CONYERS CALLS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES HEARINGS

Drudge ^ | 11/14/01 | Mark Benjamin of www.insider.com

[Elkiejg]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, D-Mich., said Wednesday a decision by President George W. Bush that terrorist suspects might face a military tribunal adds to questions about civil liberties.

In a Nov. 14 letter to Committee Chairman Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., Conyers called for hearings on civil liberties, including an administration plan to monitor some defendants' communication with their lawyers, and the status of suspects detained in the government's investigations of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Conyers said Bush's Tuesday decision to establish military tribunals run by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld only adds to his concern.

"Indeed, the very purpose of the directive appears to be to skirt the usual constitutional and criminal justice rules that are the hallmark of our democratic form of government."

While Sensenbrenner did not return calls seeking comment, Conyers' request comes one day after United Press International reported that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., might soon hold hearings on the new government policy on monitoring communication between defense attorneys and their clients, and the status of what lawmakers said could be 1,000 people detained by the government. Some of those detainees have reportedly been released.

Leahy twice sent letters to Attorney General John Ashcroft on the issues on Oct. 31 and Nov. 9.

"We also have received no cooperation from the Justice Department in our effort to obtain information regarding the 1,000 plus immigrants who have been detained in connection with the terrorism investigation, as reflected in a letter that several Democratic Members transmitted to the attorney general on Oct. 31, 2001," Conyers wrote to Sensenbrenner Wednesday. "We would be remiss in our duties, however, if we did not also oversee the extent to which the Department may be abusing its authority and wrongfully targeting innocent Americans."

[Magnum44]

You obviously did not read my post, can't read my post, or still do not understand how the criminal and military justice systems work.

[Native American Female Vet]

The constitution protects all 'persons'. whether citizens or not however, it does not protect combatants which under a declaration of war terrorists would be.

[rockfish59]

screw this commie sympathizing jerk! he's another 'soft spoken' creep like D'@$$hole!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Tell Leahy he'll get a response to his letters once Bush's judicial nominees get a hearing. Elitist jerk...

[vannrox]

I suppose, and it is logical to deduce, that most Democrats are very ignorant (meaning "unlearned") in the construction of our Republic. For starters they consistantly call our nation a Democracy when it is really a Constitutional Republic. While I might be inclined to believe that this individual is not so ignorant of our laws, it is also possible that he just doesn't care. He might be acting this way solely to create havoc for Political Gain.


But we are at a time of WAR. Any American, especially those whom are supposed to represent us, must participate in a positve way towards the protection of our union. Failure to do this is Treason.


We are at a state of WAR. We shall treat our prisioners, not as criminals subject to the legal laws granted citizenship, but to the punishments deserving of our enemies who dare to attack us. Failure to realize this is more than ignorance. It is treason of the highest accord.

[irish guard]

Do you really think Bush didn't check with his lawyers before he made this announcement? I am sure there is legal precedent on this matter, otherwise, we would have done things differently after WWII. Right?

[Magnum44]

No offense intended and my apoligies if it came out otherwise. Yes, I will offer my opinion to explain.

GWB has stated and it has been affirmed by congressional leadership that we are at war. The reason that no formal 'Congressional Declaration of War' has been made is because, similarly to having diplomatic ties with nations and not negotiating with terrorist, the US does not care to dignify the terrorist entities with the status of a nation/state. Its symantics, but thats the short explaination.

Congress, for better or worse, has already abrigated its wartime powers to the executive branch (has done so in every conflict since WWII), and its only true constitutional duty in this matter is to prevent the executive from going off on 'military adventures',a common practice in Europe at the time of the writing of the constitution. If they dispute the Execs war plans, they always have the power of the purse, or the power to impeach, if they were to see it necessary.

Now some lawyer can probably find holes in my argument, but only because I do not have the ready references to the appropriate US code that support it, not because I am flagrantly wrong.

[Magnum44]

Actually, I forgot to mention something else. The Democrats are terrified. They do not want to look anti-american by getting in the way of a war declaration, but they fear for their party/power/self interests if they vote to declare war and give GWB all the power that goes with it. So they have cut the backroom deal - they won't get in GWB's way and will support his efforts in exchange for nt making them make that choice. Of course this last reason is just supposition.

[VoodooEconomist]

Now, if only we can get these socialist (disguised as DemocRATs) to care as much about economic freedom as they do about personal freedom.

[mrs9x]

That's what really pisses me off. If the government storms your house, most of these people would have no problem with it. You don't hear a thing about the 4th Amendment because that just gets in the way.

But if some Taliban terrorist is tried, they scream bloody murder if we don't go by the constitution.

Another thing that pisses me off about liberals and ACLU rights is that they defend civil liberties fully (which I agree with in many cases-just not this one), but you don't hear a peep from them when the government wants to assault economic liberties. For example, when the government wants to regulate something and claims it has the authority under the commerce clause, all you hear is silence from the ACLU crowd. Or what about the constitionality of tax courts where people are presumed guilty? Where are they then?
Or what about the 2nd Amendment? I don't see them there either.

What I would like to see is an organization that defended ALL liberties, social, civil, and economic. And none of this living constitution crap. I mean defend the written, INTENDED constitution.

[Magnum44]

What I would like to see is an organization that defended ALL liberties, social, civil, and economic. And none of this living constitution crap. I mean defend the written, INTENDED constitution.

I think that is called the supreme court (by a slim 5-4 in most cases). Then again, some might disagree....

Oh, if you mean like an advocacy group, we need to find some rich philanthropist who agrees with everything we think to bankroll it. Yeah, like that's gonna happen...

There are groups that focus on certain areas in this regard though. Pacific Legal Foundation comes to mind and I am sure there are others.

[Peter W. Kessler]

If this was coming from anyone but Conyers, I'd agree.

Its the motive behind Conyers' move that angers me.

Its not YOUR civil liberties, or MY civil liberties he's worried about.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"Sorry, I don't believe the illegal aliens have the same rights as American citizens."

Per constitutional lawyer Ann Coulter you are 100% right!
Author: Ann Coulter Future Widows of America: Write your Congressman

[veronica]

The Arab voting bloc here in Detroit have switched parties to the Republicans.

Really? So how come Bush lost Michigan??!

[JRadcliffe]

"Here go the DemoRATS again!! Sorry, I don't believe the illegal aliens have the same rights as American citizens."

How can you find fault with a representative for voicing concerns that "We would be remiss in our duties, however, if we did not also oversee the extent to which the Department may be abusing its authority and wrongfully targeting innocent Americans."

What's the matter with you -- you don't care for the Bill of Rights anymore?

Would his reaction have been as vitriolic if President Bush had said the same thing?

[JRadcliffe]

Excellent post my friend.