Senate Fails on Habeas Corpus

Today the US Senate fell four votes short of restoring Habeas Corpus, the fundamental constitutional right of individuals to challenge government detention, which the Republican Congress revoked in last year's Military Commissions Act. Fifty-six senators supported a procedural move to tie the Habeas provision to legislation authorizing defense spending--a step that requires sixty votes.

The amendment was sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Senator Arlen Specter, who voted for the legislation that the amendment attempts to reverse, and Senator Chris Dodd, who blasted today's vote. "Each of us in the Senate faced a decision either to cast a vote in favor of helping to restore America's reputation in the world, or to help dig deeper the hole of utter disrespect for the rule of law that the Bush Administration has created. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues chose the latter," he said.

Backers of the amendment and human rights organizers say they will continue to press for habeas restoration. Leah Adler, an organizer with Working Assets, wrote today that activists should focus on the U.S. House, which will "likely consider legislation to restore habeas corpus in the next few weeks."

Today's vote also suggests a new Senate majority for Habeas Corpus. (Last Congress, a similar amendment did not even break 50 votes.) And yes, it is a sad sign that we are reduced to counting votes for which members of Congress are upholding their oath to support the Constitution.

Comments (21)

1. I wonder how similar Joe Lieberman's influence as VP may have been to Cheney's, considering his neo-con allegiance. And he looks just like that evil emperor guy in Star Wars!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 09/19/2007 @ 2:43pm

2. The Repubs can't lose their base, and their base (PONTI, LVLIB, RIO) don't care about "rights for terrorists".

   So a Yea vote for cloture might lose them their base, and gains them few indies or moderates anyway who aren't paying attention. And it certainly wouldn't gain them any votes from the Left regardless.

   So the political calculation was easy for them....not right, not good, not American....but easy.

   Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 3:01pm

3. Senator Arlen Specter, who voted for the legislation that the amendment attempts to reverse,

   well we've all made mistakes. good for him

   and Senator Chris Dodd, who blasted today's vote. "Each of us in the Senate faced a decision either to cast a vote in favor of helping to restore America's reputation in the world............

   someone here always yells at me when i point that out

   that activists should focus on the U.S. House, which will "likely consider legislation to restore habeas corpus in the next few weeks."

   time to write your representatives. repeatedly. repeatedly. repeatedly. repeatedly. repeatedly. if y'all got time to post here................

   And yes, it is a sad sign that we are reduced to counting votes for which members of Congress are upholding their oath to support the Constitution.

   and here they are, folks. america's best friends. enjoy:

   Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN) -- NAY

   Allard, Wayne- (R - CO) -- NAY

   Barrasso, John- (R - WY) -- NAY

   Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT) -- NAY

   Bond, Christopher S.- (R - MO) -- NAY

   Brownback, Sam- (R - KS) -- NAY

   Bunning, Jim- (R - KY) -- NAY

   Burr, Richard- (R - NC) -- NAY

   Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA) –not listed

   Coburn, Tom- (R - OK) -- NAY

   Cochran, Thad- (R - MS) -- NAY

   Coleman, Norm- (R - MN) -- NAY

   Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME) -- NAY

   Corker, Bob- (R - TN) -- NAY

   Cornyn, John- (R - TX) -- NAY

   Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID) -- NAY

   Crapo, Mike- (R - ID) -- NAY

   DeMint, Jim- (R - SC) -- NAY

   Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC) -- NAY

   Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM) -- NAY

   Ensign, John- (R - NV) -- NAY

   Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY) -- NAY

   Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC) -- NAY

   Grassley, Chuck- (R - IA) -- NAY

   Gregg, Judd- (R - NH) -- NAY

   Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT) -- NAY

   Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) -- NAY

   Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK) -- NAY

   Isakson, Johnny- (R - GA) -- NAY

   Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ) -- NAY

   Lieberman, Joseph I.- (I - CT) -- NAY

   Lott, Trent- (R - MS) -- NAY

   Martinez, Mel- (R - FL) -- NAY

   McCain, John- (R - AZ) -- NAY

   McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY) -- NAY

   Murkowski, Lisa- (R - AK) -- NAY

   Roberts, Pat- (R - KS) -- NAY

   Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL) -- NAY

   Shelby, Richard C.- (R - AL) -- NAY

   Stevens, Ted- (R - AK) -- NAY

   Thune, John- (R - SD) -- NAY

   Vitter, David- (R - LA) -- NAY

   Voinovich, George V.- (R - OH) -- NAY

   Warner, John- (R - VA) -- NAY

   larry craig?!?!?! he's a criminal. so is vitter. guess THEY were lucky and still got to use that oh so quaint habeus business when the law caught them.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 3:32pm

4. It's days like this that make me want to start the revolution right now.

   Posted by jorcheim at 09/19/2007 @ 3:43pm

5. And they wonder why they have an 11 percent approval rating.

   Posted by badtimmay at 09/19/2007 @ 4:05pm

6. Posted by JORCHEIM 09/19/2007 @ 3:43pm

   motion seconded...done.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/19/2007 @ 4:08pm

7. I guess Craig was tired of bathroom stalls, and returned to the Senate to vote against the constitution....the same document that is keeping his ass out of jail....ever heard of innocent until proven guilty Senator? Or in your case, innocent after having plead guilty.

   Posted by jpolston at 09/19/2007 @ 4:19pm

8. It's time that Reid did what he should have done the moment the Republican leadership began this blanket use of cloture as a practical veto: force them to actually filibuster legislation or amendments if they want to block them. I mean that quite literally too, force them to stand up and keep debating 24/7 if they want to block something, as the filibuster was originally conceived and practiced for most of our Constitutional history. Make them display their opposition, make them grind the Senate to a halt and delay all other business until they break or their constituents let them know that they will no longer stand for it. I seriously doubt that they'd even try. But if they did, at least we'd have the opportunity to put their recalcitrance and obstructionism on display for all of America to see.

   Posted by Stwriley at 09/19/2007 @ 4:23pm

9. The Repubs can't lose their base, and their base (PONTI, LVLIB, RIO) don't care about "rights for terrorists".

   So a Yea vote for cloture might lose them their base, and gains them few indies or moderates anyway who aren't paying attention. And it certainly wouldn't gain them any votes from the Left regardless.

   So the political calculation was easy for them....not right, not good, not American....but easy.

   Posted by MASK 09/19/2007 @ 3:01pm

   MASK, You may be right, but the SOB's still have to look at themselves in the mirror every day knowing they are sell outs.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/19/2007 @ 4:26pm

10. I'll also note that several of the Senators Frosty Zoom listed above are seriously threatened and that this vote is unlikely to help them. Coleman, Collins, Dole, Domenici, McConnell and Stevens are all running very seriously down in their re-election bids right now, with the war and the excesses of BushCo as their prime liabilities. This is just one more step in their own march to the political gallows, another flourish in the act of signing their own political death warrants. Somehow I doubt their constituents will give them the political equivalent of a Habeas suit when they return home.

    Posted by Stwriley at 09/19/2007 @ 4:36pm

11. Somehow I doubt their constituents will give them the political equivalent of a Habeas suit when they return home.

    Posted by STWRILEY 09/19/2007 @ 4:36pm

    I hope you are right. But, evidently all it takes to change peoples' minds are a few sound bites, a little flag waving and a fire side chat and walla, the conservative base falls back in line. They are like trained dogs. They do what their masters tell them.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/19/2007 @ 4:57pm

12. I wonder how similar Joe Lieberman's influence as VP may have been to Cheney's, considering his neo-con allegiance. And he looks just like that evil emperor guy in Star Wars!

