HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Finally, Democratic lawmakers are beginning to step up and speak the truth about the horrible "compromise" legislation crafted by Republicans on detainee treatment.

Yesterday, it was Barack Obama stepping up and speaking the truth about gutting the writ of habeas corpus. Today, it appears there will be many more.

The establishment of the "Great Writ" is one of the most important moments in human history, for without it the idea of individual liberty would quite literally be impossible.

It is one of the most basic rights on which everything else, including the idea of representative democracy itself, stands. It is a right so fundamental that it was enshrined in the Constitution itself, and not added later with the passage of the bill of rights. More important than freedom of speech. More important than the right to bear arms. more important than the freedom of religion. More important than the protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

Article I, Section 9:

"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."

Only in the most dire emergencies was this right to be suspended. Only once before during our history, during the Civil War itself, have we found its suspension necessary. Not during WWI. Not during WWII. Not during either Red Scares, nor during the entirely of the Cold War.

But today the this administration, along with the Republican Party it apparently owns, have decided that we must give up this writ, the very basis of individual liberty itself, to protect that very same liberty. Bruce Ackerman (via Kevin Drum) explains just how horribly awry things have gone:

The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States....It also allows him to seize anybody who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.

Not to worry, say the bill's defenders. The president can't detain somebody who has given money innocently, just those who contributed to terrorists on purpose.

But other provisions of the bill call even this limitation into question. What is worse, if the federal courts support the president's initial detention decision, ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.

Kevin is right. If human history is any guide, conservatives will come to deeply regret this decision. This change opens the door for abuse not just by this administration, but by all future administrations. It guts one of the most fundamental rights we have, a right that millions of people have over the past 300+ years fought and died to defend. These rights are in our constitution because history shows that unless they are fiercely guarded they will be abused and ignored. Only we can protect them; they do not rise up to protect themselves.

Finally, after keeping silent for far too long, leaders of the Democratic Party are stepping up to speak the truth about this legislation. Today, Senators Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, and Leahy, among others, have come forward to speak.

Sen. Feingold:

But this bill remains deeply flawed, and I cannot support it.

One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill eliminates the right of habeas corpus for those detained as enemy combatants. I support an amendment by Senator Specter to strike that provision from the bill. I ask unanimous consent that my separate statement on that amendment be put in the record at the appropriate point.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of executive detention decisions.

Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress, habeas corpus “safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy – ensuring that no man is imprisoned unlawfully.”

Mr. President, this bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus.

Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the law.

Mr. President, that is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But that determination will take years of protracted litigation.

Mr. President, why would we turn our back on hundreds of years of history and our nation’s commitment to liberty -- particularly when there is no good reason to do so? We should be working to provide a lawful system of military commissions so that those who have committed war crimes can be brought to justice. We can do that quite well without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government.

Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that argument is circular – the writ of habeas allows those who might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court, before a neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact, enemy combatants. Unless any of my colleagues can say with absolute certainty that everyone detained as an enemy combatant was correctly detained – and there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case – then we should make sure that people can’t simply be locked up forever, without court review, based on someone slapping a “terrorist” label on them.

Sen. Dodd:

Mr. President, the Administration and Republican leadership would have the American people believe that the War on Terror requires a choice between protecting America from terrorism and upholding the basic tenets upon which our country was founded -- but not both. This canard has been showcased in every recent election cycle. I fully reject that reasoning. We can, and we must, balance our responsibilities to bring terrorists to justice, while at the same time protecting what it means to be America. To choose the rule of law over the passion of the moment takes courage. But it is the right thing to do if we are to uphold the values of equal justice and due process that are codified in our Constitution.

Our founding fathers established the legal framework of our country on the premise that those in government are not infallible. America’s leaders knew this sixty years ago, when they determined how to deal with Nazi leaders guilty of horrendous crimes. There were strong and persuasive voices, at the time, crying out for the execution of these men who had commanded with ruthless efficiency the slaughter of six million innocent Jews and five million other innocent men, women, and children. After World War II, our country was forced to decide if the accused criminals deserved a trial or execution.

