Showdown Over Habeas - Sen. Pat Leahy

[pberq]

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/26/showdown_over_habeas.php

Showdown Over Habeas
Sen. Patrick Leahy
September 26, 2006

Sen. Patrick Leahy is the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee. This is the text of his statement to the panel from Monday, September 25, 2006.

<snip>
For weeks now, politicians and the media have breathlessly debated the fine points and political implications of the so-called "compromise" on proposed trial procedures for suspected terrorists. In doing so, we have ignored a central and more sweeping issue. Important as the rules for military commissions are, they will apply to only a few cases. The administration has charged a total of 10 people in the nearly five years since the president declared his intention to use military commissions, and it recently announced plans to charge 14 additional men. But for the vast majority of the almost 500 prisoners at Guantánamo, the administration’s position remains as stated by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld three years ago: It has no interest in trying them.

Today we are belatedly addressing the single most consequential provision of this much-discussed bill, a provision that can be found buried on page 81 of the proposed bill. This provision would perpetuate the indefinite detention of hundreds of individuals against whom the government has brought no charges and presented no evidence, without any recourse to justice whatsoever. That is un-American, and it is contrary to American interests.

Going forward, the bill departs even more radically from our most fundamental values. It would permit the president to detain indefinitely—even for life—any alien, whether in the United States or abroad, whether a foreign resident or a lawful permanent resident, without any meaningful opportunity for the alien to challenge his detention. The administration would not even need to assert, much less prove, that the alien was an enemy combatant; it would suffice that the alien was "awaiting determination" on that issue. In other words, the bill would tell the millions of legal immigrants living in America, participating in American families, working for American businesses, and paying American taxes, that our government may at any minute pick them up and detain them indefinitely without charge, and without any access to the courts or even to military tribunals, unless and until the government determines that they are not enemy combatants. . . (more at link)

[Jim__]

1. "That is un-American, and it is contrary to American interests."

Absolutely! And we all have to fight this.

[katinmn]

2. This should have everyone up in arms

"Going forward, the bill departs even more radically from our most fundamental values. It would permit the president to detain indefinitely—even for life—any alien, whether in the United States or abroad, whether a foreign resident or a lawful permanent resident, without any meaningful opportunity for the alien to challenge his detention."

[spag68]

3. Call your reps. and sens.

I've already e-mailed and called sens, Shumer and Clinton.

[sandnsea]

4. Basic Human Right

The right to trial and the right to know the evidence against you. This should be the basis of this fight, at least to keep it bottled up until Friday. Anybody can understand that we can't keep people imprisoned for the rest of their life and deprive them of any opportunity to prove their innocence.

[pberq]

5. legal limbo - this is unacceptable!

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/26/showdown_over_habeas.php

". . .The most important purpose of habeas corpus is to correct errors like that. It is precisely to prevent such abuses that the Constitution prohibits the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." I have no doubt that this bill, which would permanently eliminate the writ of habeas for all aliens within and outside the United States whenever the government says they might be enemy combatants, violates that prohibition. And I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would ultimately conclude that this attempt by the Bush-Cheney administration to abolish basic liberties and evade essential judicial review and accountability is unconstitutional.

It would be utterly irresponsible for Congress to neglect our oath to the Constitution and the American people and pass this unconstitutional legislation in the hope that the court will ultimately rescue us from our folly. Doing so would only undermine the War on Terror by prolonging the legal limbo into which the administration has dragged the entire regime of military detentions."

[rodeodance]

6. why isn't the immunity clause of importance!