digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Leahy, Specter to introduce habeas legislation.

thinkprogress.org — On Friday, Sens. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) plan to introduce an amendment restoring the habeas corpus protections stripped as a result of last year ’s Military Commissions Act. The legislation would restore basic civil liberties to roughly 12 million legal permanent residents of the United States.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DeadElephantORG, on 10/11/2007, -14/+17What more sign do you need that the worm has turned? It wasn't even a year ago that the Senate voted to TRASH habeas. I know I should be happy, but the pandering of our politicians to the public mood... to the point that they would toss our freedom in the can one day and turn around the next and say "hey, I've got an idea, how 'bout we get ourselves some freedom" - it just makes me want to puke!
    FREEDOM
    to jail anybody!
    http://www.DeadElephant.ORG
    • Loki, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6digging you down due to your pathetic attempt to drive more traffic to a very ugly website.
  • faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20I'm sick of hearing that they're going to do it. Do it already!
    • mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'd prefer them to void the entire law out right... simply pass another law taking the WHOLE THING back... but they NEVER do something so simple.
  • dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35I don't think we need an amendment given that habeas corpus is already in the Constitution; all we really need is a Congress with the balls to stand up for the Constitution instead of cowering in the corner like the cowards they are.

    The Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional, so clearly the solution is to repeal it instead of trying to create an amendment to say what the Constitution already says, especially since it was already ignored the first time it was written. They could add 50 amendments saying that same thing if they want, but what's the point if they aren't going to defend it from those who defy it?
    • mwayne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6"all we really need is a Congress with the balls to stand up for the Constitution instead of cowering in the corner like the cowards they are."

      When has this ever happened? If they stood up for the Constitution, 99% of the laws on the books would have to be repealed
    • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Then how about we vote in a congress that will repeal 99% of the laws on the books?
      • dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We can as soon as we rid ourselves of the Rep/Dem parties, since neither would ever allow that to happen.
    • metalgodz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Modded up because you're right on. The Constitution has been either regarded as a set of guidelines to find loopholes in or just blatantly disregarded for too long, and the people who have taken an oath to uphold and defend it have been the ones allowing, if not encouraging, the abuses.

      This unconstitutional law has got to go.
    • maz2331, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Maybe, just maybe, we should make passing unconstitutional legislation a criminal offense?
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -9/+7Leahy is a patriot!
  • theNazz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24'Restoring' Habeas Corpus?

    Would these people please grow some balls and ***** DEFEND the 'god damned piece of paper' called the CONSTITUTION!
    • mwayne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1See my reply above - face facts - you don't want the Constitution defended - you want "Your" version of the Living Document" defended as exemplified by the Court since the New Deal
      • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I personally think the "living document" ***** was one of the worst decisions ever made. The constitution isn't a living document. You think that it should change to reflect the times? That's why they make constitutional amendments.
      • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I personally think the "living document" ***** was one of the worst decisions ever made. The constitution isn't a living document. You think that it should change to reflect the times? That's why they make constitutional amendments.
    • theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Time for y'all to learn something that's going to clog sewage systems nation wide with miles and miles of vomit.

      http://www.constitution.org/mil/lawnanti.htm

      The U.S. Constitution was suspended in 1933 pending the end of a state of national emergency ... which has never ended.

      The Constitution is functionally null and void.

      War Powers Act ...

      The below is excerpted from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_Powers_Act

      On November 19, 1973, the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency presented Senate Report 93-549 at the first session of the 93rd Congress. The Introduction to the report, an examination of existing War and Emergency Powers Acts, states:

      "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971."[1]

      "These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes."[2]
  • iancrose, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I agree with many of the comments that this shouldn't be necessary, but even if Leahy and Spector are just following the crowd and getting on the recent bandwagon of disagreeing with Bush's policies, I don't care. If the bandwagon also happens to be going the same direction as the right thing to do, I'm all for it. I'm in favor of any additional support for the basic Habeus Corpus rights that most of the developed world has enjoyed for centuries.
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Leahy following the crowd? HA! He was out front on torture, he was out front on warrantless wiretapping, he was out front on PlameGate, he was out front on GonzoGate, etc! VT politicians are LEADING THE WAY for the Democratic party!
      • ooloo, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Leahy is leading the way all right...for the "Hate America First" crowd..............
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Defending the constitution is a weird definition of "hate america," fascist swine.
        • theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Engage your goddamned brain or stay out of the conversation.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6Buried as inaccurate. Prisoners of War and Enemy Combatants do not have Habeas Corpus rights.
    • darkhand, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11What part of 'All men are created equal' don't you understand?
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3What part of "Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic" do you not understand?
      • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13What part of "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" do you not understand?
      • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Where does it say that in the constitution?
        Not in the preamble.
        Not in the Articles.
        Not in the Amendments.
        You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence maybe?
        Perhaps the Gettysburg Address?
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10article 1 section 9 ...who were you replying to?
        • knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"All men are created equal" is a self-evident truth, God given and/or the birthright of consciousness.