This history is particularly personal to me. My father, Thomas Dodd, worked alongside Justice Robert Jackson in prosecuting these trials at Nuremberg. He viewed Nuremberg as one of the most pivotal moments in our history – where America chose to uphold the rule of law rather than succumb to rule of the mob. Let me be clear: these enemies of the United States were not given the opportunity to walk away from their crimes. Rather, they were given the right to face their accuser, the right to confront evidence against them, and the right to a fair trial. Underlying that decision was the conviction that this nation must not tailor its most fundamental principles to the conflict of the moment -- and the recognition that if we did, we would be walking in the very footsteps of the enemies we despised.

Sen. Kerry:

We must start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence. That seems obvious, but this Administration still doesn’t get it. Right now – today -- they are trying to rush a bill through Congress that will fundamentally undermine our moral authority, put our troops at greater risk, and make our country less safe.

Let me be clear about something—something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture. It gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. No matter how much well-intended United States Senators would like to believe otherwise, it gives an Administration that lobbied for torture just what it wanted.

The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President. But we have seen in Iraq the consequences of simply accepting the word of this Administration. No, we cannot just accept the word of this Administration that they will not engage in torture given that everything they’ve already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror.

Sen. Leahy:

The bill before us would not merely suspend the writ of habeas corpus; it would eliminate it permanently. It would cut off all habeas petitions – not just those founded on relatively technical claims, but also those founded on claims of complete innocence. It would not be limited to enemy combatants in the traditional sense of foreign fighters captured on the battlefield; it would apply to any alien picked up anywhere in the world and suspected of possibly supporting enemies of the United States. We do not need this bill for those truly captured on the battlefield who had taken up arms against the United States. That is why the definition of “enemy combatant” has been so expansively redefined in the dark of night. This bill is designed instead to sweep others into the net and it would not require even an administrative determination that the Government’s suspicions have a reasonable basis. By its plain language, it would deny all access to the courts of any alien “awaiting” a Government determination as to whether the alien is an enemy combatant, a determination that the Government would be free to delay as long as it liked—for years, for decades, for the length of the conflict which is so undefined and may last for decades or more.

That is not speculation. It is not a critic’s characterization of the bill. It is what the bill plainly says, on its face. It is what the Bush-Cheney Administration is demanding. It is what any member who votes against the Specter-Leahy amendment and for the bill today will be endorsing[...]

We have a profoundly important and dangerous choice to make today. The danger is not that we adopt a “pre-9/11 mentality.” We adopted a post-9/11 mentality in the PATRIOT Act when we declined to suspend the writ, and we can do so again today. The danger, as Senator Feingold has stated in a different context, is that we adopt a pre-1776 mentality: one that dismisses the Constitution on which our American freedoms are founded. Actually, it is worse than that. Habeas corpus was the most basic protection of freedom that Englishmen secured from their King in the Magna Carta. The mentality adopted by this bill, in abolishing habeas corpus for a broad swath of people, is a pre-1215 mentality.

The media is covering this as if it were simply a matter of politics. It is not. It is about gutting one of the foundations of our system of constitutional government. I realize that bloggers can at times make everything sound like a crisis and emergency, but this is not one of those times. This threat is real, and it is on the verge of becoming reality.

Call your Senators. Send them an email. Even those of you in states whose Senators oppose this measure need to make your voice heard.

Democracy does not happen on its own. It does not defend itself. It is not just your right but your responsibility to do your part. This is a fight we must not lose.

UPDATE: Leahy has now made mention of the possibility of a filibuster. Now is not the time for Democrats to be afraid of their own shadows. Stand up and defend liberty. Vote your conscience, and I promise you, the voters at home will reward you. Stand up and defend your beliefs. Draw the line and do whatever is necessary to make sure this bill does not pass.