[Vision2020] No Speculation: "Deal" Bans Habeas Corpus, If It Becomes Law

[Bruce and Jean Livingston]

Ted, I don't think it is speculation that habeas corpus provisions are being weakened, explicitly, as regards foreign detainees in the war on terrorism.  Given what seems to be written in the compromise bill, that also included provisions that were less than President Bush hoped-for on the re-deining of the Geneva Convention language on what constitutes torture, it is clear that habeas rights are being eliminated legislatively by the Congress.  We shall see whether the Supreme Court will find those provisions constitutional.  Bruce
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ted Moffett 
  To: Vision2020 
  Cc: Bruce and Jean Livingston 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:29 PM
  Subject: No Speculation: "Deal" Bans Habeas Corpus, If It Becomes Law


  Bruce et. al.

  I take back my earlier suggestion that I was speculating that the congressional deal on torture and the Geneva Convention re-write was used to "sneak" in an undermining of habeas corpus.  The facts are plain, whether you think the slant of the media focus on the issue was a deliberate smoke screen or not.  

  The media for the most part did not expose in detail the ban on habeas corpus which disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling in Hamden vs Rumsfeld.  The fact this proposed legislation contradicts this Supreme Court ruling on how habeas corpus applies to detainees caught up in prosecuting the war on terror should have been headlines.  Either the media was deliberately irresponsible, or... as often, just chasing the rating/advertising revenue game, again the public in the USA is oblivious to critical issues the US Congress is deciding on human rights issues, in a decision that contradicted the US Supreme Court. 

  If the article below is correct (see also the posted information from the "Institute For Public Accuracy" today on Vision2020 subject headed "Habeas Corpus & the Amnesty-For-Torturers-Act?"), the congressional deal on "torture," while upholding aspects of the Geneva Convention, as it was portrayed in the media, included undermining of habeas corpus, allowing indefinite detainment (life in prison?) under suspension of habeas corpus, contradicting the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld: 

  http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/nhentoff.htm

  Quote from the article at the web link above:

  There was considerable applause -- and much concern by the president and his supporters -- when the Senate Armed Services Committee passed a bill more in line with the Geneva Conventions than the president's proposals. But Sens. John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham also included prohibition of habeas corpus petitions by detainees -- contrary to this June's Supreme Court decision that federal courts have the authority to hear their claims on the lawfulness of their imprisonment and, and conditions of treatment (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). 
   
  And if the prohibitions on habeas rights become law -- the prisoners can be held for the rest of their lives on the secret evidence and the coerced interrogations that the three senators tried to remedy in their bill. 
  ----------------
  Ted Moffett
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060926/5cb91c99/attachment.htm