to the federal district courts:
So, at the very least, to change the Supreme Court’s position, they need to alter the grant of jurisdictional authority. Now, generally, the Congress can mess with the Court’s procedures (up to a constitutional limit) but they cannot mess generally with its jurisdiction. This is particularly true if they are only carving out a jurisdictional exception for one class of people (can’t find the ancient citation right now).
And, there is the direct Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to grant writs of habeas corpus, so that if you stripped lower courts of the power, you would still have a Supreme Court which cannot be stripped of the power without a constitutional amendemnt.
More later….
Sullivan to Cornyn:
You were a supreme court judge– you know what review is!
If you do one thing, read the material. If you think this comports with due process, then vote for this bill and God Bless you.
This is an historic moment in our time.
Applause and now poppy specter lecturing the crowd.
Fein up now.
Sullivan is amazing at the moment. Personalizing this and managing to hit the innocents portion as well effectively. I hope that someone is filming this because this is amazing.
Jesse Jackson on “wolf in sheep’s clothing” politics
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/25/95718/9990
Selise at 58 and BobbyG at 63 thanks for the bill numbers.
Christy, if it’s not too late can you include the bill numbers in your post? It helps to make sure the Congress people’s staff know exactly what bill we’re for/against.
Called my Senators’ offices this morning. Durbin’s staffer didn’t know his position on the torture/habeas bill. Obama, as usual, has no position statement for his staff to give constituents.
Where is Sullivan at?
christy,
It’s not that the switchboard is having a problem, it’s that the number has been disconnected.
i called last week: that 888 number, accdording to the operater, was set up by an ouytside lobbying group.
it’s a toll call now. just a n fyi.
Bruce Fein is up next discussing the history of habeas. And its importance.
Fein:
Due process and habeus corpus should not be crucified on the cross for political expediency.
No civilized nation should do this.
Sally @ 92
Totally scary guy who, BTW, never served in the military.
selise @
64
Let’s also keep in mind Ex parte Milligan and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Christy, Mary, Prof, lhp, immanentize and other lawyers here – what other Supreme Court decisions would you add?)
While I’m commenting, let me mention this headline that I noticed on Raw Story: GOP aide busted for fake blog posts on liberal sites… Soon…
hutson’s written statement is up now…
http://judiciary.senate.gov/te…..it_id=5771
Christy Hardin Smith @ 120
thank you for the live bloggin!
selise at 125 — I’m only able to do it at the moment because certain small peanuts are in the bathtub.
Fein just listed out the potential reasons that innocents might be caught up on unlawful incarceration. “The rule of law is at it’s zenith when it refuses to bend to the reviled.”
Fein brings up the internment of Japanese.
Basically asks do you want to forget history???
Smacks Cornyn too.
alittlemusicalityplease @ 122
He is not actually such a redneck — just profoundly stupid and way out of his league. If Bush were a strict marxian, Cornyn would be too.
Fein is now smacking Cornyn for his misstatement of the law, by doing basic legal primer.
Swift up now!
immanentize @ 128
That’s what makes him so scary. There’s not an independent brain cell in his head. Every time I hear him talk I think Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
oooo… swift is pissed.
immanentize, #113–Thank you, very helpful, and somewhat encouraging?!
He says that nobody else will be able to do what I did with Hamdan if this legislation is passed.
“Hamdan was placed in a state of judicial limbo until he agreed to plead guilty.” Without habeas, no one else will be able to do what Swift did for Hamdan.
He’s so pissed as he’s talking that his voice shows it. You can hear the contained fury in both his and Fein’s voices, and Sullivan just let it out — I am so bummed that this is not being broadcast live on television. I hope that someone is filming this.
excellent hearing witnesses so far…
What isn’t open is that Habeus has been part of military commissions for 150 yrs.
Calls for immediate judicial review. All I have ever sought for Mr. Hamdan is a fair trial.
ARGH– Rivkin up.
Rivkin gives his blessing to the legislation.
Everything is Constitutional.
m’kay?
