Clinton's attack on habeas corpus (and secret evidence, too!)

[patcox2]

Just wondering, how many of you-all were tearing your hair out and wearing sackcloth and ashes back in 1996 when Clinton signed the anti-terroirism bill that limited habeus corpus and allowed the use of secret evidence? And it wasn't the republicans fault, he not only signed it, he supported the Bill and defended it.

See, the sky has fallen before, and we lived through it:

ACLU To Clinton:
Veto Terrorism Bill, Preserve Our Greatest Liberty'

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, April 18, 1996

WASHINGTON -- In an open letter to President Clinton, the American
Civil Liberties Union today called on the President to reject the
terrorism bill and preserve the authority of the federal courts to
enforce the Bill of Rights.

The ACLU said that the terrorism legislation contains a number of
unconstitutional provisions, including the use of secret evidence in
deportation proceedings. Most disturbing, however, the ACLU said, are the
provisions -- also of questionable constitutionality -- that will tear
the heart out of the great writ of habeas corpus, a bedrock feature of
the American justice system.

In the letter -- signed by ACLU President Nadine Strossen and ACLU
Executive Director Ira Glasser -- the ACLU said that the terrorism
legislation "would strip the federal courts of their authority and
responsibility to enforce the Bill of Rights -- not just in death penalty
cases, but in all criminal cases." Contrary to common wisdom, only 1
percent of habeas petitions are filed by prisoners on death row.

[Demit]

1. Don't you think you should provide a link so we can read all of it?

[originalpckelly]

2. I just found it on EFF's website:

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/960417_aclu_clinton.letter

[lvx35]

3. delete dupe

[originalpckelly]

5. This is about deportation...and if had been passed and signed...

why would the Republicans need another bill?

[patcox2]

9. Comprehensive Terrorism Protection Act of 1995

Actually, it was fully known as the Comprehensive Terrorism Protection and Speedy Death Penalty Act, and it deprives ALL criminals in the US of the right to federal habeas review.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. Better description of this bill...which was also a 'bad' one, can be found

here: http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/84/3/317.pdf

THE ROAD TO AEDPA
On April 24, 1996, just 5 days after the first anniversary of the bombing of
the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Congress
passed the AEDPA (1996; Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report,
1996, pp. 1076, 1082). Senator Robert Dole had introduced the bill in the
Senate, noting that it “should go a long way in preventing violent criminals
from gaming the system—with more delays, more unnecessary appeals, and
more grief for the victims of crimes and their families” (Sessions, 1996/
1997, p. 1515). Apart from the AEDPA’s stated purpose—to grant federal
authorities greater powers to investigate domestic terrorist threats and provide
justice for victims—theAEDPAalso limits the ability of state prisoners,
particularly those on death row, to get federal habeas corpus relief.
The AEDPA’s four main features regarding habeas procedures include the
following:
1. It imposes a 1-year limit on filing habeas petitions; previously, there was no
deadline (AEDPA, 1996, § 101).
2. Habeas petitioners have only one chance for federal review, except in extraordinary
circumstances; previously, there were no limits on the number of
habeas filings a state prisoner could make (AEDPA, 1996, § 106).
3. It establishes an opt-in provision for states to provide counsel (AEDPA, 1996,
§ 106). In other words, “the opt-in provisions are a quid pro quo. If a state provides
counsel, the opportunities of state prisoners for federal review are
reduced, thus removing roadblocks to a state’s effective and expeditious use
of the death penalty” (Kappler, 2000, p. 469). If a state does not opt in, and
none have (Stummer, 2001, p. 608), then the filing deadline for habeas review
expands from 180 days after final state court affirmance to 360 days.
4. “Adetermination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to
be correct. The applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of
correctness by clear and convincing evidence” (AEDPA, 1996, § 104; Williams
v. Taylor, 2000). As in the other instances, this is a new addition to the
habeas procedural maze.
In a situation that goes back to 1886 and Ex parte Royall’s requirement that
the petitioner must first exhaust all forms of appeal (state and certiorari to the
U.S. Supreme Court) before applying for habeas corpus, the new habeas law
imposes a burden on the prisoner to disprove the state’s version of events by
clear and convincing evidence. In passing a law directed at foreign and
domestic acts of violence against U.S. citizens and buildings, Congress also
codified substantial portions of the Supreme Court’s habeas jurisprudence
322 THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2004
since the late 19th century that limits the rights of state prisoners to gain
access to the federal courts and contest their confinements on constitutional
grounds (Rose v. Lundy, 1982).
Following the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, President Bill
Clinton proposed the Anti-Terrorism Amendments Act of 1995, which was
designed to increase federal powers to combat domestic and international
terrorism through the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act (1995). In June 1995,
the Senate passed, although the House of Representatives did not, the Comprehensive
Terrorism Prevention Act. In March 1996, the House passed the
Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996, which was a modified
version of the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act and which
made it a crime “to commit an act of international terrorism in the United
States, and if someone is killed in the act, the crime is punishable by death”
(Smith, 1997, p. 266). The act also included a habeas provision that limited
the amount of time prisoners could appeal their state court decisions in federal
courts. The result of further House and Senate compromises was the
AEDPA, which passed the Senate by a vote of 91 to 8 with 51 Republicans
voting for and 1 against and Democrats voting 40 to 7 in favor of the bill. In
the House of Representatives, the votewas 293 for and 133 against (Republicans:
186 to 46; Democrats: 105 to 86).

