by hilzoy
Via FDL, I see that Sen. Leahy is asking people to phone their Senators in support of S. 185, the Habeas Restoration Act. This bill does exactly what it says it does: it undoes the provisions of last year's Military Commissions Act that deprived detainees of habeas corpus. I think that links to search results in Thomas, the congressional database, don't work, but if you go here and look up S. 185, you'll find it.
Leahy writes (via FDL):
"Many of you may recall the hasty passage of the Military Commissions Act in the weeks leading up to last year's election, a bill that set new rules for trying detainees, in particular those currently being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.The passage of this bill was a profound mistake, and its elimination of habeas corpus review was its worst error. Righting this wrong is one of my top priorities, and on the first day of this Congress I joined with Senator Arlen Specter to introduce the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act (S. 185). This bipartisan bill already has 17 cosponsors, but it faces a crucial vote in the Judiciary Committee this Thursday so we need your help."
The bill is currently sponsored by the following Senators, in addition to Sen. Specter, who wrote it:
Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE]
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH]
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA]
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT]
Sen Durbin, Richard [IL]
Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI]
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA]
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA]
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. [MA]
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA]
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ]
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]
Sen Levin, Carl [MI]
Sen Obama, Barack [IL]
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV]
Sen Salazar, Ken [CO]
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI]
FDL has compiled a list of toll-free numbers for the Capitol switchboard:
1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437
If you agree that habeas corpus should be restored to detainees -- that everyone our government detains should have the right to ask the government to justify their detention in a court of law, so that the government cannot just toss people in prison without any accountability -- then it would be worth giving your Senators a call. Thanks.
Thomas links are a mess. Some of them are permanent, though (generally the ones that contain a bill number and don't contain "temp"), and somewhere there's an explanation of how to construct them manually if you don't get a permanent one. Maybe someday they'll have permanent links easily available like blogs, but it's been years, so I'm not holding my breath.
Here is a link that should be permanent. It's "http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d" + the Congress number (currently 110) + a colon + the bill number (it will accept a few formats -- with an without periods and leading zeros) + a final colon. Hideous, but at least it works.
Posted by: KCinDC | June 06, 2007 at 01:37 PM
I see Specter hasn't been able to get any other Republicans to cosponsor. For the good of the country, and to improve the chances of passage, I hope some can be persuaded by constituent pressure.
Posted by: KCinDC | June 06, 2007 at 01:42 PM
"Sen Salazar, Ken [CO]"
My Senator is already signed up. It would be nice to think that I'd accomplish something beyond a waste of time by calling Wayne Allard's office, but it doesn't seem likely. He wouldn't care if 80% of the state were for the bill: he's not running for re-election, and reason never played any role in any of his decisions up to now, anyway.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 06, 2007 at 02:31 PM
John Warner isn't eager:
Sigh.Posted by: Gary Farber | June 06, 2007 at 02:39 PM
It's a bloody nuisance being represented by Russ sometimes. I never get to call him to tell him what to do!
Posted by: Anarch | June 06, 2007 at 02:59 PM
Well, looks like my email to Senator Warner will be wasted then.
I tried to call. All of his lines were busy. They've been busy or just not answered every time I try to call his office. Even through the switchboard. Not even some kind of voicemail. Pretty amateurish for a US Senator.
Posted by: Nate | June 06, 2007 at 03:03 PM
I wouldn't give up on Warner. Allard is a non-entity, with pure cotton for brains. But Warner, although conservative, is a smart guy, who has been around for a long time, and takes the Senate as an institution to have value; he's not a pure rollover dog for the administration, even though sometimes his votes come out the same: but not always. It's not impossible that he might come around eventually.
Sending a non-form piece of snail mail is probably better than a phone call, anyway.
Also, you might try calling his local office, rather than Washington, if you can't get through to D.C.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 06, 2007 at 03:10 PM
Any chance of rolling back the "immunity from war crimes" provisions of the MCA?