    Posted by MATTMAN 09/19/2007 @ 2:43pm

    I always thought he looked more like the guy who played the father in the TV shoe ALF. But this is stupid; the Senate won't even try to get an up-or-down vote unless there is a filibuster-proof majority. I say, f*** 'em. Proceed with the vote next time, and MAKE somebody go on record opposing the Constitution. This cowardly tactic of backing down against threats of filibuster that would force the person doing it to go on the defensive and try to justify his actions just gets us nowhere. Democrats should be MAKING the GOP go on record filibustering everything, so the American people can see that Dems are actually trying to get things done while Republicans are standing in the way of progress. All this sh** demonstrates is that when push comes to shove, all the GOPhers have to do is issue a threat and they'll get their way every time. Why put up with that?

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 09/19/2007 @ 6:09pm

13. Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/19/2007 @ 4:26pm

    They know the war is a failure...yet still vote for continueing it and still somehow look themselves in the mirror, WOLF.

    Voting down habeus corpus was probably more easy than deciding what they wanted for lunch to them.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 9:11pm

14. Posted by MASK 09/19/2007 @ 9:11pm

    have you written your representative?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 10:07pm

15. ah, it's 11:00

    everybody's watching stewart-colbert.

    see ya at midnight

    :+}

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:12pm

16. Despite the hysterical and hyperbolic rantings of the left, no US citizen is denied Habeas under the MCA.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 11:17pm

    yet

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 12:37am

17. Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/19/2007 @ 4:57pm

    I hope you are right. But, evidently all it takes to change peoples' minds are a few sound bites, a little flag waving and a fire side chat and walla, the conservative base falls back in line. They are like trained dogs. They do what their masters tell them.

    True enough, Wolfgang, but that loyal base has shrunk down to the roughly 30% who still support BushCo and their misbegotten power-grab. The majority of even the most conservative Republican's constituents, at this point, are either independents or Democrats and will not fall into line like good little maids at school for this kind of heavy-handed propaganda.

    Posted by Stwriley at 09/20/2007 @ 11:05am

18. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/19/2007 @ 10:32pm

    Again and again, but still NO NAMES of U.S.A. citizens who have actually been denied the right of H.C. and yet the left fights to EXTEND those rights to non-citizens and specifically all enemies of our nation!

    It is not dissent, but treasonous anti-American hatred that drives such efforts plain and simple!

    And once again, Rio Bravo shows that he has no idea what he's talking about. The host of wrong assumptions and incorrect interpretations (and, of course, idiotic insults) contained in these few lines is a model of illogic and misinformation. Let's see where he went wrong and how he has distorted both the tradition of habeas corpus and those who support it's proper place in our legal tradition.

    First, there is the contention that just because no U.S. citizen has been denied habeas relief yet, that it is not possible. But that is incorrect on both counts. The government did, in fact, attempt to deny Jose Padilla habeas rights by citing Bush's "inherent Constitutional authority" but this was rejected by the NY district court as unconstitutional, so there has certainly been an attempt to deny a U.S. citizen such rights in the past. It is also true that under the MCA, the suspension of habeas, though technically confined to non-citizens, allows the detaining authority the sole determination of claims of citizenship and thus the ability to deny habeas even to a detained citizen (who may not then challenge his designation by the traditional method, a habeas suit.) So much for the first mistake.

    The second major and glaring error in Rio's little screed comes with the contention that those of us who support the restoration of habeas are somehow extending a right to non-citizens that they have never before enjoyed. This is completely counter-factual and displays a gross failure of Rio's part to even do a little basic research on his own (rather than garner his talking points from right-wing propaganda.) Not only did the Supreme Court make quite clear in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld [en.wikipedia.org] that habeas does apply to non-citizens, this wasn't exactly a new precedent when they did so. The original precedent dates all the way back to 1813 and the case of United States v. Thomas Williams [law.columbia.edu] decided by no less a legal figure than the great John Marshall. In that case Marshall confirmed the right of Williams, held under the Alien Enemies Act, to use the writ of habeas corpus in U.S. courts to challenge his detention and designation as an "enemy alien" under that act. From the beginning of our Constitutional system, it has never been the legal practice or precedent that non-citizens may be denied the right of habeas corpus unless they are involved directly in war, when (as the Supreme Court made quite clear in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) they must be treated according to the dictates of the Geneva Conventions, which provide for the treatment of lawful and unlawful combatants.

