Priority #1: Restore Habeas Rights

[Nbadan]

Or as the wing-nut media calls it - "giving constitutional rights to detainees", although Habeas was established law pre-Constiution, but, well, don't tell the wing-nuts that....

Sen Leahy - Drafting Bill To RESTORE HABEAS RIGHTS
DEMOCRATS WILL REVISIT MILITARY HABEAS DEBATE
Likely Chair Leahy Objects to Limits on Detainees' Rights



Sen. Patrick Leahy's first efforts as probable Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be to hold hearings to restore some of the habeas rights taken away by the Military Commissions bill.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who is expected to become chairman, confirmed Thursday that he is drafting a bill to undo portions of a recently passed law that prevent terrorism detainees from going to federal court to challenge the government's right to hold them indefinitely.

Leahy's goal is to "try and do something to reverse the damage," said his spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler.

Link (http://pda-appellateblog.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_pda-appellateblog_archive.html#116317805789890859)

Reversing some of the evil.

[xrayzebra]

Terrorist bill of rights. I believe it was called, which it
is.

[FromWayDowntown]

Remembering our Constitutional foundations and ensuring that there are appropriate checks on executive power, I believe it is called, which it is.

[Marklar MM]

This is a step forward most definitely.

[valluco]

Thank you Patrick Leahy.

[Ocotillo]

So you add an asterisk to the constitution, does not apply if you are accused of being a terrorist, eh Ray?

[Gerryatrics]

::sigh:: Habeas Corpus and other protected rights from the US Constitution apply to foreign (as in non-citizens of the United States) terrorists how?

[RobinsontoDuncan]

ok, somehow i dont think th founding fathers were cool with putting non citizens in concentration camps, no.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Terrorist bill of rights. I believe it was called, which it
is.

Actually, it's pronounced Mag-na Car-ta.

[Zunni]

::sigh:: Habeas Corpus and other protected rights from the US Constitution apply to foreign (as in non-citizens of the United States) terrorists how?
The same way our courts do. If we're gonna try them, the rules must be ours, too. Otherwise, it's just a kangaroo court, a sham.

[MannyIsGod]

Excellent. Excefuckinglent!

[gtownspur]

ok, somehow i dont think th founding fathers were cool with putting non citizens in concentration camps, no.


Do we really gas the terrorist and use their bodyparts for lampshades, cuz otherwise you're an idiot.

[gtownspur]

So you add an asterisk to the constitution, does not apply if you are accused of being a terrorist, eh Ray?


Were the nuremberg trials constitutional?

[boutons_]

Great initial move by the Dems to undo all the damage the fucking Repugs did to the world.

[FromWayDowntown]

::sigh:: Habeas Corpus and other protected rights from the US Constitution apply to foreign (as in non-citizens of the United States) terrorists how?

You're right -- the executive should have absolutely unlimited and totally unchecked powers when it comes to dealing with those it deems terrorists. Why should such people ever be entitled to challenge their designation or detention? So long as the executive believes them to be terrorists, that should be sufficient to detain them for as long as the executive wishes, with no right to any legal process whatsoever and no opportunity to ask that proof be adduced to justify the detention.

:rolleyes

Habeas is not solely a constitutional right -- it's a foundational premise of legal process available to those who are detained or imprisoned by governments that respect basic human rights.

I'm not sure how making review of detentions by habeas is in any way a threat to prosecuting a war on terror. If the detainees are truly affiliated with terror groups or otherwise are truly terrorists, the availability of habeas will not end those detentions.

[gtownspur]

You're right -- the executive should have absolutely unlimited and totally unchecked powers when it comes to dealing with those it deems terrorists. Why should such people ever be entitled to challenge their designation or detention? So long as the executive believes them to be terrorists, that should be sufficient to detain them for as long as the executive wishes, with no right to any legal process whatsoever and no opportunity to ask that proof be adduced to justify the detention.

:rolleyes

Habeas is not solely a constitutional right -- it's a foundational premise of legal process available to those who are detained or imprisoned by governments that respect basic human rights.

I'm not sure how making review of detentions by habeas is in any way a threat to prosecuting a war on terror. If the detainees are truly affiliated with terror groups or otherwise are truly terrorists, the availability of habeas will not end those detentions.



That's right FWD, you forget that that's how Lincoln was able to keep the Union from breaking apart while fighting the confederacy.


