I get the point of the article, but the caption is misleading. It is simply not correct to say that a failed cloture vote "blocks" a bill. It only leaves the bill open for debate and further amendment. That could work for the benefit of those who want the bill passed as well as those who oppose it.

Just more stomping on individual rights by the repugnican scum who thought they could hijack the country. At least their days are numbered.

This is one of the best programs I have heard on the subject:

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331

Filibuster. The GOP filibustered the bill. Our compliant corporate press refuses to say that the GOP filibustered anything, because obviously Democrats are the only people that filibuster.

John W.,

As a matter of law/policy/Constitutionality have you an opinion about this?

If yes, what?

Thank you.

'48 FORTY-EIGHT FILLIBUSTERS BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY" MOST IN AMERICAS HISTORY.

THE GOP THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT SITS on Congressional floors are stonewalling america to the blink of catastrophic potentials.

THE GOP IS NOW A THREAT TO AMERICAS NATIONAL SECURITY BY NOT PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

The GOP has done nothing but protect this President and AT&T, VERIZON WIRELESS, BLACKHAWK, HALLIBURTON, BECHTEL AND ALL Federal No Bid Contracts extended in the Last Congress.

This is a joke and an admission of crimes against the People of the United States and the Constitution of the United States.

THE SENATE, NO THE REPUBLICANS.

CENSORSHIP OR IMPEACHMENT IS NOT AN OPTION.

lochness,
Agreed, glad they have the transcript back up but don't count on the Repukelics listening or reading that program. They won't even respond to the finding that only 8% of detainiees have been classified by the Pentagon as al-Qaeda. Only 5% were captured by American forces, 86% were turned over by the Northern Alliance or Pakistan. In other words we only scooped up 5% on the battlefield. The rest were handed over to us in exchange for $5000 or $10000 bounties, a lot of money in that part of the world.
"And when you look at the economy of that part of the world, you know, that really is a kind of a king's ransom", Rear Admiral John Hutson.

I'm glad the Senate didn't vote to give American civil rights to animal terrorists who want to kill innocent Americans. This stupid amendment was supported by Dickie Durbin, Harry Reid, Pat Leaky Lahey and our own idiot RINO Arlen Specter.Habaeus Corpus never made it to to war time under FDR he was a real Democrat before they were taken over by MoveOn.org and the McGovernites. Jerry White, Springfield, IL USA Yes! Islamic Jihadists NO!

jethro:

This American Life had another program on about two friends who were swept up as "terrorists" and they told their story. I could not find the link...it is a few years old. They were released though and that is how they were able to be interviewed for the show.

Glad to see all you neocons think all these people are terrorists and are proven guilty just because Bush and company say so. Bush can label any one a terrorist without proof and that is just fine with you.

Doug,

My views on this are quite simple when it comes to the Constitution. Everyone under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government is entitled to "due process." The Fifth Amendment says so. [The only part of the Fifth Amendment explicitly excepted from operation in military cases is the indictment clause; meaning, by negative implication, all other rights therein apply.] Those held at Guantanamo Bay qualify as "persons," within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, and they are certainly under the jurisdiction of the federal government by virtue of their custody there.

If there is to be any grievous loss inflicted as punishment, they are entitled to a hearing before a neutral fact-finder that affords them an opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." That normally includes the rights to: know the time and place for the hearing, a sufficiently prompt hearing, sufficient notice of the charges and evidence against them to be able to mount a defense, time to prepare a defense, confront and challenge the evidence presented against them, and to testify and present evidence in their own defense. Since they have never before been adjudicated guilty of any crime, the assistance of counsel would also seem to be required.

But the military commissions, as originally authorized by Congress last year, have apparently failed. Some, we are told, haven't even been able to figure out what is or isn't an “unlawful enemy combatant.” More importantly, it appears that very few of the detainees denominated “unlawful enemy combatants” are getting their day in court. Thus, there is good evidence there has been a basic failure of basic fairness as required even in the case of unlawful enemy combatants.

It seems to me only fair that habeas corpus should be extended to those who have been held without a hearing so long. Otherwise, they have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law to challenge the lawfulness of their custody. I don’t believe military appeals are available pre-trial to challenge the lawfulness or conditions of custody.

