home

Dems Likely to Move to Restore Habeas Rights

Via How Appealing: An article in the California Daily Journal (pass through link) reports that one of 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.

The sooner the better in my opinion. I also think Leahy is a great choice for Judiciary Committee Chair. He has been a champion for the rights of the accused on many issues, such as the original Innocence Protection Act. Even though ultimately, an overly weak IP bill was passed, it wasn't his fault. He fought till the bitter end.

I really look forward to having Sen. Leahy serve as Judiciary Chair.

< When Did Bob Barr Start Making Sense? | False Rape Accuser Gets 90 Days >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Leahy (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 11:32:01 AM EST
    He said Wednesday, in an NPR interview (Talk of the Nation, I think) he was intending to go forward with the habeas issue, and that the admin's current position being raised in the pending cases - that alleged enemy combatants and torture victims can't tell their attorneys whether and how they were treated because that's classified - was both profoundly disturbing (my paraphrase) and would be looked into (subject of hearings, I think).

    I can't wait.

    And, to think, this is the guy Cheney told: "Go f' yourself." on the Senate floor.  I wonder whether Deadeye ever realized his own mouth  might turn around to bite him in the behind.  Arrogance.

    I'd love to see some hearings starring DoD G.C. Haymes, he of the pending 4th Cir. nomination, and of Peter Kiesler, he of the losing side in Hamdan and 2 weeks after that loss nomination to the D.C. Cir.

    Extended hearings.

    Discussing what was said when they, and Gonzo, and Yoo, and Addington went down to Gitmo.  And the legal reasoning supporting their claims.

    Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.

    oh, yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:08:10 PM EST
    It isn't "Restoring Habeas rights".
    It's "Clearing unconstitutional deadwood from the U.S. Code."

    Bushie knows all about clearing brush, so he can have no objection to joining in this work....

    Parent

    Veto?? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:52:48 PM EST
    The question is, do the Demos have the ability to overcome a veto?

    The answer, of course, is no.

    So the Senator wants a little press, hey let him have it.

    That's all this is about.

    But keep on attacking. You'll convince the Repub base they screwed up by staying home in record time.

    Parent

    Go Leahy! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 11:43:12 AM EST
    This is great news. Leahy has been a very vocal opponent of the bill since the beginning. Back on Sept. 28 he made it very clear where he stood:

    This is wrong. It is unconstitutional.  It is un-American.  It is designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney Administration will never again be embarrassed by a United States Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful abuses of power.
    ...
    This bill gives up the ghost.  This bill is not a check on the Administration but a voucher for future wrongdoing.
    ...
    Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the Government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong.  It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands.  It makes a mockery of the Bush-Cheney Administration's lofty rhetoric about exporting freedom across the globe.

    It would also be nice if the appeals court rules it unconstitutional this year too. Hit it with both barrels.

    Go Leahy...

    Veto (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:55:12 PM EST
    edger - Not that it will penetrate your thought process, but you do understand that for any bill to become law it must be signed by the Pres, or overcome a veto by the Pres.

    All of your normal BS aside, do you actually think this will happen??

    Parent

    FFS (none / 0) (#3)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    Habeas Corpus has never been unconditionally extended to aliens. This has been covered many times on this blog and others, TL. Get with the program. I realize that it just sounds better to claim that habeas rights will be "restored" to aliens, despite the fact that it was never stripped from them because they never had it. But it's not unreasonable to ask for a little intellectual honesty, here.

    One more time, I'll repost my "US Habeas Corpus for Dummies" comment (with updates!) just for the "slow learners" among us.  (I ::heart:: Edger.)

    The Article I restriction only applies to Congressional acts. For quite some time, this section was only applied to those prisoners in federal (that is, Executive) custody. Even at the federal level, there were two exceptions: "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The right for state prisoners to apply for habeas corpus in federal courts was created by statute (now codified as 28 USC 2241).