Christy Hardin Smith @ 135
the person i spoke with at c-span told me that they didn’t even have a camera in the room…. but it did sound like they didn’t have all their camera’s booked… hope my requests made a difference – the person i spoke with was very sympathetic and seemed to really want this hearing to be filmed by c-span.
selise @ 136
i spoke too soon
Thanks, selise, but I’m on Mac and QuickTime. Argghhhh. Why can’t they make both available?
looseheadprop @ 5
I’ve been of the opinion that it’s better to call the legislation: “Criminals Get to Pardon Themselves”.
The Cheney Admin wouldn’t object to that title, would they?
After all, just think of all the new supporters the Repugs would get among our prison population.
Why it would probably boost Junya’s JAR bigtime!
meta @ 142
i’m on a mac too, it’s realplayer… works fine on a mac if you download the free player. proly too late now, but for next time….
blah, blah, blah. Citing cases and reading notes and is rushing thru it.
Balanced and fair and provides judicial review.
“Bush the Elder”?! Sheesh, could Specter get any more deferential?
Berenson up… saying that aliens held abroad have no rights to habeas !?
Berenson up now.
I am here as an advocate of Congressional power.
(Don’t worry be happy.)
(sounds like he has studied at the knees of Yoo, et al)
good grief.
Berenson – does not amount to a suspension of the writ
selise, thanks very much. I’ve got it on now. I glanced and misread it as a .wav file.
I faxed this out to my Senators today.
Senator Herb Kohl
Senator Russell Feingold
September 25, 2006
via fax.
Dear Sirs:
Please forgive me for contacting you under one header rather than separately.
I am one of your constituents from Milwaukee, and have had the pleasure of voting for both of you since your initial campaigns. Overall I have been pleased with the job you have been doing on my, and Wisconsin’s, behalf.
Today the Judiciary Committee is hearing on limiting habeus corpus rights to American prisoners.
Sirs, I am aghast that our American Congress is considering such a notion at all. It has been such an integral part of this country since before its founding that the right to habeus corpus is written into the declaration of Independence itself. That Congress considers this an appropriate measure at all is disrespectful to Democracy, to the Founding Fathers, to anyone who has fought in armed conflict for this country, and is a clear sign of how degraded and politicized our system has become.
I quote here from the web blog FireDogLake, because they can say it so much more eloquently than I can:
Of all of the legal protections that we hold as American ideals and as examples to other nations as embodied in our Bill of Rights, the right of habeas corpus is the only civil liberty to be held so important by the Founders that it was included in the Constitution itself. This week, the United States Senate voted to restrict that right of petition for grievance.
Such restriction was for enemy combatants held outside the United States, so why should any citizen care? Because a restriction on this fundamental right for some could mean restrictions for all of us down the line.
A right to challenge being held by the government for improper reasons is at the heart of our democracy — where such right was established to secure our rights to liberty and freedom, and to stop imprisonment of opposition candidates for political reasons.
The right of habeas corpus is our firewall against the tyranny of the majority — it dates back to the Magna Carta, which bound the king to the rule of law. To threaten habeas corpus protections tears at the very fabric of rights in this nation.
Here is why: if you are arrested under false or bogus charges, or without any charge whatsoever as reason for your detainment, you have a right to petition a court to ask that the charges against you be detailed and justified under the laws of this country. The state must justify its right to hold you under the law, or you must be set free — they cannot hold you without just cause.
What the Senate is asking is that we simply trust that our government is doing the right thing, and that they are only holding guilty persons in our name, and that the military tribunals who have been holding hearings on detainments will adequately address all constitutional problems when many of these detainees have had difficulties in gaining access to legal counsel, and that all of this being done in the name of the United States should be considered acceptable when we afford one standard of justice to our citizens and a completely different standard of justice to those we deem not worthy of it simply because they are non-citizens held in our legal custody.
It has been pointed out that the Nuremberg Trials are unassailable because they were held openly, publicly, and with full regard for the rights of the accused, in addition to demonstrating in stark relief the injustice represented by the Nazi atrocities. It seems apparent to me that the American Government stands on the verge of enacting a system that is much like one that was on display at Nuremberg; and it is not the one described as open, public, or fair.
Sirs, I trust you will see your duty clear to vociferously and unambiguously oppose such a travesty, a violation of the morality that America has stood for for 200 years.