[patcox2]

6. Here's more, NY Times stories on it.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?query=HABEAS%20CORPUS&field=des&match=exact

[Demit]

22. from what I can see in those NYT previews, this was a shift of power

to the state courts from the Federal judiciary. Details on the story are behind the NYT firewall. So, not a great link.

Why don't you tell us why you think the law Clinton signed back then was just as serious a suspension of habeas corpus as the MCA is? I mean, you posted it to make a point. So make your point.

[onethatcares]

38. after reading this thread, I noticed

patcox2 dropped out of the discussion. I'm waiting for him to make his point. It looks to me like Clinton did limit the time frame and the number of habeus petitions that could be entered, but he did not remove a prisoners right to habeus. Feel free to correct me if I'm not seeing this correctly.

[lvx35]

4. This is the worst part of Clinton's legacy.

As the happenings at Waco reflect. I honestly wish I had been paying closer attentions to the complaints of the right on these matters, because they did in many ways set a small precedent for the current large badness from this administration.

edit: I originally said Ruby Ridge, though this may have been on First Bush's watch. Sorry!

[originalpckelly]

7. Just as FDR's Japanese "internment" (concentration) camps did.

We should always remember that the people at the top of our party are not as good as we want them to be. We are the ones who are good.

[lvx35]

8. You're right. And that's why its important that we push for our leaders

to do the ethical thing. I used to see the point of the Greens, blaming Dems for their mistakes like these...But then I saw with Dean that we, the grassroots, can change things in THIS party. We just have to be vigilant.

[originalpckelly]

17. You have got it...

I say we get even more active. If any of these sons bitches cheat or steal or do anything wrong, their ass is grass at the next primary.

[Gabi Hayes]

10. Ruby Ridge? on what planet is that particular Ruby Ridge of which

you speak?

or should I say, time warp?

christ

[lvx35]

14. it was federal agents, tanks, combat robots

with cameras hunting down a guy and killing his wife in a stupid criminal case for selling sawed off shotguns. Any precedent where militarized forces are being used against US citizens is bad, bad, BAD. Same shit at Waco.

edit: If you are refering to me getting the date wrong, my bad. Original changed.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. I have to disagree

Personally, I think the "Defense" of Marriage Act is the worst part. But as a gay man, I might very well be biased in my judgement.

[lvx35]

15. Yeah, there were a few turds....

I won't even go into WTO.

[keepCAblue]

24. And don't forget "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Clinton totally betrayed Gay America, yet he courted us heavily while campaigning. We helped get him elected--believed his false promises of equality--and he wound up pissing on us. He lost my respect and trust with DOMA and DADT

In his book "Stupid White Men," Michael Moore declared Clinton as "one of the best Republican presidents we've ever had." I'd have to agree.

[TheDebbieDee]

19. I thought Ruby Ridge happened on the first Bush's watch....

[lvx35]

23. You may be right...

I've heard so many wingers screaming about it that I was sure it must be Clinton. Bu I will check right now.

edit: I see some of it happened in '91, so I changed my original post. Thanks for calling that out! :)

[TheDebbieDee]

32. This is another way that the RW continuously re-writes history...

They repeat a lie over and over until people start to believe it.

Same thing with Waco. Janet Reno's agency gave the Branch Davidians several WEEKS to surrender. At least one law enforcement official was shot dead in the initial confrontation with the Branch Davidians, but noone is ever reminded of this.

The Waco incident is always spun as Clinton and Reno's overzealousness against religious freedom. It's a lie, it's a lie, it's a damn lie!

