5 posts tagged “habeas corpus”

Habeas corpus is removed for aliens (including permanent residents, not including nationalized or born citizens), but "unlawful enemy combatant" status can be applied arbitrarily to anyone. They will be tried through military commissions ... whenever they get around to it (because speedy trial is removed). If they take the detainee to a foreign country, they cannot apply for writ of habeas corpus in the States because then they can only appeal to the courts of the nation in which they're located. Interrogators are only held under the laws of the country the detainee is located in as it matters to torture, so in Syria they can torture you at will.

But don't take my word for it, read the text of the law.

The following I have sent to both of my Senators, and my Congresswoman:

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Thomas Paine (1789. ME 7:408, Papers 15:269) said: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Patrick Henry said: "Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings--give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! ...Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."

It is because of this well-founded belief in liberty that I am compelled to write to you on this day. I do wish I had written sooner, but I have just become aware of the issue.

Habeas corpus is the first line of defense against tyranny. It is this writ that is now essentially written out of our law. Tyranny is now legal in these United States of America.

Justice Jackson wrote in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 533 (1953): "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint."

The recent Supreme Court decision (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) for the use of said writ and of the Geneva Conventions has been subjugated with the passing of bill S 3930. Executive power now has unlimited scope through the pentagon.

This is a frightening concept with all political biases aside. This is not a partisan issue, but an issue of liberty. We're giving the military the power to define enemy combatants and unlawful combatants, regardless of their citizen status. US citizens on US soil can be detained indefinitely without habeas corpus rights.

It has been said that the powers we give to our elected officials should be no greater than the powers we would want to give to the worst possible person you could think in that position. I could think of some leaders like Pinochet would love to have the power our elected officials have just given our executive branch.

The freedoms given to those who hold the detainees is also something no human being should support. Torture is not a patriotic term; it is not an American ideal. John Yoo (co-author of the PATRIOT Act), during a December 1st debate in Chicago with international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, said it was lawful for a US operative to “torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child.” We also have video and photo of other tactics that seem to be nearly universally used in our detainment centers that include beatings, water-boarding, and even instances of young boys being sodomized with light-sticks. This is something we cannot tolerate in the least degree.

The fact that the bill also includes immunization to war crimes charges is also troubling. What happens if something does come out that would be cause for charges? There are ongoing investigations still concerning the allegations of torture. There may be nothing, but just for the sake of over-sight and responsibility, this is not something we can afford. It is a pardon given before charges are brought.

I feel this is the most important issue this country has faced since prohibition. Please do not ignore this issue.

Thank you for your service.

Everyone keeps saying how the Democrats need to take over the house and senate to "save the day" or whatever. Honestly, the Democrats are not knights in shining armour. They're not going to fix the problems we've had, and they're not even trying with what powers they presently have. It's bullshit to think that all we need is to get rid of the Republican majority and replace it with Democratic majority. It's a lie that the DNC is pushing forward. We need more action, a revolution. (This is the first time I've ever said this seriously).

The democrats didn't oppose the legislation just passed that does away with habeas corpus, so why does anyone think they're better for the country?

Final passage of the bill was 65-34. 12 Democrats voted in favor, 1 Republican and 1 independent voted against (there may be one or two errors because I compiled the list while listening to the vote):

Democrats in favor (12) - Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.)

Republicans against (1) - Chafee (R.I.).

Jeffords voted against.

I will have much more later, but a couple notes for now -- Jay Rockefeller (who voted for this bill) is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. When he was defending the amendment he introduced to compel the CIA to disclose to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees information about their interrogation activities, he complained that the White House has concealed all information about the program and that the Intellegence Committee members (including him) know nothing about this interrogation program. His amendment was defeated with all Republicans (except Chafee) voting against it. He then proceeded to vote for the underlying bill anyway.

During the debate on his amendment, Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus protections. Then he voted for it.

(text from Glenn Greenwald)

This regards the last post I made about torture, I have more concern. This is the most important issue to come accross the States in decades. This is not about the war in Iraq, this is not about any politically motivated issue, this is for the preservation of human rights and liberty. "Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Thomas Paine, 1789. ME 7:408, Papers 15:269, said: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." And Patrick Henry warned us well in advance about Government officials who would seek to claim the right to imprison people without a trial:

"Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings--give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! ...Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."

The legislatures of this country are legalizing tyranny right under our noses, and we are not saying a thing. We're focusing on a scandal involving sexually explicit emails and ignoring liberty. Read the following:

Opponents of this bill have focused most of their attention -- understandably and appropriately -- on the way in which it authorizes the use of interrogation techniques which, as this excellent NYT Editorial put it, "normal people consider torture," along with the power it vests in the President to detain indefinitely, and with no need to bring charges, all foreign nationals and even legal resident aliens within the U.S. But as Law Professors Marty Lederman and Bruce Ackerman each point out, many of the extraordinary powers vested in the President by this bill also apply to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil.

As Ackerman put it: "The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Similarly, Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

This last point means that even if there were a habeas corpus right inserted back into the legislation (which is unlikely at this point anyway), it wouldn't matter much, if at all, because the law would authorize your detention simply based on the DoD's decree that you are an enemy combatant, regardless of whether it was accurate. This is basically the legalization of the Jose Padilla treatment -- empowering the President to throw people into black holes with little or no recourse, based solely on his say-so.

(read the full text, including updates)

We're not paying attention! Why aren't we speaking out about this? What is wrong with our nation? I've voiced this concern before, and things are getting worse. We're consolidating federal power and removing rights from the people.

I've got so much more on my mind, but I need to get back to work.