Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republicans Filibuster Habeas Corpus Restoration

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Republicans Filibuster Habeas Corpus Restoration

    All the Democrats, Sanders, and six Republicans (Specter, Smith, Snowe, Sununu, Lugar, Hagel) voted for it.

    The rest of the Republicans and Lieberman voted against it.

    Cloture failed by three votes.



    Not so surprising fact: Lieberman voted for the Specter Amendment to the MCA the last go around, but filibustered it this time. Snowe, Hagel, and Lugar, OTOH, have switched their votes from against it to for it.
    "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
    -Bokonon

  • #2
    I knew there was an on-going controversy regaring the Habeas Corpus rights of the foreign detainees at Gitmo.

    But I had not heard until today that the habeus rights of all Americans had been revoked:

    Olbermann: ‘The president has now succeeded where no one has before’

    Death of habeas corpus?
    Oct. 10: Part of the Military Commissions Act seems to eliminate the right of habeas corpus. “Countdown” examines in a special investigation.

    On “Countdown” Keith Olbermann examined the Military Commission’s Act of 2006 and what it does to something called habeas corpus.

    The following is a transcript of Keith Olbermann's special report on habeas corpus, as reported on Tuesday, October 10th:


    The president has now succeeded where no one has before. He’s managed to kill the writ of habeas corpus. Tonight, a special investigation, how that, in turn, kills nothing less than your Bill of Rights. Because the Mark Foley story began to break on the night of September 28, exploding the following day, many people may not have noticed the bill passed by the Senate that night.

    Congress passed the Military Commission’s Act to give Mr. Bush the power to deal effectively with America’s enemies—those who seek to harm the country. He has been very clear on who he thinks that is.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America.

    That fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: So, the president said it was urgent that Congress send him this bill as quickly as possible, not for the politics of next month’s elections, but for America.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    BUSH: The need for this legislation is urgent. We need to insure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives. My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted, but time is of the essence. Congress is in session just for a few more weeks and passing this legislation ought to be the top priority.

    The families of those murdered that day have waited patiently for justice. Some of the families of with us today, they should have to wait no longer.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    OLBERMANN: Because time was of the essence and to insure that the 9/11 families would wait no longer, as soon as he got the bill, the president whipped out his pen and immediately signed a statement saying he looks forward to signing the actual law eventually.

    He has not signed it yet, almost two weeks later because, of course, he has been swamped by a series of campaign swings at which he has made up quotes from unnamed Democratic leaders and because when he is actually at work he’s been signing so many other important bills, such as the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act, the Third Higher Education Extension Act, ratification requests for extradition treaties with Malta, Estonia, and Latvia; his proclamation of German-American Day, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act; and his proclamation of Leif Erickson Day.

    Still, getting the Military Commission’s Act to the president so he could immediately mull it over for two weeks was so important, some members of Congress did not even read the bill before voting on it. Thus, as some of its minutia escaped scrutiny.

    One bit of trivia that caught our eye was the elimination of habeas corpus, which apparently use to be the right of anyone who’s tossed in prison to appear in court and say “Hey, why am I in prison?”

    OLBERMANN: Why does habeas corpus hate America? And how is it so bad for us? Mr. Bush says it gets in the way of him doing his job.

    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) Olbermann makes comments between clips of speeches by different politicians below.

    BUSH: This legislation passed in the House yesterday is a part of making sure that we do have the capacity to protect you. Our most solemn job is the security of this country.

    OLBERMANN: It may be solemn.

    BUSH: Bush, so solemnly swear.

    OLBERMANN: But is that really his job? In this rarely seen footage, Mr. Bush seems to be describing a different job.

    BUSH: And will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    OLBERMANN: COUNTDOWN has obtained a copy of this “Constitution” of the United States, and sources tell us it was originally sneaked through the constitutional convention and state ratification in order to establish America’s fundamental legal principles.

    But this so-called “Constitution” is frustratingly vague about the right to trial. In fact, there’s only one reference to habeas corpus at all, quoting: “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.”

    Comment


    • #3


      JM
      Jon Miller-
      I AM.CANADIAN
      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

      Comment


      • #4
        Its impossible to revoke HC for only a select group by the simple fact that with out HC you can not challenge the governments assertion that you in said group. If anyone can be denied HC then everyone can be denied it on a practical basis.
        Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks - those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. - Thus spoke Zarathustra, Fredrick Nietzsche

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jon Miller


          JM
          Pretty much.

          When you overturn centuries-long institutions which have worked and still work, you risk losing everything they brought you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Methinks the elimination of HC was unconstitutional in the 1st place. Someone should tell the SCOTUS.
            I'm consitently stupid- Japher
            I think that opinion in the United States is decidedly different from the rest of the world because we have a free press -- by free, I mean a virgorously presented right wing point of view on the air and available to all.- Ned

            Comment


            • #7
              Can't wait to hear what DinoDoc and others think of this.
              A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

              Comment


              • #8
                Habeas Corpus

                Us

                Comment


                • #9
                  The suspension of centuries-old doctrines of civil liberty is an essential component of the Administration's stated goal of spreading democracy. Why do you people not get that?
                  "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    He's got some pretty good precedents to point to, though.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
                      The suspension of centuries-old doctrines of civil liberty is an essential component of the Administration's stated goal of spreading democracy. Why do you people not get that?

                      A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kuciwalker
                        He's got some pretty good precedents to point to, though.
                        Not really. Look at Lincoln. His suspension of habeas corpus led to the Union winning the war, which means perfectly reasonable people are stuck having Alabama as part of their country. If that's not an argument for the sanctity of habeas corpus, I don't know what is.
                        "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I was born in Alabama

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kuciwalker
                            I was born in Alabama

                            sigh
                            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kuciwalker
                              I was born in Alabama
                              But you're in Pittsburgh now! And a man should always be credited for his efforts to improve his station in life.
                              "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X