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

debismith at moscow.com debismith at moscow.com
Tue Sep 26 22:12:53 PDT 2006

Thanks, Ted. Much appreciated.
Debi R-S

Date sent:      	Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:14:02 -0700
From:           	"Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
To:             	Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject:        	[Vision2020] Habeas Corpus & The Amnesty-for-Torturers Act?

Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 *
ipa at accuracy.org ___________________________________________________

Monday, September 25, 2006
   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.
cpyle at mtholyoke.edu<http://by106fd.bay106.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/comp
b45e354a7149ad9c0fd50373498a755dcdbe5c5233ca1&mailto=1&to=cpyle at mtholy
   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
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
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
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

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list