Ask Senator Cornyn to Reinstate Habeas Corpus

Thursday marks an important milestone for Senate bill S.185, known as the "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act." The bill, authored by Senators Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy and co-sponsored by 17 senators, would restore the writ of habeas corpus to detainees held under under the Military Commissions Act. Tomorrow's vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee will determine whether the bill moves to the floor for a full debate.

It's vitally important for Texans to make themselves heard on this bill. Sen. John Cornyn serves on the Judiciary Committee. Call his office and ask him to support the bill. Firedoglake has a list of toll-free numbers for the capitol switchboard.

Don't hold your breath that Cornyn will see the light. Last fall, we witnessed what might be the nadir of his short and undistinguished tenure in the Senate, when Cornyn, previously a Texas Attorney General and Texas Supreme Court Justice, argued stridently and ultimately successfully for the suspension of one of our most fundamental rights under the Constitution. The debate on what became known as the "torture bill" drew some of the most impassioned and dramatic testimony of the session.

So make that call. And when you're done, make a donation to the campaign of his future replacement. It isn't every day you can help to right two wrongs.

Hat tip to Texas Moratorium Network .

Guantanamo Lawyer Calls Out Senator Cornyn

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.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2
The Constitution of the United States

This is how Rear Admiral John Hutson, Ret. began his testimony on what's being referred to as the "torture bill."

A persuasive argument can be made that the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Great Writ, is the single most important bulwark in protecting our rights and freedoms. It is virtually sacrosanct, and those who have suspended it have often been treated harshly by history. That is why these hearings are so important and the action Congress is being asked to take is so momentous. This is an historic moment.

Today's hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee examined the compromise provisions that suspends habeas corpus for detainees labeled "enemy combatants." The Senate Judiciary Chair, Arlen Specter (R-PA), has previously stated his objections to the suspension:

"The courts have traditionally been open to make sure that individual rights are protected, and that is fundamental," Specter said on CNN's "Late Edition. "And the Constitution says when you can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, in time of rebellion or invasion. And we don't have either. So that has to be changed, in my opinion."

But our own Senator John Cornyn shows us why he's one of Bush's favorite lapdogs.

.....the Texas Republican who was the only other member of the committee present for the unusual Monday morning hearing, defended the bill, which he said provided “an alternative source of judicial review rather than the writ of habeas corpus,’’ in the form of annual status reviews and the possibility of appeal after trials before military tribunals.

“It is important to remember — and sometimes I think some forget — these are enemies of the United States captured on the battlefield,’’ Mr. Cornyn said

Cornyn's testimony was rebutted eloquently and forcefully by turns, including Admiral Hutson's address. But my favorite, by far, was from Tom Sullivan, a partner in the law firm that has represented ten prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Senator Cornyn, I'd like to address a few remarks you made.

You said these are enemies of the United States captured on the battlefield. None of the 10 we represent were captured on the battlefield or are enemies of the United States.

You said no one suggested that the enemy combatants were entitled to the habeas corpus. The Supreme Court of the United States in the Rasul case two years ago held specifically that they were entitled to habeas corpus, to challenge the reason for their detention.

You said they have an administrative review following a trial on the merits. None of them got a trial on the merits....

No cross-examination was allowed. There wasn't any objection to physical evidence, because there wasn't any produced.

Now, you call that due process, Your Honor? Do you?

Well, of course he does. Senator Cornyn can call it anything he wants. He's a former Attorney General. He served on the Supreme Court of Texas, for goodness sakes! Maybe he tapped into the unitary executive theory by proxy, who knows? At any rate, in case you haven't noticed, we're in a war!

Key members of Congress are trying to enable the highest officers in the land by suspending portions of the Constitution so that the government can indefinitely detain people, and sanction a torture bill. Heaven help us.

specter ready to sue president bush over unconstitutional signing statements

Since the beginning of his administration, President Bush has shown that he doesn't put much stock in what Congress says. After all, he's the decider. Even though he just used his first veto last week over the stem cell research bill, he has shown his contempt for over 800 individual laws in the bills he has signed by creating signing statements in which he declares that he doesn't really have to listen to the legislation even after it becomes law.

Signing statements have been used by presidents, typically for such purposes as instructing agencies how to execute new laws.

But many of Bush's signing statements serve notice that he believes parts of bills he is signing are unconstitutional or might violate national security.

The White House insists that these signing statements are not intended to provide the president a means in which to ignore the law, but others feel differently: namely, the American Bar Association.

President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.

The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.

Now, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, has decided that the time has come to challenge President Bush's blatant disregard for constitutional measure. Senator Specter has said that he will have a bill ready by Monday allowing Congress to sue the president in a federal court.

"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will... authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said on the Senate floor.

Specter's announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.

The ABA report that found Bush's signing statements unconstitutional also came to the conclusion that the unlawful practice came about during the Reagan administration. Apparently, President Reagan was instructed to use this "strategic weapon" by young lawyer Samuel Alito, Bush's latest Supreme Court installment.

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn was quick to side with the president, as usual. He pointed out that signing statements hold no weight in the courts and are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, when pressed on the issue, said that "it's important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions."

According to top Democrats, Specter's legislation will be supported by the progressive caucus and many moderate Republicans. Senator Patrick Leahy, senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committe and a Vermont Democrat, said last month that "we are at a pivotal moment in our nation's history, where Americans are faced with a president who makes sweeping claims for almost unchecked executive power."