9 Former Judges Plead With Congress-DON'T Indiscriminately Imprison People

[kpete]

Last Thursday nine former federal judges sent a letter to Congress http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pdf/retiredjudgesletter.pdf detailing their opposition to the proposed McCain, Graham, Warner Military Commissions Act of 2006 which would strip US prisoners held outside the United States from their right to habeas corpus.

We applaud Congress for taking action establishing procedures to try individuals for war crimes and, in particular, Senator Warner, Senator Graham, and others for ensuring that those procedures prohibit the use of secret evidence and evidence gained by coercion. Revoking habeas corpus, however, creates the perverse incentive of allowing individuals to be detained indefinitely on that very basis by stripping the federal courts of their historic inquiry into the lawfulness of a prisoner's confinement.

Why is this important? What is habeas corpus? And, why should we care?

Simply, habeas corpus, known as the Great Writ, is vital to a free society because it is the principle means by which government is restrained from indiscriminately and indefinitely imprisoning people. Habeas corpus "is a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law."

As the nine Judges conclude:

For two hundred years, the federal judiciary has maintained Chief Justice Marshall's solemn admonition that ours is a government of laws, and not men. The proposed legislation imperils this proud history by abandoning the Great Writ to the siren call of military necessity. We urge you to remove the provision stripping habeas jurisdiction from the proposed Military Commissions Act of 2006 and to reject any legislation that deprives the federal courts of habeas jurisdiction over pending Guantanamo detainee cases.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pdf/retiredjudgesletter.pdf
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/18/154635/318

[Zensea]

1. I knew it - John Gibbons is at the top of the list

a Republican judge, appointed by Nixon.
http://www.gibbonslaw.com/attys/dsp_viewattorney.cfm?bioid=78
"John J. Gibbons is the founder of the firm's John J. Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest and Constitutional Law. Mr. Gibbons is the former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, he served on that Court from 1970-1990."

Also the lead lawyer in Rasul v. Bush
http://www.gibbonslaw.com/publications/UploadedFiles/Guantanamo_bay.pdf

another interview here
http://www.gibbonslaw.com/publications/uploadedfiles/defending-freedom.pdf

A very interesting man. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak about a year ago.

[indepat]

2. Now ours is a government of men, not of laws for one man and his

minions are not above the law, they are the law, period, EOS, discussion over.

[kpete]

3. Lets say it over and over

THEY ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW!

[Sydnie]

5. When the pResident does it - it's STILL ILLEGAL!

Otherwise, all of the Nixon cronies should file to get their sentences removed from their record.

What happened to Punishment for crimes AGAINST THE STATE? :mad:

[indepat]

10. May you be proved correct on this point, but the number of Repug

Congresspeople who will still support the administration's every whim is staggering and the number who would not impeach, no matter how compelling the mountain of high crimes, is minuscule IMO: in effect, we have a vast cult of minions and other true believers who have drunk the kool aid and no antidote for its cure is in the offing.

[Jcrowley]

4. K&R

n/t

[me b zola]

6. k&r

[Nikki Stone 1]

7. To be at the point where we have to BEG our president to follow the

Constitution?!

What the hell kind of handbasket are we in?

[struggle4progress]

8. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless

when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

US Constitution, Art I, Sec 9

[Miss Chybil]

9. Just because Congress makes a law, doesn't make it Constitutional

right? Whatever they do can still be challenged in court - or, am I wrong?