[lvx35]

42. Now there I disagree, if you are claiming that Waco wasn't botched.

Waco was a mess, and and you had tanks and military gear aimed at US citizens, and a compound with children burned to the ground. There are pictures of two year old skeletons with all the flesh burned off from Waco. Saying they had "weeks to surrender" is not significant, US citizens don't have to surrender to any military force, or risk having their children burned to death, it doesn't work that way. It was a monumental screw up.

Now regarding people using this horrible tragedy to yell at Clinton, I agree with you. It was no such thing. But Clintons folly (in my book) is that he should have worked harder for Civil liberties, and seen the calamity in things like Waco.

[TheDebbieDee]

43. The Branch Davidians were given several days or weeks

to surrender AFTER the law enforcement officer was killed in the initial confrontation.

I watched this situation unfold every afternoon as "Breaking News". The Davidians would negotiate a surrender date with the authorities that surrounded their encampment. The date would arrive, then pass. Then the Davidians would negotiate another date to surrender.

David Koresch and the Davidians dicked the authorities around several times and milked every drop political angst that could be drawn from the situation.

I have never been beyond believing that the Davidians started the final fatal fire themselves - maybe they thought it was some sort of short cut to heaven or something. After 9/11, I wouldn't anything past religious zealots (of any religion).

[lvx35]

44. PBS has a good timeline.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline///waco/timeline.html

I was just reading it, it gives good insight. Clinton wanted to wait them out, and when the tear gas plan was put in effect, Clinton expressed concern about the children. The knocking down of parts of the building that started the fires (whoever started them) was not approved by Clinton or Reno either according to this, it was a deviation from the plan. So the full mess was in no way totally Clinton's fault, or even Reno's. But it was a mess.

Basically, Clinton screwed up when he authorized military vehicles to come to the site. Military vehicles should not be introduced into a civil conflict, whether its protesters or cultists. Its indicitive of a fascist state to have a military weapons directed against civilians of any kind. Granted, Clinton just wanted to wait them out, but what happened was an inexcusable use of military force against civilians. Tiananmen square style.

So when we talk about things like detentions without habeus corpus, or intelligence gathering on US citizens, we are talking about military tools being directed at the US population. What we are seeing now is the fruition of a plant whose seeds were planted long before Bush or Clinton, and I just wished we had done more hacking at it when it was just a sprout.

[bicentennial_baby]

26. I'd say that was Rwanda, actually

"worst part of Clinton's legacy", that is...Even he admits that...

[lvx35]

29. I've heard that, but the bigger and scarier trend to me...

...is still the decay of civil liberties in this country. Our foreign policy has always been somewhat of a disaster. ;)

[bicentennial_baby]

34. True...

But that was an unconscionable error on his part...imho

[sandnsea]

45. Waco - 38 days into Clinton Presidency

That investigation was under Bush's too. Reno continued an investigation that was nearing completion, they had nothing to do with the implementation or direction of it.

The rest of this thread is ridiculous too. Republicans fought the reasonable laws Clinton wanted to pass to fight terrorism, then turn around and pass worse laws and blame Clinton for not passing what they themselves actually fought.

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. Is your point that we shouldnt care?

If not, then what is your point.
Clinton did a LOT of things I didnt agree with, but he didnt tear the constitution into tiny pieces. Also, I never feared for my freedom while Clinton was president. I do now.

[jrw14125]

13. Uh, Clinton was a bigger Republican that GWB - discuss!

[eleny]

20. GWB is not even a Republican. He's a radical neocon and a fascist

[mac56]

21. You're joking, of course.

I'm sick and tired of kneejerk Clinton-bashing one-liners.

Support your assertion.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. Please show me. Here is a link to the full bill as passed and signed.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.390:

I see many procedures for deportation of suspects and many paragraphs about the 'special removal hearings' and the appeal process for that hearing.

[Supersedeas]

33. Your link doesn't work--can you fix it plz

[sinkingfeeling]

35. I'll try it again. Copy and Paste...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.390:

[Supersedeas]

40. look under the miscellaneous section of the procedures for removal

[Supersedeas]

37. I found it here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c104:1:./temp/~c104FSCbrr:e66393:

The determinations and actions of the Attorney General pursuant to this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review, including application for a writ of habeas corpus, except for a claim by the alien that continued detention violates his rights under the Constitution.

[Emit]

41. Is that from the bill that was actually passed?

Or, is that from the bill that Clinton wanted that was never passed? Edited to add, your link takes me only to home page and says re-submit search ...