Posted by: Sasha | June 06, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Sasha, even if Bush wouldn't veto the restoration of habeas corpus, he obviously would veto any undoing of his immunity for war crimes (assuming that's even theoretically possible), and I'd say there's pretty clearly no chance of getting enough Republicans to go along for a veto-proof majority.
Posted by: KCinDC | June 06, 2007 at 03:43 PM
I know, but there's always hope.
I'm probably being naive here but why wouldn't it be possible to undo immunity for war crimes? Or am I misreading your post?
Posted by: Sasha | June 06, 2007 at 04:37 PM
So what does Section 2 (b) do? It looks kind of bad on its face, but is the previous section (b) it is replacing even worse?
Posted by: DaveW | June 06, 2007 at 05:27 PM
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter or in section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever,
I'm mostly trusting the sponsors that the law does what they say it does -- I don't have a full sense of how the provisions interrelate. That said, what it looks like is that the provision maintains the fact that no suit relating to detention other than a habeas petition may be brought, but the bolded language restores habeas rights.
Posted by: LizardBreath | June 06, 2007 at 06:33 PM
It's a bit tricky, since Section 950j of title 10 is a new section, inserted by the MCA, and hasn't made it into the official US Code sites. I checked out the bill earlier using my pdf of the MCA, but I think I've found the right version on Thomas, and in it the section to be altered says:
"(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter."
So it basically changes a para. that says: Notwithstanding any laws except this chapter, and specially notwithstanding any habeas statutes... to one that says: notwithstanding any laws except this chapter and the habeas statutes...
I'm guessing they're trying to keep this bill simple, changing only the habeas parts and nothing else.
Posted by: hilzoy | June 06, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Nice to see Sherrod Brown is already on board with this. Voinovich voted for the MCA originally, so I can't really see him voting for this.
Posted by: Phil | June 06, 2007 at 07:38 PM
@Nate: There's a robo-call campaign right now on behalf of immigration reform; that may be what's gumming up the lines in Warner's office.
Warner's office responds to letters sent via his web-page contact link just the same as if they were paper letters (many weeks later, but they do respond). They read and record the opinion pretty promptly.
I'm faxing my letter to his office, and also sending one to Webb. It's very likely that Webb already is planning to vote for this bill, but I take nothing for granted.
Warner web contact page
Webb via web
Warner fax: 202-224-6295
Webb fax: 202-228-6363
Posted by: Nell | June 06, 2007 at 07:46 PM
Sherrod Brown better be out lobbying other Senators; he voted for the MCA, and this is only a partial rollback (though a crucial first step).
Posted by: Nell | June 06, 2007 at 07:48 PM
I'm so glad to be living in Illinois. It gives me so many chances to be lazy.
Posted by: Brian | June 06, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Phil, Specter voted for the MCA, and he's sponsoring this rollback. Not everyone who voted for the thing was thrilled with the habeas-stripping provision. Don't assume Voinovich is unreachable.
Posted by: KCinDC | June 07, 2007 at 01:05 AM
Now 19 cosponsors. Barbara Boxer signed on yesterday. Still no Republicans.
Posted by: KCinDC | June 07, 2007 at 10:32 AM
I called too late -- but that means I'm first with the news: the bill PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE!!
Practically every Democratic member of the Committee co-sponsored the bill by the end.
Every once in a long while, I am proud to be a registered Democrat.
Posted by: trilobite | June 07, 2007 at 02:35 PM
Well, I left a message for Webb the other day, and yeah, Warner's office has been good about replying to emails via letters over the years. Often form letters that ignore much of what I said in the email, but this was a pretty simple topic, so hey.
I still can't say I really like the man, though. Especially with all the times he's gotten up and acted indignant to the press about different things Bush wanted to do, then just caved.
Posted by: Nate | June 07, 2007 at 02:59 PM
I'm so glad to be living in Illinois. It gives me so many chances to be lazy.
Ah yes. I'm guiltlessly lazy in MA also.
Posted by: bernard Yomtov | June 07, 2007 at 07:49 PM