What is habeas corpus? It prevents dictatorship.

[madmusic]

Habeas corpus can only be suspended during revolt or invasion. It is then, more than any other time, the president is a dictator and is not subject to the checks and balances of powers, in this case, the judicial branch. BushCo wants one more step toward a dictatorship. Please read the following links and know what is going on. Torture is only their excuse.

The erosion of the Great Writ

American Judicature Society
Editorial
October 25, 2005

March 18, 1963 may have been the high water mark for the writ of habeas corpus, the so-called Great Writ. On that day, the Supreme Court considered the habeas petitions of Clarence Earl Gideon and Charles Noia and, in Gideon v. Wainwright and Fay v. Noia, established important safeguards for indigent defendants and personal liberty. In Noia, the Court concluded that Mr. Noia's continued incarceration was an affront to the "conscience of a civilized society," when it was revealed that his confession—the sole bit of evidence against him—had been obtained by police brutality. Even more important, the Court, after a long review of the history of the Writ, concluded that "ur survey discloses nothing to suggest that the Federal District Court lacked the power to order Noia discharged because of a procedural forfeiture he may have incurred under state law. On the contrary, the nature of the writ at common law, the language and purpose of the Act of February 5, 1867, and the course of decisions in this Court extending over nearly a century are wholly irreconcilable with such a limitation."

Since then, however, the courts and Congress have eroded the impact of the Great Writ, reducing it to a network of procedural hurdles for indigent defendants, frequently unaided by counsel, seeking to challenge the constitutionality of their convictions or sentences in federal court. And although Gideon sparked the "right to counsel revolution," and Noia hailed the Great Writ as the most important protection for personal liberty against intolerable government restraint, those pronouncements now languish in the recesses of memory. Dissenting in Stone v. Powell, Justice Brennan remarked in 1976 that "he groundwork is being laid today for a drastic withdrawal of federal habeas jurisdiction,”"and his words proved prophetic; within two decades of that decision, the Court in a series of decisions rolled back federal habeas protections nearly to pre-Noia levels.

Congress, too, bears responsibility for the demise of this historic check on government overreaching. Less than 10 years after the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) created a statutory maze of obstacles to habeas relief, another chillingly titled bill of the same tenor, the Streamlined Procedures Act (SPA), is currently wending its way through the legislative process.

more: http://www.thejusticeproject.org/press/articles/the-erosion-of-the-great-writ.html

Habeas Protection Campaign



Habeas Repeal Measures Increase Threat of Wrongful Convictions

Status of the Legislation in Congress:

As Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) held a hearing on September 25, 2006 to examine proposals to limit Guantanamo detainees' access to habeas corpus review, other members of the Republican leadership were trying to strip away this right for US citizens convicted of crimes. With only days left before Congress adjourns for mid-term elections, some members of Congress continue to skirt regular order in an attempt to attach widely-criticized habeas repeal measures to unrelated legislation. While attempts to keep these unpopular measures off the DOD bill were initially successful, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is now insisting that a controversial "judiciary package" of crime legislation, which includes habeas-stripping measures, be attached to the DOD bill.

Take action today to stop this legislation!

About the Legislation

Although there is widespread opposition to the Streamlined Procedures Act and other legislation that would effectively repeal the "Great Writ" of habeas corpus, members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees continue to work behind closed doors to pass these reforms. Efforts are currently afoot to attach widely criticized habeas measures and 300 pages of other non-germane matters to a Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization bill that is presently in conference and will be finalized in the coming days.

This closed-door strategy is nothing new: in the past, Congress permitted widely opposed habeas legislation to bypass normal review. During eleventh hour Patriot Act reauthorization discussions, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) inserted two provisions that significantly limit the ability of the Great Writ to enforce important Bill of Rights protections.

more: http://www.thejusticeproject.org/national/habeas/

[Generator]

1. Many of us here are aware of this

Even the more mild mannered are alarmed, with due cause. That they would allow this (whether Dem. Republican or whatever they call themselves) is stunning. Don't say you weren't warned. I fear for our future.

[madmusic]

3. True, many know. Some don't and ask what it is.

This is FUNDAMENTAL to our constitution.

[Generator]

9. I agree

Wasn't trying to be snarky in the least. I had a post on it last week.