Yours in Democracy,
Berenson – and anyway, congress has the power to suspend habeas because we were invaded on 911.
specter – is the invasion still going on?
berenson – if there are al queda operatives on american soil
URGENT REQUEST — I’ve only scrolled through the thread quickly, but on doing so I can’t find a link to text of the Specter-Levin Amendment.
I want to read it with my own eyes before I call and ream Levin’s office about the abortion that this entire mess is — the American nation having to argue the merits of torture, let alone ever questioning the value of an intrinsic civil right like habeas corpus for any human being.
Had been working on a fax to Levin’s office, but now that I’ve checked back in, looks like I need to completely start over.
Specter: you talk about an invasion on 9/11– is it still going on???
Berenson: if there are cells here then yes.
meta @
75
I’ve read one of Sheuer’s books and have formed a rather favorable impression of him. Also, IIRC, he held the Al Qaeda desk at the CIA during the Clinton years. Hmmmmm.
Bellumregio: “His success, however, was shorted lived and the claim made by Charles I to override the law on a ‘fancied emergency’ was defeated in the revolution. The Anglo-Saxon world has since then been wary of ‘ fancied emergencies’.”
Do you mean the English Civil War?
Rayne @ 153
haven’t been able to find it yet either… but haven’t looked today. will check thomas again…
How can any US lawyer even consider that this is right or Constitutional?
I don’t get it at all.
Time is limited?
Yeah, this ain’t really important enough to take up to much of our important senators time.
Whats the hurry?
oh yeah, the truth comes out.
Time to stop him now…
sullivan – i’ve been to gitmo and it’s a concentration camp
Sullivan does a beautiful thing and puts Rivkin and Berenson in the shoes of the prisoners at Gitmo. Calls Gitmo a concentration camp. What would you do Rivkin and Berenson if that happened to you?
Berenson calls Sullivan confused. He does not understand the difference between military and civilian detentions.
Just got an e-mail with the link to the Democratic Policy Committee Oversight Hearing on Accountability for Contracting Abuses in Iraq .
This is not a penal process says Rivkin.
Berenson will call it something its not, OBVIOUSLY!
Jane S et al.
here is part two of my thought –
As I said above, Congress can mess with the procedures associated with habeas corpus, but they cannot ultimately upset the Supreme Court’s constitutional provision of jurisdiction to hear habeas cases.
The most important case on this is Felker v. Turpin
In Felker, the Supremes said that Congress can redesign the gatekeeping procedures, but they cannot effect the jurisdiction of the Court to hear any habeas proceeding it wants to. The Court sort of writes in the negative, but you’ll get the drift:
In other words, the Supreme Court will hear what it wants to. Now that just begs the question — does this Supreme Court want to?
Rip some Butt PAT !!
Leahy mercifully brings up the innocents that have been imprisoned (and Arar) in response to Rivkin and Berenson.
sullivan – i know fair procedures when i see it, and this ain’t it
selise @ 147
the Supreme Court agrees — there is a post-WWII case that holds that (Eisentrager) but Guantanemo is, according to the Supreme Court in Rasul “Not abroad.”
Sullivan– I have been practicing law for over 50 years, I have never been a justice, but I know due process when I see it and this ain’t it!
(smackdown of Cornyn again!)
You gotta like Bruce Fein !!
immanentize @ 171
thanks! obviously, i am not a lawyer.
Where the hell is the ABA on this?!
Hutson– The emperor has no clothes– we’re talking about 450 people that we don’t know what to do with.
We will become a banana republic if we do away with habeus. This is what America is about.
hutson –
without these protections, we’re just another bannana republic
this is about what to do with 450 people in gitmo that we don’t know what to do with.
5% of gitmo detainees were picked up my US troops
selise @
157
Is it this one?
selise @ 64
Specifically, rebellion or invasion on American soil, as I recall my Constitution. So Arlen is right on this point, and one might think it would be a prima facie kick in the teeth to this stupid piece of legislation. In the real America, that is.
Christy or Moderator:
I’m trying to link the “Sorrow” thread for a friend that just lost someone but it won’t ‘open’. The comments section comes up blank. Am I doing something wrong? Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks.