    During the Civil War President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for certain regions when he felt it necessary to take quick action. The Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Milligan that the suspension of habeas corpus was constitutional because the civilian courts had been forced closed. The Court noted that only when such was the case could a suspension of habeas corpus by the Executive in wartime be constitutional. It also noted that even when habeas had been properly suspended, subjecting citizens to military tribunals could not be done without the approval of Congress.

    In short, suspension of habeas corpus merely means a prisoner can be held, it does not mean the prisoner can be tried by some other ad hoc proceeding (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a recent Supreme Court case upheld the general principle applied in Milligan that the right of citizens to habeas corpus cannot be removed).

    After World War II the Court again was asked to consider habeas corpus, only this time the question was what right non-citizens being held in military detention had to invoke habeas. In Ex parte Quirin the Court ruled that Germans being held as unlawful combatants (as contrasted to legitimate POWs) had no right to invoke habeas corpus and were subject to military tribunals.

    The ruling was based on the notion that Congress had authorized Executive action with regard to unlawful combatants.

    Moreover, the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager ruled specifically on the topic of habeas corpus that military prisoners are not "constitutionally entitled to the writ" where "(a) he is an enemy alien; (b) has never been or resided in the United States; (c) was captured outside of our territory and there held in military custody as a prisoner of war; (d) was tried and convicted by a Military Commission sitting outside the United States; (e) for offenses against laws of war committed outside the United States; (f) and is at all times imprisoned outside the United States."

    Which brings us to the War on Terror. There has been, as yet, no extension of habeas to alien enemy comabatants, even under the two anti-Administration cases Hamdi and Hamdan.

    At most, Hamdi required that citizen -detainees (and presumably alien-detainees, but that's just dicta) have a 5th Amendment due process right to a "meaningful hearing" reviewing their status. The Court, through O'Connor, noted that the hearing could take the form of a military proceeding. From this the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were created.

    Hamdan actually addressed the rules under which alien enemy combatants would be tried. The Bush Administration attempted to follow the Quirin precedent by issuing an Executive Order establishing military tribunals for alien unlawful combatants. The administration believed it had received sufficient authorization from Congress and the executive's Article II power.

    However, the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Congress would have to specifically address the question of military tribunals for alien unlawful combatants. (Again, note that POWs are handled differently.)

    And that's why Congress just passed the MCA. It applies to alien enemy combatants. It makes explicit the rule that has been consistently followed since the founding: aliens do not get habeas corpus.

    For that reason, it is dishonest to suggest that habeas will be "restored" to aliens. It is misleading to claim that the Bush Administration "stripped" habeas from aliens.

    nice talking points. (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    Got that from RedState, right?

    Parent
    Um, no... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:03:38 PM EST
    I wrote it myself, here at TL about a month ago.

    You're not the first person here to accuse me of stealing from RedState. I've never actually read RedState, so it's starting to make me think I should wander over there and see what they've been taking from me.

    Parent

    This is interesting (none / 0) (#16)
    by Officious Pedant on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    Particularly when you end it with an appeal to intellectual honesty:

    The Article I restriction only applies to Congressional acts. For quite some time, this section was only applied to those prisoners in federal (that is, Executive) custody. Even at the federal level, there were two exceptions: "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The right for state prisoners to apply for habeas corpus in federal courts was created by statute (now codified as 28 USC 2241).

    You then segue to the Civil War. You'll note, though, when you point out the Article I language, the Constitution is oddly silent on distinguishing citizens from aliens (when the issue is not a matter of elections).

    To wit, the point of Habeus Corpus is to prevent the government from imprisoning anyone indefinitely. Congress is the very check on Executive Authority which we so sorely require and if they can't do it, he certainly can't. This aside from the fact that it does not distinguish between aliens and citizens.

    During the Civil War, one of the exceptions came into play, which was that of rebellion. You could also make the argument that as Confederate troops moved north into the Union, a state of invasion existed. And, with both of those things being the case, the only thing Ex Parte Milligan found wrong with the suspension was that the President was not empowered to try, convict, and hang prisoners before military tribunals.