Besides, I wasn’t aware that the conditions necessary to suspend habeas corpus have ever existed. If it hasn’t been suspended, or the conditions for suspension don’t exist, then their status as “unlawful enemy combatants” shouldn’t deprive them of the right to seek habeas corpus. German saboteurs during World War II tried as “unlawful enemy combatants” were afforded the right to seek habeas corpus. (See Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).) There is no principled reason why today’s war furnishes grounds to depart from that practice. Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter seems to think the denial of habeas to detainees is unconstitutional. In contrast, Senator Lindsey Graham – who authored the Military Commissions act of 2006 is a dunce and looks like Howdy Doody too. Compare the pictures on:

http://www.msichicago.org/scrapbook/scrapbook_exhibits/howdy_doody/index.html

- and,

http://lgraham.senate.gov/

As for the rest of the detainees – who are mere “enemy combatants,” the Constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit their detention for the duration of the war. I don’t know exactly how to approach their dilemma, because, as wars go, this one is very different. We are fighting against an enemy that has no uniforms or country, in a war without any specific fronts or battlefields. Who is to say when such a war is over, or even if it is really a “war” within the meaning of the Constitution? Until someone figures all of this out, those detainees could spend a long time in custody. Hopefully, the goat herders mistakenly identified as enemy combatants, and the like, will be able to challenge their custody on habeas corpus for some defect in the hearing officers’ findings.

These are my views.

I suppose anyone, especially clueless ones from Springfield, doesn't find it disturbing that the US has released never convicted prisoners after spending years in prison for nothing more then some tribesman having a grudge agianst another villager & falsely accussing them of being a terrorist.

This is what America has become. Since all at Guantamino are Muslim, what difference is it anyway.

Are you still going to defend that?

The Left getting mixed up. The US Constitution gives rights to US Citzens. It does not cover terrorists, or foreigners captured in other lands. Neither does the Geneva Convention cover these animals. The only right they have is three meals of water and bread, and the right to a bullit in their heads once we extracted the information we want.

These animals do not care about how the Left feels about them nor anyone else. If released, they will go back to cutting off heads of anyone that disagrees with them. They do not care about others' rights.

I'm glad the Senate didn't vote to give American civil rights to animal terrorists who want to kill innocent Americans.

Posted by: Jerry White | September 19, 2007 3:51 PM

Should the senate give civil rights to anti-abortion terrorists who want to kill innocent Americans?

John W.,

Thank you. Your considered professional opinions on law and Constitution is enlightening.

Darkwater:

Take a deep breath.

Now read along with me:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Good. If you have been following along, you just read the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It doesn’t talk about citizens. It doesn’t talk about Americans. It talks about a “person” facing criminal charges. If it meant to speak individually or collectively about “the People” or “citizens,” it would have used those words. This is so because other portions of the Constitution use the words “the People” or “citizens,” when the meaning carried by those words is intended. (See U.S. Const. Article 4, Section 2; 2nd Amend.; 4th Amend.) The fact the Fifth Amendment uses the word “person” demonstrates that it applies to everyone regardless of whether they are citizens, resident aliens, terrorists, or even illegal aliens. The United States Supreme Court has said so on a number of occasions over the past 140 years. The bottom line is that the Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to afford basic fairness toward everyone whom it seeks to screw over.

You get no kewpie doll or water pistol for your answer.

Next!

Sorry, you are wrong John W. The U.S. Supreme Court has long ago defined who is covered. The Constition does not cover those that are captured in Foreign Lands. The Supreme Court has made that clear. In fact, the courts do not care how a crimminal is captured in a foreign country, and brought here to the U.S.- ie Noriega. Foreigners captured are not Americans, they are not covered under the Constitution as long as they remain in capitivity outside the U.S. ie Cuba.

Darkwater:

You have made several assumptions that are wrong. They are:

1. Assuming Cuba or, more correctly, Guantanamo Bay, is “outside” the U.S. To the contrary Guantanamo Bay is in every practical respect a United States territory. Under a 1903 lease, reaffirmed in 1934, the United States has perpetual control over the territory, and its terms are indefinite at the discretion of the U.S. government. In other words, we could hold it forever if we wanted. While the Cuban’s supposedly retain ultimate “sovereignty” over the land, the United States has unchallenged control over it. (See Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval Stations, Feb. 23, 1903, U. S.-Cuba, Art. III, T. S. No. 418.)