And that the supreme courts have already spoken on the implied powers of the executive branch. And that neither branch cept the Executive can handle millitary affairs effectively.

You want the Ariticles of Federation, and want a weak national govt be my guest.

And look at history before you make all these nice sounding phrases that are too broad to support your beliefs.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's right FWD, you forget that that's how Lincoln was able to keep the Union from breaking apart while fighting the confederacy.


And that the supreme courts have already spoken on the implied powers of the executive branch. And that neither branch cept the Executive can handle millitary affairs effectively.

You want the Ariticles of Federation, and want a weak national govt be my guest.

And look at history before you make all these nice sounding phrases that are too broad to support your beliefs.

And you want a King.

[gtownspur]

And you want a King.

Kings have term limits??

Are there also kings who don't legislate.

[01Snake]

Thank God!! It's like I woke up and all my rights were gone!

[xrayzebra]

Kings have term limits??

Are there also kings who don't legislate.

You mean like some federal judges and courts.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I get a kick out of the 'terrorist getting constitutional rights' talking point. I have a question for those who oppose the program. Let's say we pick up 1,000 suspected terrorists..we could safely assume that a small percenatge of those folks were either in the wrong place at the wrong time or were fingered in error. Let's put the nmer at 75..for the conservatives on this board that is 7.5% of the 1,000. If they have no right to an attorney or an avenue to prove their innocence then what is their recourse? My girlfriend who is a apolitical agreed at first with the talking points of the right but her mind changed when I gave her the same scenerio..We are not a third world country that locks people up forever when they have doen nothing wrong.. My concern is those folks who are not terrorists that are locked away and have done bothing wrong... call me whatever you want but it is not right to take a away someone's freedom in order to make a political point.. We are fighting fro freedom correct?

Can the Bush apologista at least acknowledge that putting innocent people away forever is wrong?

[gtownspur]

I get a kick out of the 'terrorist getting constitutional rights' talking point.

Good, so you should take it lightly when we don't afford foreign terrorist constitutional rights cuz it's funny and they don't exist.

[Bob Lanier]

Do we really gas the terrorist and use their bodyparts for lampshades, cuz otherwise you're an idiot.
Internment camps ≠ concentration camps ≠ death camps.

That is, of course, unless you're just redefining words.

[gtownspur]

Internment camps ≠ concentration camps ≠ death camps.

That is, of course, unless you're just redefining words.

Thanx, i already made that point.

[Clandestino]

I get a kick out of the 'terrorist getting constitutional rights' talking point. I have a question for those who oppose the program. Let's say we pick up 1,000 suspected terrorists..we could safely assume that a small percenatge of those folks were either in the wrong place at the wrong time or were fingered in error. Let's put the nmer at 75..for the conservatives on this board that is 7.5% of the 1,000. If they have no right to an attorney or an avenue to prove their innocence then what is their recourse? My girlfriend who is a apolitical agreed at first with the talking points of the right but her mind changed when I gave her the same scenerio..We are not a third world country that locks people up forever when they have doen nothing wrong.. My concern is those folks who are not terrorists that are locked away and have done bothing wrong... call me whatever you want but it is not right to take a away someone's freedom in order to make a political point.. We are fighting fro freedom correct?

Can the Bush apologista at least acknowledge that putting innocent people away forever is wrong?


yeah, being on the battle with taliban terrorists is definitely the wrong place at the wrong time.

but yeah, i'd rather we put a few innocents in prison for life or worse(execute a few innocent) than let a terrorist go and him kill 3,500 innocents..

[Zunni]

yeah, being on the battle with taliban terrorists is definitely the wrong place at the wrong time.

but yeah, i'd rather we put a few innocents in prison for life or worse(execute a few innocent) than let a terrorist go and him kill 3,500 innocents..
Thank God our founding fathers were a LOT smarter than you..

[foodie2]

but yeah, i'd rather we put a few innocents in prison for life or worse(execute a few innocent) than let a terrorist go and him kill 3,500 innocents..


Unless one of the "few innocents" was you, or your spouse, or your mother, or your child--right?

[gtownspur]

Unless one of the "few innocents" was you, or your spouse, or your mother, or your child--right?


Why not, Mothers and Children are the most likely to do that sort of thing.<sarcasm>

[xrayzebra]

^^I understand Bush and Homeland security is targeting Mothers picking up children
at school.