    You also failed to note that, following WW II, one of the central tenets of the Geneva Convgentions (Article 5) required the prisoners status to be determined. Until that time, every prisoner is considered a Prisoner of War, and is entitled to the protections attendant upon that designation.

    The same protections the defendant in Johnson v Eistranger had access to. Whom you failed to note was a German citizen, accused of war crimes, a known belligerent, and held in a German prison. As opposed to an alien held on US soil, and merely accused of belligerency toward the US.

    You'll forgive me, Gabriel, if I'm unmoved by your demands for intellectual honesty in this debate.

    Parent

    Re: FFS (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:02:26 PM EST
    I think we can better rely on a six term US Senator, the Judiciary Committee Chair, than on a law students wishful apologies for a corrupt administration whose #1 concern in ramming the bill through was to protect it's own A$$, FFS.

    SOP (none / 0) (#5)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:13:28 PM EST
    Edger's SOP: Ignore the argument, go after the person. He's got both an appeal to authority and an ad hominem here. Bravo.

    Parent
    Re: go after the person (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:25:28 PM EST
    I will "go after" bush till I see him buried, FFS.

    Oh, and as to "ignore the argument"? See the post below.

    Parent

    eliminating the habeas right (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    Appeals Court Weighs Prisoners' Right to Fight Detention
    Nov. 7, 2006, The New York Times
    WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 -- The Bush administration's successful effort to have Congress eliminate the right of Guantánamo prisoners to challenge their detentions before federal judges is now moving toward what may be an epic battle in the courts.
    ...
    That court has been considering for three years whether the hundreds of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have the right of habeas corpus -- that is, the ability to ask a federal judge to review the reasons for their detention.

    But the law passed by Congress last month eliminating the habeas right supersedes almost all of the arguments that have gone before and is now the focus of the legal confrontation, government and civil liberties lawyers agree.

    In a ruling last June, the Supreme Court had said that an earlier measure did not eliminate habeas lawsuits that were already in the courts. However, in October, the administration used more explicit language, saying the new law retroactively blocked federal courts from entertaining habeas lawsuits by Guantánamo detainees.
    ...
    Whatever resolution is reached [...] -- it will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court. A decision could come from the appeals court before the end of the year.



    true, but (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    Remember what my 7th grade civics teacher said:

    "Judges read election results, too."

    This would be an opportune time for the petitioners to move to delay consideration of the appeals, pending the new Congress.

    Or, even, for a bunch of Congresscritters to file motions to intervene, signalling they intend to repeal the MCA, in whole or in part, because of its patent unconstitutionality.

    Parent

    Congresscritters (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    I was always partial to 'critters' myself. ;-)

    Parent
    Phantoms (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    If a person, a citizen, is labelled "enemy combatant" the Military Commissions Bill authorizes trial by military commission. When? When the administration feels like it? If they feel like it? After years of being held incommunicado, possibly, no - likely - renditioned and tortured in another country in secret? With no hearings until and if a military commission is convened?

    It is claimed that US citizens must be afforded access to habeas proceedings in federal courts. When and in what proceeding does a person labelled "enemy combatant" have the opportunity to prove their citizenship - proving that they are entitled to habeas?

    If not immediately upon arrest or capture or detention or whatever you want to call it, the right to habeas corpus is a phantom, meaningless right, and a right in name only, no?

    It doesn't require much to understand that the purpose of Military Commissions Bill is to protect Bush and the administration and the people holding and torturing anybody they decide to call an "enemy combatant". Not to protect their prisoners.

    Parent

    no response (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:45:30 PM EST
    The questions I posted above I have posted three or 4 times the past couple of weeks, with no response.

    Parent
    Your questions have been answered, largely. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:03:17 PM EST
    Question 1. Once a person is labeled an "enemy combatant," how long can they be held before trial?