Wigwam @ 155
Yeah, his statement totally took me by surprise. That’s why I mentioned it here. He was very vehement about Clinton having many opportunities to capture and kill OBL, but he and Sandy Berger refused to do it. Completely contradicted Clinton. He also mentioned that there was plenty of blame to go around and that Bush screwed up his opportunity to capture OBL as well. But he went on to stress that Clinton had about 8 chances to do it and Bush only screwed up once at Tora Bora. I was flabbergasted.
bellumregio @
94
These disasters always begin with a trust-me pitch from the chief executive. Congress fell for that with the AUMF and again with the AUMF-Iraq. Now again they are being ask to trust their president to “interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.” Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a third time, …?
Swift– talks about the fact that if Hamdan is sentenced for less than 10 yrs, he has no right to appeal.
(he is so passionate.)
Cornyn bringing up Auschwitz and Gitmo and says that anyone that compares them has an active fantasy life and his credibility should be questioned. (slamming Sullivan)
Hopskippy @
100
Over at dKos someone suggested “The Rape-and-Torture Bill,” and justified it by the fact that not all forms of rape are explicitly prohibited.
Can anyone even prove that Cornyn is actually an AMERICAN?
LindyH @ 178
just took a quick look, and ianal – don’t think that’s the amendment we’re looking for, think it’s one of the evil bills (warner’s):
Now Cornyn is going to the Berenson/Rivkin orwellian well for some more of that fine and tasty kool aid.
angie @ 139
Ain’t cogent argumentation grand?
angie @ 183
Is it ok to compare Gitmo to Manzanar?
Can we compare Abu Ghraib to Auschwitz? Is that ok?
Wigwam @ 182
And these disasters always lead to a plea to give this unchecked authority to every president to follow. IOW, it’s asking us to trust not just the pleasant fellow in the White House now, but all the swell and neato folks who will occupy that place in the years to come.
That’s what I don’t get here. Given Falwell’s fear of a President Hillary (for example), does the Right really want to give someone like her this kind of unchecked power? In their fawning over Bush, are they really blind to the fact that he’ll be leaving office in January 2009?
wrt to rivkin’s testimony – these aren’t criminals, battlefield detainees…
i’m confused…. ianal, but i’ve read the geneva conventions (not recently) and if someone isn’t thought to be a criminal, aren’t they supposed to be POWs?
It is so hard to listen to Cornyn and believe he is a Senator! The more he speaks, the worse I feel inside, FOR AMERICA !
angie @176
according to AP article last week, US has in its custody 14,000 detainees globally, about 13,00o in Iraq. Most held 3 to 5 years. Only a handful of that number have actually been charged with a crime. Indefinite detention without just cause.
LindyH, thanks for trying, think we’re looking for something else. S.3901 is the Warner one.
What bugs the sh*t out of me is the argument over Geneva Conventions and habeas corpus. If an alien is outside of the U.S. and therefore cannot rely on habeas corpus, they must be able to rely on Geneva Conventions since detention by a foreign entity off its own soil is not a domestic matter.
What is so f*cking complicated about this???
Fresh thread for everyone.
Christy Hardin Smith @
115
That’s what we’ve been trying to tell the Democratic leadership. They bragged that they successfully ducked a Karl Rove trap. In fact, they were throwing away an opportunity. I just hope Ried is watching and taking notes.
alittlemusicalityplease @ 193
I know. *sob*
selise @ 152
Also, does the presence of foreign agents properly constitute an “invasion?” If it does, then might one construe the presence of American intelligence agents in pretty much every country on the planet as an “invasion?”
Plastic Man never reached as far as Berenson.
are there a bunch of spectators in the gallery wearing gitmo orange?
that is SO COOL!!!
I think the worse thing is that 95% of the detainees were hand delivered by Pakistan (for a large fee).
I’m trying to figure out the crime against America in that?
Jeebus…was there ever a suspension of habeas corpus in either of the AUMF’s?
I hope the libertarians are getting as riled up as we are.
EvilDrPuma @ 198
no shit!!! excellent point!
CSPAN 3???? Can somebody please explain to me how the assholes who are in charge of CSPAN routinely decide that CSPAN’s 1 and 2 should give us BookTalk and pictures of an empty floor in the process of vote-counting for a resolution to reimburse Ms. Peterson for the automobile accident caused by a drunk postal employee, but that CSPAN 3, which I suspect has a viewership of ten people able to get it on closed-circuit television at NORAD, is going to present the hearing dealing with a bedrock issue of jurisprudence? Mother of……
Hope — I’m having trouble getting the Sorrow thread open as well. I’ll see if Jamie has time to take a peek at it and see what the problem is. It may be a really slow-loading thread, just due to the very large number of comments. But if I can get an answer and get it fixed, I’ll let you know.
