Leahy and Specter Introduce Bill to Restore Habeas

This hasn't gotten enough play in the media.

Sen. Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy on Tuesday introduced S. 4081 to eliminate the habeas corpus- stripping provisions of the Military Commissions Act. The text of the bill is available in the Congressional Record and follows below.

S. 4081

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


This Act may be cited as the ``Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2006''.


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

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

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


The amendments made by this Act shall--

(1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) apply to any case that is pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Leahy's statement on the floor as a co-sponsor is here.

< Journalists in Prison 2006 | Specter Introduces Bill to Protect Attorney-Client Privilege >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    HALELULIA! (none / 0) (#1)
    by Nowonmai on Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 08:13:24 PM EST
    For fixing/rectifying something that should never have been tampered with in the first place.

    Nice to know that some on the hill know and remember what the Constitution and Bill of Rights are.

    Dodd (none / 0) (#2)
    by skreddy on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 01:01:21 AM EST
    Didn't Dodd already make a proposal to this effect?

    Waiting for the worm to turn... (none / 0) (#3)
    by roxtar on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:41:56 AM EST
    Step right up, Jay Rockefeller (D - WV). There's no shame in voting for it (habeas corpus) after you voted against it.  

    fingers crossed (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 09:13:33 AM EST
    This is the third time he has sponsored such a bill. The last time it lost by three votes and, wouldn't you know, Specter voted against his own bill. Evidentially he had a bad case of lockstep.

    Now he promises to vote with the dems, I hope it happens this time.

    Why not (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    attach it to a war funding bill?

    That's (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 06:57:59 PM EST
    an excellent suggestion.  Two can play that game.

    signing statements? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 07:06:37 PM EST
    How (none / 0) (#9)
    by aw on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 07:38:14 PM EST
    will the Democrats counter them.  I think Scribe had a good suggestion:

    They can even include a provision that says "Presidential signing statements are a nullity".

    That's right, I forgot (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 07:44:31 PM EST
    What would happen if Bush attached one anyway as he signed a bill into law. Would a 'nullity' provision force it into the SC? And how would they likely rule? (Scalia, Alito, etc.)

    It leads (none / 0) (#11)
    by aw on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 08:23:29 PM EST
    to a heap of trouble.  The face has been slapped with a glove.  Will there be a showdown?  Or a two-year long ping-pong game?  I hope we the people will turn up the noise and not just sit back and watch.

    The old "people don't like partisanship" isn't operative any more.


    Even if they pass it bush will veto it. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 03:53:20 PM EST