Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Regarding Habeas Corpus

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 09:09 AM
Original message
Regarding Habeas Corpus
{1} ``Habeas corpus has little to do with terrorism. Nothing in our present circumstances requires the suspension of habeas corpus. We are dealing with a fundamental provision of law (which) is at the very foundation of the legal system designed to safeguard our liberties. We are putting in jeopardy a tradition of protection of individual rights by federal courts that goes back to our earliest foundation.'' –Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) April, 1996

In 1996, President Bill Clinton worked with republican allies in Congress to pass The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Democratic elder statesman Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke out strongly against the parts of the law that eroded the Great Writ of habeas corpus. He was joined by four former Attorney Generals – two democrats and two republicans – who recognized that the law would have little if any impact on "terrorism," and was instead a dangerous attack on the Constitution of the United States.

{2} "Here we are trivializing this treasure, putting in jeopardy a tradition of protection of individual rights by Federal courts that goes back to our earliest foundation. And the virus will spread. Why are we in such a rush to amend our Constitution? Why do we tamper with provisions as profound to our traditions and liberty as habeas corpus?

"The Federal courts do not complain. It may be that because we have enacted this, there will be some prisoners who are executed sooner than they otherwise would have been. You may take satisfaction in that or not, as you choose, but we have begun to weaken a tenet of justice at the very base of our liberties. The virus will spread.

"This is new. It is profoundly disturbing. It is terribly dangerous. If I may have the presumption to join in the judgment of four Attorneys General, Mr. Civiletti, Mr. Levi, Mr. Katzenbach, and Mr. Richardson...this matter is unconstitutional and should be repealed from law." –Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan; 1966

Senator Moynihan recognized the law, which he correctly called a "virus," would spread and infect other areas of our society. Events during the Bush-Cheney administration show that he was on target.

It is important to remember that the damage that Bush & Cheney have done was made possible by President Clinton’s and his republican allies’ efforts in 1996.

{3} "In 1996 we enacted a statute which holds that constitutional protections do not exist unless they have been unreasonably violated, an idea that would have confounded the framers. Thus, we have introduced a virus that will surely spread throughout our system of laws." –Daniel Patrick Moynihan; January 19, 1999

In 1999, Senator Moynihan introduced a bill to repeal the offending parts of President Clinton’s attack on habeas corpus. The bill "died" in committee.

Today, there are concerns about the further attacks on the Constitution, made by the current administration. Both Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama have spoken about reversing the damage done by this administration. It is important for democrats at the grass roots level to examine both candidates, to see which one has a history of working to insure the American people of their Constitutional rights.

{4} "A society should not be judged by how it treats its outstanding citizens, by bu how it treats its criminals." – Fydor Dostoevsky

As a state senator, Barack Obama has a documented history on issues relating to defendants’ rights in capital cases. He sponsored a bill that mandated the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in such cases. This was a result of concerns regarding errors in death penalty cases. His position is that no innocent person be wrongly convicted, or that no guilty person avoid conviction, due to an error in process.

Senator Clinton’s position on the issues relating to the Great Writ are less clear. Although I support Barack Obama, I must say that I have always thought Hillary Clinton is more liberal than her husband. We know that she has said she would work to undo the damage that President Bush has done to habeas corpus. But would she be willing to revisit Senator Moynihan’s efforts to undo the damage that President Clinton did?

This is the type of question that many of us would like to see the media ask of both Clinton and Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheZug Donating Member (886 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, but none of this matters, because Obama had a nutty preacher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. And no flag pin! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. I wasn't aware that Clinton weakened habeas corpus in 1996; this
is why you are cherished, H20 Man, for educating me. It's nice to work with republicans, but for something like this? Their reasoning for passing this eludes me. And where are our Moynihans now when they are so desperately needed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. It's an issue
that I take an interest in for a couple of reasons. First, of course, is because I think the Constitution mentions habeas corpus because they recognized its importance. Second, my friend Rubin was released after serving 20 years for a crime he did not commit, on a habeas corpus appeal filed by Hofstra University's Professor Leon Friedman, an expert on Constitutional law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. The complete non-restoral of Habeus is one of the great failings of the 2006 Congress. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Right.
Congress has failed to protect the Great Writ for more than a decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
for the great writ.

And really, for Amendments 1, 4, 5, and 8.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
21. I agree
100%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
6. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
7. That is exactly the type of question that we need asked.
Thanks for all the background info. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. I think so .....
but it seems to be of less interest than I had hoped for!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. And you're not even competing with Wrightapalooza today.
Is it wrong that I reflexively want to claim the moral high ground for this party... cause there was no more Dem majority in 96, and it was a D who called him out on it?

Yeah... I probably am. I think I recall hearing some of this stuff first from my politically-minded friends here in my red, red state. Bah. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. There are fewer
Wrightapalooza threads today, but it is still getting a lot of attention from the Clinton supporters and the media.

It's good to see reports that more super delegates are preparing to endorse soon. This week's TIME has a good article on this, and reports on MSNBC reinforce that. Good news for Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
8. It Is A Huge Question
And while I am supporting Obama, I will say that while matters having to do with the economy and all the day to day issues are important, this matter is equally so as it goes right to the heart of our democracy. It also worries me that Bill C could be aligned to her administration should she get in. In his famous triangulating he is often very cavalier with other people's rights and what is good for the country as a whole and not just special interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. I agree.
I think that there may be a relationship between the very serious issues that we face -- including food and energy shortages -- and the restrictions being placed on Constitutional rights. I can remember many years ago, Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons telling a group of people that they should understand that a government that would deny native people those Constitutional protections would, in the future, deny them to the larger society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. That's An Astute Observation
And needs to be explored. Keep people down, muddled by the essentials and they won't think about the rest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Take away their
Bill of Rights, and they lose the ability to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
9. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
12. Obama answered it unasked
He will restore habeus corpus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I agree.
I think that he has shown respect for the Constitution, and concern for the denial of rights by the federal government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
14. It's not coincidental that those most willing or eager to discard Habeas Corpus ...
... call themselves "pragmatists" and "realists." It is the corruption of a consequentialist ethic that it's so often a facade for the wholesale corruption of values and principles ... the road to Dystopia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. In John Dean's book
"Worse Than Watergate," he notes that neoconservatives do not subscribe to the Constitution; it is apparent that neo-liberals do not, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
15. The kind of question we would like to see from the media
but won't just like investigations and possible impeachment on abuses of power from congress. Some of us know the set up and reasons for politics since the 06 elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Right.
I think that at one debate, there was a question about the damage done by this administration. It would seem important that questions include what President Clinton did in '96. I suspect that most of the journalists involved in the debates and interviews with the candidates are aware of this. But as you say, some issues aren't on the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
25. ...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-01-08 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
26. kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC