Those Confusing Habeas Corpus Bill Numbers --- And the Important Text

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

Those Confusing Habeas Corpus Bill Numbers - And The Important Text

 

By Bob Geiger

Created Jul 16 2007 - 10:58am

 

I wrote on Sunday [1] about the status of Senator Arlen Specter's (R-PA)

Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007, which will likely come to a vote in

the U.S. Senate this week and that will restore the fundamental right of due

process under the law to those in American custody. I listed the Senators

who had stepped up to the plate to cosponsor such an important piece of

legislation and urged readers to contact the offices of Democrats not yet

cosponsoring the bill to give them a push in the right direction.

 

There's a bit of confusion about the actual bill number and I wanted to

quickly clear that up today.

 

S. 185 [2], which I've been writing about, and which currently has 29

cosponsors -- 28 Democrats and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- has

been the operative version of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007

since it was introduced by Specter and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on the first day

of the new Congress in January.

 

What people will see come to the Senate floor this week as an amendment to

the Department of Defense (DoD) authorizations bill is S. Amdt. 2022 [3],

which is simply S. 185 renumbered as an amendment to the DoD legislation. In

fact, the text of S. 185 and S. Amdt. 2022 are identical as follows:

 

RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR THOSE DETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES.

 

(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.''.

 

© Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments made by this section

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.

 

While it's short and sweet, it can still look to some like legal

gobbledygook, so here's where the rubber meets the road: It's the part up

top that says "Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by

striking subsection (e)."

 

From the Military Commissions Act [4], here's subsection (e):

 

 

 

"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider

an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien

detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States

to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such

determination."

 

That's the downright un-American nonsense the Specter-Leahy bill will get

rid of.

 

So it doesn't matter whether it's called S. 185 or S. Amdt. 2022 as it does

the exact same thing of, as Senator Leahy said last week, "restoring basic

American values and the rule of law, while making our Nation stronger."

 

"I don't think that there's a more important issue to come before this

body," said Specter on the Senate floor. "What happens in Iraq obviously is

of enormous importance, but if we lose the basic fundamental rights to

require evidence before somebody is held in detention, if we lose the right

of habeas corpus, it is a very sad day in America."

 

In terms of what Democratic Senators are stepping up and cosponsoring the

legislation, our count remains the same. Twenty-eight Democrats had signed

up to cosponsor the original S. 185 and the 14 current cosponsors of the new

S. Amdt. 2022 also have their names attached to S. 185.

 

Which leaves us with the following Democrats who haven't signed on to

support either one:

 

a.. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)

b.. Max Baucus (D-MT)

c.. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

d.. Robert Casey (D-PA)

e.. Kent Conrad (D-ND)

f.. Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

g.. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)

h.. Tim Johnson (D-SD)

i.. Herb Kohl (D-WI)

j.. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

k.. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

l.. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

m.. Patty Murray (D-WA)

n.. Ben Nelson (D-NE)

o.. Mark Pryor (D-AR)

p.. Jack Reed (D-RI)

q.. Charles Schumer (D-NY)

r.. Jon Tester (D-MT)

s.. James Webb (D-VA)

t.. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Does it matter if they sign on as cosponsors to the Habeas Corpus

Restoration Act of 2007? Yes, it does. For one, it tells us what our running

vote count is and gives us some sense of who's going to ultimately vote for

it. While the Senators listed above may very well intend on voting for the

bill's passage, we don't know that at the moment -- and for something this

fundamental to American values, they need to stand up and be counted.

Cosponsoring the bill also demonstrates leadership on this vital issue and

that's what we want to see.

 

So get on the phone today and call the Senators still not committed to

cosponsoring this critical legislation as they may still need a nudge to

sign on that dotted line.

 

Here's the toll-free number to dial at the U.S. Capitol: 800-862-5530. Just

call and ask to be connected to your Senator's office. If you get a chronic

busy signal you can see a directory of direct lines to Senate offices here

[5] (PDF).

 

A vote on this should occur by Thursday.

 

Update: I neglected to mention that Tim Johnson is still recovering from

health problems and may not be able to cosponsor this legislation. I've

noted that so many times in the last six months that I assumed it was common

knowledge, but regret the omission. That said, Johnson is updating press

statements on his web site on a regular basis and could state his support

for restoring Habeas Corpus were he so moved.

_______

 

 

 

--

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

available to advance understanding of

political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

 

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

suffering deeply in spirit,

and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at

stake."

-Thomas Jefferson

[Guest zzpat]

Gandalf Grey wrote:

> Those Confusing Habeas Corpus Bill Numbers - And The Important Text

>

 

The fact that anyone voted to rip the constitution apart is in itself

appalling. IMO, anyone who voted to end Habeas Corpus is unfit for any

elected office.

 

 

--

Impeach Bush

http://zzpat.bravehost.com

 

Impeach Search Engine

http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm