Restoring Habeas

Last October, just a few weeks before the midterm elections, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which among other things suspended habeas corpus for suspected terrorists. Since then, several leading Dems have introduced measures to undo the mistake, and the ACLU has launched a terrific initiative called “Find Habeas,” which is gearing up to be part of a massive lobbying campaign.

As it turns out, the first step towards correcting last fall’s error may come as early as today.

The chance comes in a markup by the House Armed Services Committee of the annual defense authorization bill. Democrats on the committee and lobbyists for human rights groups say they have gathered enough votes to add an amendment to the legislation that would reverse Congress’s decision last year to strip detainees of the habeas right. […]

Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) says he favors the reform. At a hearing on Guantanamo last month he said he thought Congress acted unconstitutionally in denying prisoners habeas. But Mr. Skelton didn’t include the amendment in the draft bill he circulated to his committee. His staff says he concluded that the measure should be contained in a stand-alone piece of legislation, which he is said to be preparing. That strategy is at odds both with recent legislative history and with the judgment of most congressional observers: Mr. Bush, they point out, won’t hesitate to veto a bill on habeas corpus but might be induced to accept the reform if it were attached to one of the annual defense bills. That is how Congress managed to force the reform of prisoner treatment known as the McCain amendment two years ago.

This is a real opportunity to correct a serious mistake. House Dems should take advantage of it. The NYT fairly described the MCA as “one of the worst laws in the nation’s history,” and this is a chance to help set things right.

The NYT added:

[L]et’s be clear. There is nothing “conservative” or “tough on terrorism” in selectively stripping people of their rights. Suspending habeas corpus is an extreme notion on the radical fringes of democratic philosophy. As four retired military chief prosecutors — from the Navy, the Marines and the Army — pointed out to Congress, holding prisoners without access to courts merely feeds Al Qaeda’s propaganda machine, increases the risk to the American military and sets a precedent by which other governments could justify detaining American civilians without charges or appeal.

Consider some of the other wild-eyed liberals calling on Congress to restore habeas corpus: William Sessions, director of the F.B.I. under the first President Bush; David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union; the National Association of Evangelicals; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today, founded by the Rev. Billy Graham; a long list of other evangelical leaders and scholars; and nearly two dozen sitting and retired federal judges. […]

The Democratic majority has a long list of wrongs to right from six years of Mr. Bush’s leadership. We are sympathetic to their concerns about finding a way to revive habeas corpus that won’t die in committee or be subject to a presidential veto of a larger bill. But lawmakers sometimes have to stand on principle and trust the voters to understand.

This is one of those times.

It is, indeed. MyDD and FDL are organizing the netroots community, with a list of targeted lawmakers and their contact information. Christy Hardin Smith also reminds us of why Habeas review matters.

Stay tuned.

I have a bad feeling that the longer this takes to happen, the less likely it is to happen. If you want to do something politically risky, it’s best to do it as far from the next election as possible.

Of course, this shouldn’t be politically risky; it’s tragic and baffling that we have to argue the merits of foundational principles of American democracy. But that’s what we’ve come to in the age of Bush/Cheney.

  • This is something so damn important – it’s only a principle that has been fought over in our own political history since 1215 – that “standing on principle” to send a stand-alone bill that is certain of veto by this worthless traitor masquerading as President is idiocy. Put it in the middle of something he has to have and make him accept it. Get it back in law!!!

  • His staff says he concluded that the measure should be contained in a stand-alone piece of legislation, which he is said to be preparing

    Bush will veto the standalone legislation, which Skelton doesn’t need to “prepare”, Sen. Dodd has already done it for him.

    Call Sen. Ike and ask him to keep the measure as an amendment. Dare Bush to veto the defense appropriations…

  • “Mr. Bush, they point out, won’t hesitate to veto a bill on habeas corpus”

    Let him. Bring it on. Let Bush hitch his legacy even more closely with Gonzales-gate. The more that is disclosed about his political subversion of our legal system, the more a Bush veto will shout corruption.

  • Glenn Greenwald says it right (as usual):

    The Republicans’ principal weapon in 2006 was the fear-mongering claim that Democrats were weak on terrorism because they oppose warrantless eavesdropping, “coercive interrogations,” and lawless detentions. And yet Republicans were crushed in that election. It’s not 2002 any more; the country has tuned out those sorts of scare tactics and that manipulative weapon has been overused and is impotent.

    Moreover, this is not a hard argument to make, but in order for it to be understood, the argument needs to be made. Americans understand instinctively that to allow someone to contest accusations against them is not tantamount to allowing them to go free. It is easily conveyed that a critical aspect for punishing terrorists is to ensure that we only punish actual terrorists but provide a process whereby innocent people are not wrongfully imprisoned for life. If Democrats engage that debate, rather than run from it again, it is not difficult to make that case.

    But none of that even matters. The right to be free of arbitrary executive imprisonment is — and, since the founding of America, always has been — a defining and distinguishing attribute of our country (notwithstanding shameful instances in our past where that right has been denied). All citizens — including, actually especially, those sent to represent the people in Congress — have an obligation to protect that right from government officials who seek to abolish it.

    Having disgracefully abdicated that responsibility back in September because they wanted to win the midterm elections, Democrats — now that they have won — can cleanse their historic sin only by committing themselves, not symbolically but in actuality, to the restoration of habeas corpus. Whether they are willing to do so will speak volumes about their true character and about whether their November victory will result in anything other than some televised hearings. If Democrats are too afraid even to take a stand against the Bush administration in defense of this centuries-old core American liberty, it is impossible to imagine any even minimally risky stands they are willing to take.

  • I’d run the thing as a stand-alone issue first, and dare the Bloodsucker of Bu$hylvania to veto Habeus. Give him the opportunity to do the dirty work himself, instead of hiding behind his now-defunct rubber stamp. Let him stand before the American people and justify taking away what the very establishment of this nation has guaranteed—and then turn it into a Constitutional issue—of crisis proportions, if need be. Crush the filthy little dictator out in the open, and don’t let him hide behind his “Presidential Seal and Presidential Podium” any more. Haunt him to his doom with these three words:

    SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!

  • If you hide it inside the appropriations bill, what are the chances Bu..sh.. will sign it and “ornament” it with a signing statement to the effect, “I’m taking the cash and you can stick your habeas where the sun don’t shine”? And nobody’s gonna pay much attention to it, b/c it’s his SOP. The fact that the signing statement may not have legal standing doesn’t matter; how are you going to force him to do what he doesn’t want to do?

    I’m with Steve, @6: let the bill be a stand-alone and let the bastard veto it and *be seen* — by all and sundry — vetoing it.

  • Let him. Bring it on. Let Bush hitch his legacy even more closely with Gonzales-gate.

    I’m with Kali, Steve and libra. let him veto it, *then* stick it in an approprations bill.

  • Comments are closed.