Wigwam @ 184
America won’t stand for terror BILL
EvilDrPuma @ 198
Then, if we have special ops people in Iran now, as Gary Hart indicated, are we “invading” Iran right this minute?
I’ve emasteve davis @ 203
iled cspan many times asking, ” what service are you doing with book/tv “
No reply as of yet..?
Mad Dogs @
143
How about “War criminals redefine ‘war crimes’”?
Mike @ 207
sorry, I’ve email several times….
Sounds like there are at least a few AMERICANS in the crowd.
I’m sure the BUSH squad is on the way to arrest them.
Steve at 203 — I don’t think the blame ought to rest on C-Span on this. The Judiciary Committee hearing was scheduled at the last minute late on Friday, and as you can tell from the low attendance by Senators, it caught a lot of folks off guard. I noticed it only because I was looking for something else on the Judiciary website…and I know Selise noticed it as well (thanks for the e-mail on that Selise, btw).
cleter @ 206
According to Berenson’s standard, we’d have to be. Probably according to my standard too–but I can already see that my standard has some actual thought behind it, and Berenson’s doesn’t. I suspect he’s making this nonsense up as he goes.
Oh, and also, C-Span is required by law to carry the proceedings on the floor of the House or the Senate and any official hearings of either body on C-Span 1 & 2. Unfortunately, the policy committee hearing is a Democratic only one — and thus gets relegated to C-Span3 unless there is no official hearing going on at the time of its scheduling. That’s one of the reasons they started C-Span3, to be able to broadcast stuff like this because it needs coverage. They stream it live from the C-Span website (http://www.c-span.org/), so you can watch and listen from your computer if you have a good enough connection.
Well, I called Senator Tom Coburns office and said as a constituent of his I want to go on the record that I am opposed to gutting of the habeus protections from the Gitmo detainees and the elimination of any judicial oversight on the Geneva act abuses. The only way we can encourage other countries to embrace freedom is for us to be more American, not less.
I am so surprise at all this habeas business. It is the canonical abuse of executive power that every political scientist and lawyer interested in constitutional issues should be well aware of. The premise of all of this is that the War on Terror is of such a unique nature that a new system of tribunal- not civilian or military- should be created where the executive defines the rules used to try his prisoners. But the United States has been through every manner of war and the European democracies have faced waves of modern terror without the need to create a judicial process that relies on torture, hearsay and arbitrary justice and the suspension of habeas corpus.
The suspension of habeas is a de facto declaration of martial law. It only occurs when the state is threatened from outside powers or from rebellion, and it is only for a limited period of time. But terrorism, by definition, is no more a threat to the state than are Charles’ “thieves, pirates, and robbers of the sea”.
Everyone can see how the War on Terror- the secret war against an invisible enemy- is indefinite in its scope and its duration. It will last as long as the executive says it will last and it will be fought against any agents he declares a threat. This is Dick Cheney and John Yoo’s unitary executive enthroned.
Damnitall, I can’t get anybody in Levin’s office.
I want that amendment wording, and I’ll be damned if I have to call Specter’s office.
posted a link in the next thread to the mp3 of the hearing….
selise @ 95
looseheadprop @ 2
Having watched “baby channel” while watching my friends’ three year old, I get this joke ;)
Not meaning to be obtuse here, but use of the word “firewall” here is incorrect. A firewall is either a fireproof wall used as a barrier to prevent the spread of fire, OR, it is an umbrella word for any of a number of security schemes that prevent unauthorized users from gaining access to a computer network or that monitor transfers of information to and from the network.
A better word would be, simply, “wall” or some other word meaning “barrier.”
I talked to Sen. Leahy’s committee staffer who doesn’t anticipate the committee will be voting out related legislation before the elections.
Here’s the Senator’s statement from today’s hearing:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092506.html
Nan
Leahey always comes through. Didn’t Jon Stewart say to Cornyn he was”the best looking crazy man he ever met?”