Since the detainees are not outside the jurisdiction of the United States by their location at the Guantanamo Bay detention unit, the U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with the rights of foreigners held in foreign prison facilities doesn’t apply.

2. Assuming that the Right to Prosecute a Writ of Habeas Corpus doesn’t apply to Guantanamo. In Rasul v. Bush, 452 U.S. 466 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held that detainees in Guantanamo have the right to petition for habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their custody. In doing so, the Court pointed out that, at common law, courts had the power to entertain habeas corpus petitions where the petitioner was held in territories “under the subjection of the Crown,” even if the land was one over which England did not have sovereignty. Thus, the question is no longer whether the United States has “sovereignty” over the land, but whether it has control over the territory and the custodian of the petitioner. There is no doubt the federal courts of the United States have jurisdiction over the person in control of Guantanamo’s prison. See above at point 1. for the U.S. control over the base.

3. Assuming that Foreigner’s Held in U.S. Custody Where the U.S. Has Territorial Jurisdiction Do Not have Due Process Rights. It is true, as you suggest that foreigners, captured and held outside of U.S. territorial boundaries do not have constitutional protections. (See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763, 784 (1950).) However, it is equally true that foreigners have the protection of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause once they enter lands over which the U.S. courts have territorial jurisdiction. (See Eisentrager, at 777-78; Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 210 (1982); and Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 77 (1976).) Even aliens who have come to the United States illegally are entitled to procedural due process before they are subject to exclusion and deportation. (See Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206, 212 (1953). See above as to why Guantanamo qualifies as a place over which the U.S. courts have territorial jurisdiction.

4. Assuming The Due Process Protections Complained of Dealt With Their Capture. If you noticed, the main complaint of which I spoke had nothing to do with the manner of the detainees capture. What I said was a violation of their “due process rights” was the fact the government has afforded few hearings to those held at Guantanamo. Those being held as “unlawful enemy combatants” and subject to prosecution under the laws of war have a right to a fair hearing. They are not getting their hearings at all. Instead, they are left there to languish in custody with only the anxiety of facing criminal charges. No process is not due process at all.

The example you gave of Noriega doesn't prove your point. He was given a fair trial in the United States. He was afforded every procedural right under the Constitution, including to have his case determined by a jury. That wasn't because they were just being nice. They did it because they had to.

It appears as though you are thinking that a number of World War II era cases decided by the Supreme Court are still good law. To the extent they are still good law, they don’t have much application because Guantanamo is not truly on foreign soil for purposes of the law. However, to a large extent, those cases have been undermined by more recent pronouncements of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawmakers were deceived by the tune of silver and gold. Now there silent betrayal of those they serve is known.

We are waiting in hope our heroes in office redeem our hope, and our heroes shine brighter for telling the truth.

Governments, Advocates, Churches, and Media put pressure on sex offenders who are struggling daily to make a way for their families.

To be ashamed of being a flawed human who makes mistakes, is the responsibility of the person/group/s allowing laws of decimation which is abuse.

Inflicting pain on any person who has been betrayed by that societies recklessness to hide the truth because of its own shame is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

By continuing to advocate lifetime sentences, separation, eradication, concerning sexual offenses is recognition of the breakdown of group/s and any system/s which supports this human rights abuse .

There can be no justice where the responsible party is the society which refuses acceptance of its error.

Thinking that labeling anyone concerning life and death decisions with regard to sexual offenses has no validity.

Forced labor camps throughout the world tell the story:

http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us_concentration_camps.htm

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://clearwisdom.net/emh/article_images/wang_xiuying.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/special_column/death_cases/death_list_100.html&h=222&w=146&sz=31&hl=en&start=3&sig2=YZRnOrgXklv-mrWawCOGiA&um=1&tbnid=v9426QMJ9Jx9oM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=70&ei=9ZEBR5i_GqDwgQOmuJzaDQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Huludao%2522%2BLu%2BMay%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

The American people are watching.

No immunity for you and others will be tolerated when your toleration level has been zero.

You are the ones who live and die by the sword not us.
Peace,
Keith Richard Radford Jr.
- Show quoted text -