FYI, for anyone reading this, when one submits a specific link to thomas.gov, for some reason, it seems not to ever be a permalink so that one has to then do their own search all over again. Notice that?

[tkmorris]

18. I certainly was

Are you trying to imply that the only reason some of us oppose this sort of thing is that it is the Repubs doing it?

Not so here my friend.

[enough]

27. Very important point.

And the current bill could not have passed without the help of many democrats. Our problem here is much more serious than simple party politics.

[madmusic]

30. Glad others see this.

Moral panics + scapegoats = police state.

No police state, no fascism.

Simple as that.

[lvx35]

31. Well said, and that's why WE are so important.

because others will fill the void if we are silent. Its critical that we the grassroots keep on pushing, keep putting people like Howard Dean in power. (wouldn't have happened without us) Nobody is going to keep building an ethical, good Democratic party for us.

[ShortnFiery]

50. Exactly, and we must work to weed out such Dems in their next Primary. n/t

[madmusic]

28. Details on "Why this is not new," or, the rotten soil

Inmate Writes Harvard Law Review Article
By Jeralyn, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Tue Aug 01, 2006 at 10:19:51 AM EST

Received by e-mail:

The Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review is publishing its first ever article written by a prison inmate, Thomas C. O'Bryant, who is a jailhouse lawyer serving two consecutive life sentences in prison without hope of release. Having taught himself the law from prison, O'Bryant has represented himself and other inmates in numerous criminal and civil lawsuits in state and federal courts over the past ten years.

In his law review article, O'Bryant describes the difficult process that he and other indigent inmates must endure to challenge their state convictions. O'Bryant argues that the combination of federal laws and stringent prison conditions make it impossible to challenges wrongful convictions effectively. O'Bryant describes his own case, in which his lawyer assured him that if he pled guilty, he would be eligible for release after ten years, even though he discovered from prison that he would never be eligible for release.

The entire summer issue of the Journal, including O'Bryants article, is available here.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/08/01/583/52788

In fairness to Clinton, however, the Rethugs have been planting this seed since the late 70s, early 80s.

[madmusic]

46. Direct link, PDF:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol41_2/obryant.pdf

[KittyWampus]

36. Care to provide some actual SPECIFICS?

[BootinUp]

47. Why bother

Its much more fun to start flame threads with no eveidence to refute (seems that way). :)

[Emit]

39. For what it's worth, Clinton never got his version of the 1996 omnibus

terror bill passed. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/083006J.shtml

But, you're right, the ACLU didn't like Clinton's proposals, and neither did the Repugs at the time:

Congress passes anti-terrorism bill
April 18, 1996
Web posted at: 6:30 p.m. EDT


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism, just one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The House voted, 293-133, to send the anti-terrorism bill to President Clinton, who has indicated that he will sign it after he returns from his overseas trip next week.

The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.

The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill.

The bill imposes limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners and makes the death penalty available in some international terrorism cases and in cases where a federal employee is killed on duty.

The bill "has some very effective tools that we can use in our efforts to combat terrorism," Attorney General Janet Reno said Thursday.

But she was less enthusiastic about the bill's limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners. She was also concerned that the bill would make it more difficult for federal judges to overturn state court rulings.

Republicans were divided on whether the legislation would be effective.

"We have a measure that will give us a strong upper hand in the battle to prevent and punish domestic and international terrorism," Senate Majority Leader and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole said Wednesday.

But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state."

Some lawmakers took a more prudent view of the bill. "The balance between public safety and order and individual rights is always a difficult dilemma in a free society," said Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-New York.

~snip~

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html

And, from Clinton himself: "The Senators who want to oppose my bill on these points simply argue that these provisions will open the door to an overly broad domestic use of military troops, to overly invasive wiretapping, or to an erosion of the constitutional rights of those who buy explosives. I disagree. Constitutional protections and legal restrictions are not being repealed. We are simply giving law enforcement agencies who are committed to fighting terrorists for us the tools they need to succeed in the modern world. " http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=51421

Here's a link to some of the details from that time:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/

[magellan]

48. Are you trying to say that because Clinton tried it too, it's okay?

I take the view that Clinton was dead wrong, and he was showed he was dead wrong by some of the same Republicans who have enthusiastically pushed the MCA through for Herr Bush**.

As far as I'm concerned that makes the Republicans doubly as treacherous as Clinton.

[earth mom]

49. And your point is?

:eyes: