[Vision2020] Habeas Corpus & The Amnesty-for-Torturers Act?

[Ted Moffett]

Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 *
http://www.accuracy.org<javascript:ol('http://www.accuracy.org');>*
ipa at accuracy.org
___________________________________________________

Monday, September 25, 2006
NAT HENTOFF, http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/nhentoff.htm<javascript:ol('http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/nhentoff.htm');>
   Hentoff writes in his column in today's Washington Times: "Little
attention is being paid to Section 6 of this Warner-McCain-Graham bill that
denies the right to a habeas-corpus hearing not only to Guantanamo Bay
prisoners, but to any alien detainee outside the United States designated by
the president as an 'enemy combatant.' ...
   "Nine retired federal judges have tried to awaken Congress to this
constitutional crisis. Among them are such often-honored jurists as Shirley
Hufstedler, Nathaniel Jones, Patricia Wald, H. Lee Sarokin and William
Sessions (who was head of the CIA and the FBI). They write, particularly
with regard to Mr. McCain's concerns about torture, that without habeas
petitions, how will the judiciary ensure that 'Executive detentions are not
grounded on torture'?"
CHRISTOPHER H. PYLE,
cpyle at mtholyoke.edu<http://by106fd.bay106.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?curmbox=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&a=a7e5a3abeb5b6a0625bb45e354a7149ad9c0fd50373498a755dcdbe5c5233ca1&mailto=1&to=cpyle@mtholyoke.edu&msg=8A11501E-F007-4197-AD7C-A22AF7E08AF3&start=0&len=7502&src=&type=x>,
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73017<javascript:ol('http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73017');>
   Professor Pyle is co-author of the book "The President, Congress, and the
Constitution." He said today: "The proposed legislation is an amnesty bill
for torturers." He wrote in a recent oped titled "The War Crimes Scam" that:
"The Supreme Court's decision last June in the Hamdan case threw the
military, CIA, and administration into a panic. The Court didn't just
declare the military tribunals illegal. It held that the Geneva Conventions
protect all detainees in the 'war on terrorism,' which meant that anyone who
abused prisoners -- or authorized their abuse -- was vulnerable to
prosecution as a war criminal. ...
   "The torture and abuse were not random acts by guards and interrogators.
They were part of a deliberate administration policy that began in November
2001 when President George W. Bush authorized military tribunals that were
specifically designed to admit evidence based on torture. ...
   "The new military tribunals won't be permitted to admit evidence obtained
by torture. However, they will be allowed to admit hearsay -- secondhand
accounts that seem reliable, but which will not expose the interrogators to
embarrassing questions about their brutal methods. Then, to further hide the
abuse of prisoners from judges and the public, these three senators will
strip every court in the United States of authority to hear legal challenges
by prisoners to their detention or mistreatment.
   "In short, the fix is in. Administration officials will be immune from
future prosecution for authorizing, encouraging, justifying, and concealing
torture and abuse. Interrogators can't be prosecuted for carrying out these
war crimes, and innocent prisoners can't expose the government's crimes in
court, now or in the future." Pyle is a professor of politics at Mount
Holyoke College specializing in Constitutional law and civil liberties.

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060926/4958da07/attachment.htm