          Any man who denies another man equality in justice is a criminal without any piece of paper needing to be referenced.
    • orielbean, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties which deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[5] because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".
      • theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Omigod, factual citations, the Bush camp's worst enemy...
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Nice cut and paste from Wikipedia. Allow me to add to it from the same Unlawful Combatant page.

        Combatants who do not qualify for POW status:
        A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court."

        The bottom line is that terrorists like those in Iraq and Afghanistan are not protected as civilians, nor are they fighting within the confines of the Laws of War and the Geneva convention. The only rights that they are granted in their current state are the ones above. They have no habeas corpus rights, only that they are treated humanely and eventually have a trial in a "a regularly constituted court."
    • mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"unlawful combatant" doesn't appear in the Constitution!!!

      The Constitution covers laws "against" the federal govt... it's not about what rights PEOPLE.. any people.. have, it's about what rights the feds have. The same way our Geneva Convention laws work... they aren't vaild only if other countries "play fair" too.... it's our ethical rules we should uphold no matter how evil the other side is. it's about OUR rules for OURselves... and we shouldn't bend the rules because it's not the "American way" of doing things.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for idiocy. All people, citizens or otherwise under US jurisdiction have the rights in the fifth amendment which include due process and habeas corpus.
      • knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1true, but potentially one might need to spend decades in prison while having to fight MCA in the courts to have it declared unconstitutional.
  • ooloo, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3Too bad liberal moonbats, and that includes Mr. Leahy and Mr. Specter, aren't as concerned about protecting Americans as they are about protecting the terrorist's rights.

    Do you need ANY further proof that liberals don't think we are in a war?? Do you need any further proof that liberals can't be trusted with our national security??
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Can you explain the logic behind the term "moonbat?"
      • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I use the term "logic" very loosely, if that helps you to come up with something.
    • 3adkied, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Actually, I'm quite happy they aren't as concerned about killing terrorists as they are about protecting Americans' rights.
    • Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3So, Specter's a good ol' Republican, right up until he cosponsors legislation to restore constitutional rights, and then becomes a "moonbat"? ooloo, you're a moron.
    • StarlessKnight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Unfortunate Reality Check: Terrorists in America receive the same rights as American Citizens. Less Freedom/Rights for Terrorists = Less Freedom/Rights for everyone. This is a good thing; kinda jives with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" and "all men are created equal" (avoids tiers of citizenry, some having certain rights while others get other rights, or no rights).

      By now you've had to have heard about the Security vs. Freedom issue, so I'll forego it here.
    • tropican8, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So you truly believe that those 12 million legal permanent residents of the United States are terrorists? That's quite a claim. Putting that aside, discarding basic civil rights puts us in the same boat as people like Saddam, meaning by Bush logic the U.S should invade itself. On a more serious note, I think you have balls claiming that liberals can't be trusted with our national security when the current administration managed to fail over half of the recommendations made to them by security professionals after 9/11, including such basic things as having more security at locations in greater danger of attack. Additionally, our ports are owned by companies that are known to be directly funding terrorism. Oh, let's not forget to mention the fact that less than 0.01 percent of the cases filed by the DHS have been terrorism related. Or that while looking for terrorists, a needle in a haystack, their answer is wiretapping the American people. That effectively makes the haystack several times larger, whether you think your civil liberties were violated or not. So yeah, the Republicans did a bang-up job. Forgive me if I trust someone else with national security.
    • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@ooloo: Only terrorists don't believe in habeas corpus. As a result, you're a terrorist, and you're going to Gitmo. Pack your *****. Wait, don't bother, the government will just keep it. Want a trial? Too bad.
    • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@ooloo: Only terrorists don't believe in habeas corpus. As a result, you're a terrorist, and you're going to Gitmo. Pack your *****. Wait, don't bother, the government will just keep it. Want a trial? Too bad.
      • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You know, this commenting system is really lame. Dig parent down.
    • knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1fascist stooge.
  • GoneSouth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Too bad they didn't find their balls last year and defeat the military commissions act.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That pissed me off. Maybe they figured they'd have a better chance focusing on getting votes for the 2006 elections before turning against it? I dunno.
      • 0xbadfood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0They would have gotten a lot more votes by having integrity and opposing the raping of the American people by the neocons than by being a bunch of wussies.
  • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Of course the act specifically states throughout that the provisions apply only to those determined to be alien unlawful combatants who are to be tried in a military court. Anyone who is not an alien unlawful combatant is not subject to this law. Doesn't mean that the law can't be abused, of course.
    • Loonacy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I declare you to be an alien unlawful combatant. You say you have proof that you aren't?
      Uh oh, not so fast... you don't get a trial, or a hearing. You're going to be imprisoned indefinitely. I'm so sorry.

      Abolishing habeas corpus for ANYONE effectively abolishes it for EVERYONE, because you never get the opportunity to prove that you are eligible to have it.
      • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Alien means NOT AN AMERICAN.
        So, to be an Alien Unlawful Comatant you must be-
        1. Not an American.
        2. Captured in fighting against American Soldiers.
        3. Not part of a country's official armed forces.
        And a Military tribunal must file evidence that the person in question passes all 3 before they can declare that person such.
        Read the law before making statements about it.
  • kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12@ ooloo:

    "Do you need ANY further proof that liberals don't think we are in a war?? Do you need any further proof that liberals can't be trusted with our national security??"

    Do we need any more proof that you're an asshat?
  • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -2/+4that is kind of strange on the flip side of things, thinking that we need amendments to enforce the amendments... hmm.
  • 3adkied, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Am I the only one disturbed by them specifying that they were returning hapeas corpus to legal residents of the US. For the most part, the Constitution applies to everyone (even those here illegally). Those rights, such as voting, that are specific to US citizens say so very clearly. All others give the rights to 'people'. I can't think of any benefit of imprisoning anyone indefinitely with no trial and no charges. There is no mention of citizenship, nationality, or legality in the following:

    Article (amendment) 5 of the Bill of Rights
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
    unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
    in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
    of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
    be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
    case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
    property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
    public use, without just compensation.
    • ExCornelius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They can't make that argument, otherwise they'd have to say the law they passed was unconstitutional. Better to not mention the C-word at all, and maintain the notion that such laws are legitimate. Never know when it might come in handy.
    • Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree, they should be calling the act unconstitutional up and down---then again, they (Democrats) should have also stood against it more firmly.
    • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1so how does torture apply to this part of the 5th amendment....

      ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal
      case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,...
  • gbarger, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I'm really happy to hear about this

    One thing from this article really annoys me. "an historic" This is incorrect if the author is American and pronounces the hard H. If you're British and don't pronounce it like "an istoric" then it would be correct, but if it's pronounced with a hard H then it's "a historic".
    /end of rant
    • dosterm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Either version is valid, for the exact reason you state. Why the rant?
  • eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5While it is a nice, H.C. shouldn't have died in the first place. When they "restore" it, watch what they say and compare it to the old Habeas Corpus. Just a suggestion.
  • liberalsmack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Bush will sign it and then add a signing statement saying the executive branch can ignore it.
    • kaemaril, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I think it more likely he'll warm up his veto cannon ... :(
  • metalgodz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Tried to write a reply but timed out...Let's have at this again...

    This is useless legislation. The Military Comissions Act is blatantly unconstitutional, in that it directly contradicts portions of the Constitution, and the courts and the government have been avoiding that ultimate question since day one. Please note that rulings on any case related to this have been decided on technicality, and not the legality of the Act.

    The last thing we need is another shiny new law which will restore to us our rights. Think about that statement for a minute...We're talking about the first 10 Amendments, which don't *grant* rights to the People, but *acknowledge* the natural rights of the People.

    What we need is to stop legislating things that shouldn't be legislated, and things that don't need to be legislated. I hate to plug sites, but I'm going to anyway - http://www.downsizedc.org.

    We need to force our representatives to work for us, the People. We need them to actually read what's being made into law, and we need laws not to be passed or renewed without the full attention and review of the appropriate representatives. We need to remind them that the People that they work for are due proper representation, and to do so, the laws must be readable and plainly understandable by the People - who may or may not be trained in law.

    We need a change, and we need the People to be willing to demand it.
  • zeldar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The Military Commissions Act (and both so-called P.A.T.R.I.O.T Acts) are knee-jerk reactions to the same fear and paranoia that caused our illustrious Congress to vote to authorize the Iraq war. All of this legislation, including the war authorization need to be repealed, period. Congress should be ashamed for being accomplices to the Bush crime family's efforts to systematically overturn our Constitutional rights in the name of the so-called 'War on Terror'.
  • cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2so how does torture apply to this part of the 5th amendment then...
    ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal
    case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,...
    (just asking)
  • Crusader1145, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what this bill does. If passed this bill will allow ENEMY COMBATANTS, you know those wacky guys trying to kill us while screaming how great god is, access to civilian courts. This has never been done in the history of war. Are our troops now supposed to be like the CSI team and gather up all the evidence, keep it safe, ensure a traceable chain of custody, etc? Lets not forget that these people are not US citizens and have NO Constitutional rights (if they are US citizens then this is not an issue). As unlawful enemy combatants they're not even covered by the Geneva Convention. Fighting the Islamofascists is not cops and robbers, its a war and needs to be pursued as such.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Democrats don't think we are fighting a war.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

      …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
      • Crusader1145, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Quite true. Don't they realize that these Islamofascists hate everything they stand for and that they would be the first ones lined up against the wall if they ever came to power? I just don't get it.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.