Menendez Statement on Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007

questions about Dodd's bill (0.00 / 0)

Yesterday's diary announcing that they had come up with corrective legislation, prompted Roger to ask:

Does this bill assume the commissions Act effected Habeus for citizens & Non citizens, and then goes on to restore habeus.
Menendez was of the opinion that the COmmissions Act did not affect Habeus for citizens, so has he changed his mind?

The restore-habeas.org site that jmelli cites has the text. 

The aclu has come out in support of the Dodd legislation, so I'd like to know from Camille who also raised questions about whether the bill repeals enough of the MCA yesterday, where she differs from them.  Might not have time to get to the talk she mentions she'll be giving on March 6.

The section on habeas corpus looks to me (I'm not a lawyer) like it repeals everything that the MCA did.  Here's all of the MCA section on habeas corpus.  It replaced section e of the code, the MCA replacement is repealed in the Dodd bill, as is (b) below, if I'm reading the Dodd text correctly.

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

---

by: kwilkinson @ Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 21:51:48 PM UTC

Straight from Dodds website (0.00 / 0)

Today, I plan on re-introducing the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007. The bill will restore Habeas Corpus protections to detainees, bar information acquired through torture from being introduced as evidence in trials, and limit presidential authority to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.

From:

http://restore-habea...

SO it seems that this is Dodds old bill from late '06.

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien

`

I dont see my Habeas above..... or below:

http://restore-habea...

Constitutional scholar Jonthon Turley on KO, stunning video from crooks & liars:

.

`Anyone in this country can be declared an enemy combatant

`

My initial reaction is Dodds bill is crap, it does not stop me from being declared an enemy combatant and then losing my habeas rights.

I still say the MCA is unconstitutional.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:48:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Section 948 of the MCA looks to be intact, considering Dodds bill (4.00 / 1)

Doods bill in section 2 changes the definition

http://restore-habea...

But only in paragraph 1 of 948a.

Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.

`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

------------------------

this is better than I thought at first. Paragrpah 1 of section 948a was bad medicine. It allows the President to say your are a bad guy and make you vanish.  Its gone. Amoungst other bad stuff.

I feel much better now.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:21:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am sorry,its late (0.00 / 0)

paragraph 1 of 948a of the MCA is ammended, which is good.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:23:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Section 14 of Dodds bill (0.00 / 0)

http://restore-habea...

Repeals Section 7 (b) of Public law 109-366.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

http://thomas.loc.go...

I still can't find my Habeas Corpus.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 03:03:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not a fan... (0.00 / 0)

...of yet more legislation to correct bad legislation.  I haven't done an analysis of the Dodds bill, but I plan to this week. 

In any event, you should all be aware that the history of habeas corpus has shown that it's an inherent right that cannot be taken away (or given) by legislation.  The Constitution doesn't "establish" it or give Congress the right to establish or abolish it.  The Constitution only says that it "shall not be suspended" except it may be in times of rebellion or invasion.  (May, not must.)  It recognizes its existence outside of the Constitution.

Habeas Corpus goes back even before the Magna Charta -- that document is merely the first to have it written down. 

To legislate habeas corpus is like saying you can legislate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But the MCA has a lot more wrong with it than that! 

Common Sense for the Common Good

---

by: Camille @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 12:57:01 PM UTC

I think a key maybe (0.00 / 0)

Dodds bill repeals paragraph 1 of section 948a of the MCA.

This seems to prevent US citizens from being labeled as an enemy combatant, as Jon Turley says in the video.
And I agree, trying to take Habeas is moot. Its bigger than the Constitution.

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

---

by: FogerRox @ Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 17:48:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]