    What this all boils down to is that the entire premise of the MCA and the opposition to the restoration of habeas is wrong. Congress cannot suspend habeas except in very limited circumstances ("invasion or insurrection" are the exact words of the Constitution, neither of which currently applies) and the MCA clearly violates those circumstances. Nor can it be said that to restore a right that non-citizens have always had under U.S. law is in any way an "extension" of rights to them.

    Habeas corpus is the single most important underlying concept of our system of laws, the "Great Writ" without which all the rest of the rule of law is impossible. To say that those who attempt to preserve and restore it are "treasonous" and "anti-American" is the height of Orwellian newspeak, an attempt to paint true defenders of the American way and American principles with the putrid colors of their opponents.

    Posted by Stwriley at 09/20/2007 @ 12:07pm

19. yet

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/20/2007 @ 12:37am

    Now, now, FROSTY...atleast grant LVLIBERTY is quite a BRAVE soul willing to grant ANY President such powers.

    What do I mean? Well, I'm sure LL will support President Hillary when she and her Justice Department decide that anti-abortion groups, due to their association with people such as Eric Rudolph, are labelled "potential terrorist groups" and a threat to national security.... and are warrentless-ly wire-tapped...infiltrated by FBI...and (given Padilla) a few get hauled away with no habeus corpus.

    LVLIB swears fealty to whoever the CIC is and supports him OR HER in anything that they decide. Quite courageous of him to not worry about HIS or his friends' Constitutional rights!

    Posted by Mask at 09/20/2007 @ 12:30pm

20. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 11:17pm

    I want terrorists to have no more rights than are granted to POW's. POW's do not receive Habeas rights under Geneva and neither should the terrorists.

    You are, of course, correct that POWs are not granted habeas rights, LvLiberty, but that is not a fact that has any bearing on the current debate, as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld makes clear. The original military tribunal order from BushCo and the MCA both deny the application of the Geneva Conventions as well as the application of habeas and thus fall firmly outside of U.S. Constitutional and statute law. The detainees in question are not granted the rights of POWs, nor are they tried by regular courts as Geneva demands for unlawful combatants (those found under arms in a war situation that do not meet the designation of "soldier" and "POW".) One or the other must apply, but BushCo and the MCA invent a new category of "enemy combatant" that falls outside either, even though Geneva makes clear that this designation cannot exist within the legal and military systems of it's signatories, where it is either purely military (and thus follows Geneva) or civilian and thus must follow the regular legal processes of the country in question.

    Now, if you're arguing that we should actually apply the Geneva Conventions as written to these detainees, I'll go along with that, whichever designation you choose to hold or try them under. But that is not what the MCA does and changing it to either be in accord with U.S. law (and thus allow habeas suits) or in accord with Geneva is exactly what the Republicans in Congress have just blocked. So while you make a decent argument, it's not in support of the position you seem to be defending: rather, it supports the opposite.

    Despite the hysterical and hyperbolic rantings of the left, no US citizen is denied Habeas under the MCA.

    See my post above about the loophole in the MCA that allows exactly that. If one cannot challenge ones designation as a non-citizen through habeas then one is practically denied all habeas rights whether one is a citizen or not.

    Posted by Stwriley at 09/20/2007 @ 2:15pm

21. LVLIB swears fealty to whoever the CIC is and supports him OR HER in anything that they decide. Quite courageous of him to not worry about HIS or his friends' Constitutional rights!

    Posted by MASK 09/20/2007 @ 12:30pm

    i pointed the same thing out to RIO somewhere in this blog-o-rama thursday!

    ah here it is:

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/20/2007 @ 1:01pm

    what are you going to do when GIGANTA clinton takes possession of the throne room in 2009?

    habeus corpus will still be dead. she'll be comin' fer ya'

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/20/2007 @ 1:09pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/20/2007 @ 2:33pm