    Answer 1. I wrote about this here about three weeks ago. I encourage you to click and read it, but the short version is this:

    Military detentions of combatants in war time are legal until such time as hostilities cease. They are "indefinite" only in the sense that the exact date of termination of the war is itself indefinite.

    Question 2. When and in what proceeding does a person labelled "enemy combatant" have the opportunity to prove their citizenship - proving that they are entitled to habeas?

    Answer 2. Justice O'Connor wrote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the Fifth Amendment due process right guarantees access to a "meaningful hearing" to determine the status of a detainee. From this the Comabatant Status Review Tribunals were created so that detainees would have access to a neutral decisionmaker.

    It should also be noted that any citizen or other person entitled to habeas (meaning, those held within the territorial jurisdiction of a district court) can petition that court at any time, including before their combatant status is established.

    Question 3. If not allowed immediately upon capture or detention, the right to habeas corpus is a phantom, meaningless right, and a right in name only, no?

    Answer 3. This question is a little misleading in that it relies on the presupposition that habeas corpus exists for all people at all times. That is incorrect, as we have seen. So, there is really two questions here: (A) When do those who have the right to habeas corpus get to exercise that right; and (B) when do those who do not have the right to habeas corpus get to exercise that right?

    The answer to (A) is also contained in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. There, the Court was concerned with the rights of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a US citizen (and thus, someone who must be afforded the right of habeas corpus--absent rebellion or invasion).

    O'Connor wrote that US district courts would at all times be allowed to hear habeas petitions in accordance with 28 USC 2241-53 (giving the district courts the right to accept habeas petitions from US citizens, and those persons present within the territorial jurisdiction of the receiving court).

    The answer to (B) is "almost never." Those without a right to habeas review can only petition their way into the federal court system if they have been deprived of their Fifth Amendment right to due process as Hamdi was. This is because the Fifth Amendment is explicitly extended to all "persons."

    Parent

    Mmm Hmm (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:39:07 PM EST
    In other words American citizens can be labelled "enemny combatants" and vanished.

    Thanks for your ummmm, clarifications(?). I think....

    Parent

    Not true. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:50:42 PM EST
    Under no reading of my above answers can you reach "American citizens can be labelled "enemny combatants" and vanished."

    I did everything I could to answer your questions and you throw it back in my face by completely ignoring it.

    THOUGHTFULNESS.

    Parent

    Thoughtful (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 05:16:54 PM EST
    No, Gabriel. I read what you said, and I decided I preferred Leahy's way.

    I understand that you would have preferred me to choose your way, but his way is better in my estimation. It will mean they cannot be vanished, not I don't think they can be vanished, just trust us.

    But thanks for your thoughtfullness.

    Parent

    Wasting time with edger (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:58:32 PM EST
    Gabe -  Very interesting. But you do realize that you are wasting your time with edger, don't you?

    Parent
    Mmm Hmm (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:41:05 PM EST
    In other words American citizens can be labelled "enemy combatants" and "dissappeared".

    Thanks for your ummmm, clarifications(?).

    I think.... I'll go with Senator Leahy, thank you.

    Parent

    gabriel quoted, in part: (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

    there has been no invasion, by a foreign army, nor is the country in either a state of rebellion or war.

    further, as a signatore to the geneva conventions, we're obligated to provide a qualified forum, for those arguing their status as "enemy combatants". this has yet to be accomplished, intentionally, by the bush administration. this would hold true, regardless of where we're warehousing them.

    as a practical matter, "enemy combatants" are almost always going to be aliens. that's why the geneva conventions exist, to provide a formal framework to handle them. of course, we know what the current administration thinks of the geneva conventions.

    further, you assume, wrongly, that only aliens are being held incommunicado, and only aliens fall under the prez's desire to remove any ability of them to demand a hearing, before a judge.  

    as i read it, it can apply to anyone, anywhere, regardless of citizen status. that's one of the inherent dangers of an imperial presidency: the king is above the law.

    i feel as though we are starting to come out of a dark time, in the republic's history. let's hope pelosi and company don't make me regret my vote.

