Habeas Corpus

Some interesting things about this story from The Nation.

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an important bill to restore habeas corpus, the sacrosanct Constitutional right to challenge government detention in court, by a vote of eleven to eight.

I'd like to know why eight committee members voted against restoring habeas corpus, first of all. What possible rationale is there for that? Of course, I also want to know who they are -- that would probably anser the first question, or a big part of it.

Remember this name:

Senator Chris Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race, is pushing legislation that would not only restore habeas, but also ban the use of evidence obtained through torture and recommit the U.S. to the Geneva Conventions. "We must recognize that our security is enhanced by upholding our nation's historic legal principles as we vigorously pursue terrorists," he said in a statement today. Dodd is giving a major address about his proposal at the Cardozo School of Law Commencement exercises in New York on Thursday, part of a larger effort to prioritize Constitutional rights on the national agenda – and in the presidential campaign. The Dodd Campaign has gathered over 10,000 "citizen cosponsors" for his bill, the Restoring the Constitution Act, while using YouTube, blog and netroots outreach to rally more support.

Dodd is starting to look better and better.

Obama, Clinton and Biden, the other Senators in the presidential race, have cosponsored the habeas legislation but not Dodd's bill, which currently has eleven cosponsors. The legislation faces an uphill battle in the Armed Services Committee, a much less hospitable venue for Constitutional rights than the Judiciary Committee. But there is one influential Armed Services member who opposed the Military Commissions Act and could jump start the effort to restore Constitutional rights: Hillary Clinton.

Offhand, I'd say don't hold your breath. Clinton, like the rest of the major Democratic candidates, is still running scared of the 28% of the Republican party who would never vote for her anyway, which is something I don't understand but which, I guess, is the essence of inside-the-Beltway wisdom. No wonder the country's such a mess.

Speaking of the 28%, this comment is choice:

Sure seems like the Dems, along with some RINOs, are hell bent on treating "enemy combatants" as if they are Constitutionally protected! Damn, the Dems are `Tough on Terror'!

Posted by "Happy." Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

There are, as it happens, comments following this post that are simply stupefying in their level of ignorance and lack of anything resembling rational thought processes. They're even too stupid to be funny. This one's merely the introduction.