home

Dodd, Menendez to Seek Restoration of Habeas

By TChris, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:39:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

At dailykos, mcjoan calls attention to this Blue Jersey report of a heartening change of heart:

After all the uproar over Senator Menendez's vote a few months ago for the unconstitutional Military Commissions Act which eliminated habeas corpus and legalized torture, it appears he's had a change of heart. That vote was taken under immense pressure during the campaign, and he's now doing the responsible thing and cleaning up the mess he helped make.

Menendez is reportedly joining Chris Dodd to co-sponsor a bill that would restore the habeas review that the Military Commissions Act prohibits. Raw Story has a video of Dodd's reasoned argument in favor of the bill.

< Missing Weapons and Laptops at the FBI | Jackie Robinson's Second Season: I'm Beginning To Believe in Obama >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dodd, Menendez to Seek Restoration of Habeas | 5 comments (5 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Menendez' change of heart (none / 0) (#1)
    by diogenes on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:06:43 PM EST
    Voting one way during a campaign and another way after you're elected is an act of dishonesty, although I suppose one can rationalize anything away.
    I'm confused-if the people at GITMO are captured enemy soldiers who are entitled to Geneva Convention protections, then they are not entitled to "habeas corpus", trials, or release.  I don't remember John McCain getting a trial in North Vietnam.  I suppose that if we all agree that they can be held as "prisoners of war" indefinitely without trials or any right to ever be released, then even Bush might support loosening the conditions of the camp to match Geneva convention minimum rules.

    Let me help you (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:50:24 PM EST
    I'm confused-if the people at GITMO are captured enemy soldiers who are entitled to Geneva Convention protections, then they are not entitled to "habeas corpus", trials, or release.

    I'm confused too.  How do you know that they are "enemy soldiers" if you do not conduct some sort of hearing and present evidence?  If they were not wearing uniforms, what evidence do we have that they are in fact, the "enemy?"

    Since the "War on Terror" is not a real war, but only a slogan, do we have to keep them in prison, until the slogan surrenders?  

    As a patriotic American and a military veteran I do not believe we should emulate Saddam in our treatement of prisoners.  I do not understand why George W. Bush feels that Saddam's methods are superior to those that have served the United States for 200+ years.  Mr. Bush's obvious hatred of humane treatment of prisoners is disgusting and has no place in the United States of America.

    Parent

    I am uncomfortable with the notion that (none / 0) (#2)
    by demohypocrates on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:34:07 PM EST
    enemy combatants can be held indefinitely until the 'war' is over.  The definition of 'war' is hazy and cant be defined by past definitions.  But I am equally uncomfortable with the notion that, in a war against terrorists, foreign nationals, with an albeit 'alleged' militaristic role against US targets, must be held with full Constitutional protections.  

    Even in hindsight, does anyone question FDR not affording Constitutional rights to suspected spies in the US during WII?  How do we distinguish those from the individuals held at Gitmo?  I am asking more questions than I address, but my opinion is still open.  

    I think the left dont believe we are really in a war outside of Iraq.  But there are no borders defined in the AUMF.  Hillary and the rest of the pro Bush votin Dems have to answer for the broad discretion they gave him.  

    The right has us in a worldwide war.  I think radical Islamism is worldwide, but we are only engaged, at least militarily, in a limited area.  I am the contrarian who never thought we should gone to war in the first place, but once we landed, I think the job needs to be finished.

    Parent

    Definitions? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 10:43:13 PM EST
    I am the contrarian who never thought we should gone to war in the first place, but once we landed, I think the job needs to be finished.

    Define "job" and "finished."

    So you say that once we have screwed the pooch, we should stick around and abuse the bleeding corpse in order to "finish the job."

    If we shouldn'at have gone to war in the first place, then exaggerating that mistake by staying there is preferable to correcting it?

    I'll say you are "contrarian."  You are contrary to logic.

    For the hard of hearing.  IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE, DO NOT KEEP ON MAKING IT.

    Parent

    "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007" (none / 0) (#5)
    by tribalscribal on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:38:09 PM EST
    i was hoping the bill would be broader and include the white house's changes in the insurrection and posse comitatus acts that sen. leahy voiced so much concern about last october
    (see: http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/ )

    Dodd, Menendez to Seek Restoration of Habeas | 5 comments (5 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment