.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} < link rel="DCTERMS.replaces" href="http://www.publiusforum.com/illini/illinialliance_main.html" >


Sunday, November 12, 2006


UPI: Leahy 'restoring' habeas corpus

-By Warner Todd Huston

In light of the big Democrat win last week, United Press International is doing its best to start the ball rolling against our security with a report from the 11th called Leahy aims at restoring habeas corpus.

In this fawning report, UPI paints Leahy as the hero on the white horse "restoring rights" to those poor enemy combatants the evil, evil Bush administration has been so mean to. UPI is overjoyed that Leahy is riding to the defense of terrorists...

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is expected to take over as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and The (Calif.) Daily Journal reports that Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in an effort to restore habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants.

How nice of Leahy to "restore" something they never had in the first place!

The supposed rights of habes for enemy combatants never existed and still doesn't. The only thing that the last few Supreme Court decisions addressed is if enemy combatants can APPLY for habeas protections, NOT that they should automatically have them.

As Harvey Silverglate wrote in Reason Magazine in Jan. of 2005:

In Hamdi O'Connor wrote that while an alleged enemy combatant "must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker," the degree of due process would be commensurate with "the nature of the case." Because of the ongoing war on terrorism, "the exigencies of the circumstances may demand that, aside from these core elements, enemy combatant proceedings may be tailored to alleviate their uncommon potential to burden the Executive at a time of ongoing military conflict." O'Connor said hearsay might be admissible, for example, when direct evidence was not readily available.

In other words, the SCOTUS gave the government wide latitude to decide what evidence qualified to determine what level of threat an enemy combatant presents and this level will determine what rights he might be eligible for.

And the recent law that Leaky Leahy wants to "reverse" merely codifies what rights are due them.

So, contrary to what the UPI wants people to believe, Leahy is CREATING rights for enemies who wish to destroy us, NOT restoring any.

Naturally, the UPI thinks the aforementioned law is "damage" done to our Constitution:

A spokeswoman for Leahy told the newspaper the bill would be intended to repeal portions of the law that prevent some detainees from pursuing federal court challenges to the government's authority to hold them indefinitely.

Spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told the newspaper the goal is to "try and do something to reverse the damage".

Tracy says that trying to make our country safe from terror threats is "damaging"?

Naturally, the report isn't complete without activists against the government and our security being quoted.

Scott L. Silliman, Director of the Center for Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University School of Law, told the newspaper an attempt to amend the law could set up a partisan showdown in Congress, and possibly a presidential veto.

Civil rights attorneys filed a constitutional challenge to the act after Bush signed it Oct. 17, the Journal said.

And just as naturally, there isn't a WORD in support of the law or security in the report.

No spokesmen for the president, no spokesmen for the pro-security position, no supporters of the law quoted.

Publius Forum tags

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Ring of Conservative Sites Ring of Conservative Sites

[ Prev | Skip Prev | Prev 5 | List |
Rand | Next 5 | Skip Next | Next ]

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?