"habeas Corpus Restoration Act Of 2006"

[pizzaman777]

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s4081.html

[Valentine]

They damn well better pass that, and they need to do the same to a lot of other crap like it.

[harflimon]

Emailed my congressman about it:D

[aaronmann]

i will too after this weekend is over. thanks for the link pizzaman and bringing this to my attention =)

stuff like this always makes me spam happy.

you contact your representatives too, or are you just going to sit back and hope they pass it?

[pizzaman777]

I did my part. Unfortunately I have Hillary Clinton and Schumer to deal with :furious:

[pizzaman777]

*BUMP* Update 2007:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/s185.html

[DJOldskool]

If that goes through, I will be surprised, they cannot the truth of the situation to come out.

DJ

[bando]

Check this out:
http://prorev.com/2007/01/gonzales-lays-le...undwork-for.htm

Quote:"There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.

Quote:Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion."

Quote:Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully.

He's playing a wording game. :dumbass2:

WTF!!!!???

[Moriani]

Quote:If that goes through, I will be surprised, they cannot the truth of the situation to come out.

DJ

Don't worry about it.

Not only does the Military Commissions Act of 2006 violate U.S. CONST. art. 1 § 9 cl.2, it also directly conflicts with Common Article 3 of all four protocols to the Geneva Convention, plus Article 5 of the 3rd Protocol, additional articles in both the 3rd and 4th Protocols, Articles 8 and 14 of the ICCPR and Articles 3 and others in the Convention Against Torture.

On review, the possibilities for the Supreme Court are 1) Strike the MCA, 2) Strike nearly everything except the clause granting immunity from 1997 on, or 3) Affirm the MCA.

You can forget about #3 since that would effectively abrogate 6 international treaties. While the Senate approves treaties, only the president can withdraw from a treaty. Neither the House nor Senate have the power to withdraw from a treaty (that's why Kucinich says he will withdraw the US from NAFTA and the WTO -- because he really can do that with the simple stroke of a pen).

Note that the clause from immunity is only applicable in the US. Bush and others can still be prosecuted in other countries.

[Moriani]

[quote name='Bando' date='Jan 25 2007, 05:05 PM' post='42910']
Check this out:

There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away," Gonzales said.[/quote]

Quote:Gonzales continued, "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended" except in cases of rebellion or invasion."

Quote:Applying Gonzales's reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn't explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully.

He's playing a wording game. :dumbass2:

WTF!!!!???
[/quote]

You make a good point.

It's hard to believe in idiot like that would come up with some convoluted response. He's forgetting the 9th Amendment, which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That means if the people say it applies, it does, and there's nothing Gonzalez can do about it (at least not legally).

He also forgets the 14th Amendment, which says "persons" and that includes everyone, citizen or not, so the detainees do have habeas corps rights. In Haitian Ctrs. Council, 823 F. Supp. at 1042, the court ruled that an illegal alien who had been detained for immigration violations and was incarcerated at Guantánamo for more than 2 years had established substantial connection to the United States to give rise to due process rights under habeas corpus.