Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

helphaiti

Donate to CT Dems
Enable ActBlue
for CT Races
$
John Larson
(1st CD)
$
Joe Courtney
(2nd CD)
$
Rosa DeLauro
(3rd CD)
$
Jim Himes
(4th CD)
$
Chris Murphy
(5th CD)
$
Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 


 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

Dodd Introduces Legislation to Return Habeas Corpus

by: Connecticut Man1

Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 17:35:23 PM EST


(Dodd is showing real leadership here. I hope this bill is put near the top of the Democratic agenda come January. - promoted by Matt Browner Hamlin)

A whole mixed bag of stuff in here that might be of interest to everyone:
Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges.  As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America?s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.

"I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists," Sen. Dodd said. "But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It's clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country's Constitution, we're taking away our own moral compass, as well."

The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:

  • Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
  • Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants
  • Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
  • Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable
  • Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
  • Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight
  • Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions

"We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror," Dodd said.

About the only thing that doesn't make some sense is the review of the MCA... Better to just repeal it and start over making laws that might be Constitutional and not such a tyranical slap in the face of the freedoms this country was built upon.

Connecticut Man1 :: Dodd Introduces Legislation to Return Habeas Corpus
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Say thank you to Chris Dodd? (0.00 / 0)
I think it's important for him to know we are paying attention and support his efforts.

A call to his office to understand his thinking on why he prefers to amend rather than submit new legislation would be educational opportunity to learn how the system works, as well as to understand his thinking.

http://dodd.senate.g...

Or contact his office at:

Washington Office:
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0702
Phone: (202) 224-2823
Fax: (202) 224-1083

If anyone has been following this legislation in a detailed way and understands something more about what works/doesn't work about Dodd's proposal, PLEASE post it.  I don't want to be a mindless cheerleader, but I want to make sure to support him and let him know we're out here and paying attention.


Understandable concern (4.00 / 1)
That is why I stated afterwards that I think it should just be repealed.

About the only thing that doesn't make some sense is the review of the MCA... Better to just repeal it and start over making laws that might be Constitutional and not such a tyranical slap in the face of the freedoms this country was built upon.

I don't know the entitre MCA, but what I do know is not good. Why subject anything that is "bush approved" to a judicial review when bush has stacked the system with wing-nuts like Gonzales and with radical-wing-nut judges? Pointless effort IMHO. I would rather those anti-American-nut-jobs not be given the opportunity to stomp on our constitutional rights...



Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media


[ Parent ]
if the court strikes it down, it effectively undermines efforts to crack down on terrorists (0.00 / 0)
A good point I saw somewhere.

There seem to me to be good reasons to work with an existing bill - if you're only adjusting it, maybe it's harder to spin than if you recommend repealing it and rewriting it.

Repeal - one vote
New Law - how many votes?

vs.

Amend -- one vote and done.

Will keep an eye out for good legal reviews of this.


[ Parent ]
Who Are The Real Terrorists Who Murdered 3,000 Of Us? (0.00 / 0)
.
.
Like the people at Dodd's level don't know...
.
Folks, click on my name and read some of my recent diaries.
.
.
.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
With all of the hullaballoo (0.00 / 0)
why hasn't the MCA been challenged?  Does someone have to be tried under the MCA before it can be challenged?  If that is so, how would anybody ever know what happened to you if you were "disappeared"?  Pretty scary thought.  Most people would believe that some nutjob got you and disposed your body at the same place Hoffa's buried.

Say "No Thanks," Chris (4.00 / 1)
A real leader would have blocked the original bill.  And a real leader would have gotten the 40 votes to sustain a filibuster.

Worse yet, making any changes to this horrible law only makes it more difficult to get it declared unconstitutional.  Soke of it may remain.  It gives the Bushies a partial victory, when they should get shut out.  Make the whole thing stand or fall on its own.  This will just make a difficult job nearly impossible.


Disagree (0.00 / 0)
I agree, the whole law as I know it should be repealed, but what Dodd's amendment does is reverse major portions of the original MCA. That is, it does what we would want a bill covering executive authority and rights afforded to detainees to do.

This is a step in the right direction. I don't know if there's a substantive difference between passing a new law that repeals provisions in the MCA and amending those provisions in the current MCA.

Disclosure: I'm proud to work for the Service Employees International Union


[ Parent ]
some other perspectives - MCA (0.00 / 0)
Looking for detailed treatment of the act, I found this by Amnesty International:

http://web.amnesty.o...

A letter from the ACLU:

http://www.aclu.org/...

And extensive links and references appended to this piece from the Center for American Progress:

http://www.americanp...


[ Parent ]
Time to face political reality folks (4.00 / 1)
We NEVER would have won the Senate if we filibustered the MCA. This  was  one of Karl Rove's pre-election traps and we stepped around it.

We let Lindsay Graham and John McCain point out most of the serious flaws. We tried to retain habeus corpus through an amendment, so all right-thinking Senators got to show where they stood.

If we wait for the courts to do the obvious, the detainees will be in limbo until after Bush leaves. If "terrorists" walk because we ignored the Constitution in our treatment of them, it should be on W's watch.

The Supreme Court threw this to Congress in the Hamdan case.  Remember, the Hamdan case was perhaps Bush's biggest defeat before this election.  We wanted the Congress involved here.

The Congress had to pass something outlining a process for the detainees.  The MCA gave Bush almost everything he wanted, because the GOP controls all branches of the government.

We can't just repeal it because it opens members of both Houses up to the "I was for it before I was against it" attack. And it doesn't solve the problem.

Bush will get the main thing he wants,  which is immunity for him and his war criminals.  I think we generally agree that people deserve to be prosecuted for their treatment of detainees. (I think it sucks that only army grunts are put on trial, while the CIA thugs walk).  However, the country will not stand for it. The low information folks will apply Bush's apallingly low  moral standards. Unfortunately most figure that al Qaedas tactics are worse than anything the CIA has done and that the waterboarders "meant well". That's just the way it is and to try and make a  big stink about it now will put us back in the minority in 2008.

So let's fix it as best we can and put the ball  back in W.'s court. Let him veto it so  that we can say that the Republicans are not interested in bringing the terrorists to justice.

It's Morning in America. Too bad Reagan's not here to see it. - Me


Dodd's bill calls for judicial review of constitutionality (0.00 / 0)
... that could eventually lead to repeal, says this opinion piece on HUFFPO:

http://www.huffingto...

Is that accurate? Is a "judicial review" already what will happen with a test case - what the heck is it?  And if a court said it was unconstitutional, wouldn't repeal be a moot point?


[ Parent ]
 
0 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead

Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT

CT Candidates
- Chris Murphy for Senate
- Susan Bysiewicz for Senate

- William Tong for Senate


Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin



More blogs about connecticut+politics.
Technorati Blog Finder


 
Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox