0 votes

Tomorrow: Republican Filibuster of Habeas Corpus Restoration Act

Sorry....I Posted Too Late. The Republicans blocked the measure.

The vote was today and the Act was defeated by 6 votes. They needed 60 and had 54. It was an attempt to overturn the damage done by the Military Commissions Act. The arguments center on Guantanamo prisoners and keeping them out of the courts.

The battle is not over. New initiatives will be introduced into the House in the next few weeks.

Here was the effort made by Chris Dodd
http://restore-habeas.org/whip/total.php




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Supreme Court?

I thought it ruled that even non citizens could not be held without trial a few months ago. is this being ignored?

We need to look up who voted against this

How can we find out who voted against this? I sure hope that my congressman in my state didn't otherwise i'm going to give them a call.

RonPaul2008.com

i agree

i was gonna call but then i thought the exact same thing with the patriot act and the victory act that ended up being the exact opposite of what it is.

May not be so bad...

I just read this Habeus Corpus Restoration Act and as near as I can make out, it leaves in place some sort of limited restriction on review of military commissions, while making an exception for standard habeus corpus claims (a good thing).

- Bo

Ron Paul is good.

the website doesnt provide any further informations

we're living in a time where newspeak is the official language
in washington and the biggest violation of our libertys is called "patriot act"
therefore i urge everyone to research what the habeas corpus restoration act is really about before calling up senators or posting the link all over the web.

I had a hell of a time...

.. finding information on the referenced sections. I had to go to a Supreme Court decision to find title 10, 950j and title 28, section 2241 wording. It looks like it's the first sentence they are effectively adding, with the key being the reference to the habeus corpus claims in title 28, section 2241.

Title 28, section 2241 (missing the part e though):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=br...

Supreme Court Ruling with missing sections:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/probono_Canad...

Final Opinion? Call your Senators -- this is a good act.

Ron Paul is good.