    Re: a dark time (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    i feel as though we are starting to come out of a dark time, in the republic's history. let's hope pelosi and company don't make me regret my vote.

    Well said, cpinva. I second that.

    Parent

    keep reading, cpinva (none / 0) (#17)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:16:07 PM EST
    You're noting the constitutional exceptions to the rule that habeas corpus cannot be suspended. What you're ignoring is the fact that the constitutional habeas only applied to Congressional action and federal civil prisoners.

    It was later extended to state prisoners by statute. In other words, constitutional habeas is much more limited than you think. Please re-read the rest to see how habeas has applied in situations involving aliens.

    Parent

    hmmm, I messed that up, didn't I? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    Excuse me that should be federal criminal prisoners. (One would be hard-pressed, I think, to find any civil ones!)

    Parent
    keep reading, cpinva (none / 0) (#33)
    by Skyho on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:10:18 AM EST
    habeas corpus, as defined, applies to every single person, of any religious or national identity.

    While the Supreme Court has only positively re-asserted identities to be included, it has never restricted the legal fact that all people are included under its protection and therefore I must conclude that, so far, all Supreme Court rulings you state are simply a restatement of the original establishment of habeas corpus.

    Any confusion, sir, lies with you and your groveling minion, PPJ.

    habeas corpus belongs to all and not just a select few.

    Parent

    Not so. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 11:25:22 AM EST
    You have fallen into the same idea as cpinva--that habeas corpus must mean what you think it means...just because it must. That idea is not supported by history, caselaw, or legislation.

    If true that habeas applied to every person, why did Congress have to pass 28 USC 2241 and its predecessors (back to 1898) before state prisoners could petition federal courts for habeas? If they'd actually possessed that right, there would have been no need.

    Your belief that the Court has "only positively re-asserted identities" that can claim habeas is explicitly rejected in Johnson v. Eisentrager, Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In these cases, the Court explicitly noted that aliens do not have an unconditional habeas right. That is exactly the opposite of a "positive assertion." In fact, it is a denial.

    Wishing the world is different, doesn't make it so. If you want to deal with reality, actually admitting that it exists is a good place to start.

    Parent

    xx (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 06:59:54 PM EST
    get your regret medicene ready

    Parent
    Too late (none / 0) (#13)
    by cmpnwtr on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    The bill is already passed and to change it you need Bush's pen or veto proof passage. We have neither.

    already passed (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    I suspect you underestimate public pressure, political muscle, the Supreme Court, and good old fashioned "don't care how but find a way" determination.

    Parent
    oddly enough................ (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:19:40 PM EST
    article I, section 9, part 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

    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.

    draws no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. further, it fails to limit the privilege of the writ to a specific geographic location, ie: solely those held in the confines of the continental united states or its territories.

    based solely on a reading of the plain language of the statute, any reasonable person would be forced to conclude that, in the absence of rebellion or invasion, neither the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government have the lawful authority to suspend habeas corpus.

    since there is no rebellion, we've not been invaded, and congress hasn't voted a formal declaration of war, any legislation attempting to suppress habeas corpus is illegal on its face.

    i submit this law cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, gabriel's and the prez's tortured logic notwithstanding.


    Complain to the courts (none / 0) (#23)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:28:34 PM EST
    I know you'd like to rely on a "plain reading" of Article I sec. 9. Who knew you had so much in common with Justice Thomas!

    With all sympathy, the courts haven't applied a plain meaning approach to the Constitutiona since, well, ever. It's why those who study constitutional law get to deal with such wonderfully twisted judicial fabrications and contortions involving emanations and penumbras.

    It's why the Contract Clause (No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.) which seems like such a simple and straight-forward construction is has been interpreted by the judiciary to virtually not exist.

    What's more, my tortured logic is exactly that of the Supreme Court (that's why I cite to them in my posts). Hence, my comment title: "Complain to the courts."

    Parent