[madmusic]

10. No problem. Whatever bumps it is good! :)

[Coexist]

2. knr

[Kurovski]

4. K&R(nt)

[mmonk]

5. Even when we were under the king during the colonial

period, we had this protection. This means, of course, this president's power is potentially the most ever here.

[madmusic]

8. Greater than King George? n/t

[madmusic]

6. Proposed "Streamlined Procedures Act" is part of this bill!

Proposed "Streamlined Procedures Act" Would Amend AEDPA

By Liz Aloi, Editor-at-Large

Congress is currently debating the merits of the S. 1088 and H.R. 3035, the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005. The Senate Judiciary committee held a hearing on the legislation this month.

The innocuously named "Streamlined Procedures Act" amends the "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act" (AEDPA). Among other things, it:

· Takes away federal court jurisdiction to review constitutional errors in sentencing that the state court has deemed "harmless";

· Prevents prisoners from obtaining a stay to exhaust their claims that were never presented in state courts;

· Bars prisoners from amending their habeas petition unless the prisoner meets an "actual innocence" standard;

· Limits the grounds for allowing tolling of the one-year habeas deadline to those identified in AEDPA, preventing equitable tolling;

· Places Chapter 154 eligibility in the hands of the U.S. Attorney General, limiting relief to claims implicating evidence of actual innocence;

· Bars federal courts from entertaining challenges to state clemency proceedings.

more: http://www.acsblog.org/equal-protection-and-due-process-1634-proposed-streamlined-procedures-act-would-amend-aedpa.html

This applies to people who are NOT TERRORISTS!

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. K & R

[madmusic]

11. Read the case...

The ACLU, for example, argues that that the President believes that he can do whatever he chooses as long as he describes it as part of the “war on terror”. See Amicus Brief of the ACLU in Support of Petitioner at 3. This is particularly troubling given that the “war on terror” is potentially unlimited in scope and duration, such that there exist hundreds of terrorism cases awaiting trial by commission. See Brief for Petitioner at 31; Brief of the Cato Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner at 4. A decision for the government, therefore, could deny some of the most rudimentary requirements of a fair trial not only to Hamdan, see Amicus Brief of the ACLU in Support of Petitioner at 5, but also to other alien detainees at Guantánamo Bay and any other criminal who the President labels as an enemy combatant.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-184.html

For some reason, this case is in simpler language than many cases, maybe to help the public understand it. You can read the ACLU brief here:

http://www.aclu.org/images/hamdanv.rumsfeld05184/asset_upload_file869_23395.pdf

[madmusic]

12. martial law & habeas corpus

United States of America

The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the Writ of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "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."

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In Ex parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866, the Supreme Court of the United States held that martial law could not be instituted within the United States when its civilian courts are in operation. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors. <5>

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

[madmusic]

13. Martial Law (Legal Encyclopedia)

Martial Law

The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated terri- tory.

Martial law is an extreme and rare measure used to control society during war or periods of civil unrest or chaos. According to the Supreme Court, the term martial law carries no precise meaning (Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S. Ct. 606, 90 L. Ed. 688 <1946>). However, most declarations of martial law share some common features. Generally, the institution of martial law contemplates some use of military force. To a varying extent, depending on the martial law order, government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended (this writ allows persons who are unlawfully imprisoned to gain freedom through a court proceeding).

In the United States, martial law has been instituted on the national level only once, during the Civil War, and on a regional level only once, during World War II. Otherwise, it has been limited to the states. Uprisings, political protests, labor strikes, and riots have, at various times, caused several state governors to declare some measure of martial law.

Martial law on the national level may be declared by Congress or the president. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state. The power to do so usually is granted in the state constitution.

Congress has never declared martial law. However, in July 1861, Congress ratified most of the martial law measures declared by President Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Its martial law declaration gave the Union military forces the authority to arrest persons and conduct trials. However, Congress initially refused to ratify Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. This created friction between Congress and the president, and raised the question of whether unilateral suspension of the writ under martial law was within the president's power. The Supreme Court reviewed the issue and ruled in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861) (No. 487), that only Congress had the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. After Congress approved Lincoln's suspension of the writ in 1863, Union forces were authorized to arrest and detain Confederate soldiers and sympathizers, but only until they could be tried by a court of law.

http://www.answers.com/topic/martial-law

[madmusic]

14. Oh, well, it's the end of the world as we know it.

EDIT: but we can be informed for WHEN, not if, we get the chance to fix this mess.