[url]www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001540012-2001560640,00.html[/url]

Bush law chief tried to drop habeas corpus

BY ROLAND WATSON

THE Bush Administration sought the power to suspend all suspects’ rights in the most extreme example of its squeeze on civil liberties since September 11.
According to a draft of the anti-terrorism Bill which was published yesterday, John Ashcroft, the Attorney-General, initially wanted to do away with the fundamental legal tenet of habeas corpus for terrorist suspects.

Such a move would have allowed the authorities to hold suspects in secret and indefinitely without charging them or producing them before a judge.

A secret first draft of Mr Ashcroft’s Bill included a section titled “Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus”. Its inclusion has astounded some members of Congress. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, told Newsweek magazine: “That stuck out like a sore thumb. It was the first thing I crossed out.”

Habeas corpus establishes the requirement on authorities to produce a suspect before a judge at regular intervals so that the court, and therefore the public, is satisfied that the detention is lawful.

The suspension of the writ did not make it into the final draft of Mr Ashcroft’s Bill but it was seized on as another example of how far the Administration is prepared to go.

Mr Ashcroft faces a grilling on Capitol Hill this week for other measures in his postSeptember 11 crackdown, in which thousands of young Muslim men have faced questioning and detention.

It was also revealed over the weekend that he wanted to renounce the restrictions on the FBI from carrying out covert surveillance of religious and political organisations. The proposal would override protections put in place in the 1970s after the death of J. Edgar Hoover, the notoriously hardline FBI Director, after the agency admitted that it had spent much of the 1960s and early 1970s spying on Martin Luther King, the Black Panthers, the Ku Klux Klan and other groups that it considered dangerous.

Latest polls show that the average American is broadly supportive of the restrictions on civil liberties: 86 per cent believe that the Government has not overstepped the mark.

I suspect if we were ALL judged by the "rough drafts" we have prepared throughout our lives, we'd ALL look like shatbirds.

Ever heard of a "discussion draft?" Its HOW ideas are discussed. And following that discussion, apparently the Administration DOES NOT feel they want to suspend Habeus Corpus.

The line "another example of how far the Administration is prepared to go" is NOTHING more than slander, as it is CLEARLY NOT based in truth.

[rolleyes]

If kvetching makes ya feel better Imbroglio, that's kool. But don't expect me to be buyin' it.

Why can't we attack the real enemy? Why MUST we slay our own???

This is a British newspaper bitching about the United States.

I wonder if the Brits ever suspended Habeas Corpus, perhaps during one of the World Wars?

I have been listening to the Ashcroft testimonies in front of the Senate committee. They are discussing military tribunals. Ashcroft is standing strong against that bitch Feinstein and others for stricter Gun Control Laws. GO JOHN GO!!

Karl

Imbroglio had me confused there for a second I didn't see anything in his post about gun-laws, if Ashcroft is against gun-control that's all that matters to me. he took that from a limey paper, I didn't even bother reading the rest of it considering the source and it had nothing to do with guns as the title said.

i don't know, i think intent is just as important as outcome.

When the opening sentence of an article is a lie, I stop reading.

From what little I've seen of the hearings he just wants to institute the "Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus" for those who where in violation of their visa requirements or are here illegally and not to be used against those that were in compliance or are citizens. As much as I hate to give the gov't tacit approval thru acquiescence for oppressive behavior, if it's already on the books and isn't a real liberal interpretation of intent, then let 'em go for it. They are not citizens and therefore are not entitled to the same protections as citizens. Extreme measures for extreme times.

Sorry, my bad. I was just caught up in all of the excitement.

No prob.