[UPDATE: Added an excerpt of Leahy’s input during the day of the Bush Torture Act hearings in the comments. Please click here and THANK Senator Leahy.]

Today was the first day of Arlen Specter’s show hearings regarding the President’s bill retroactively making torture and rape legal, and rescinding of the right to a trial.

I watched the hearings live, and must say “Thank You” to Senator Leahy for stating clearly that this bill is utterly UnAmerican. I hope, as the hearings continue he will continue to do so.

[more after the jump]

During the hearing, the Senator entered the following editorial into the Congressional Record. The editorial identifies this bill as a constitutional crisis [emphasis mine]:

In the blizzard of expensive TV ads and scathing stump speeches as the midterm elections approach, I doubt if any of the candidates and their supporters will focus on, or even mention, this assault on habeas corpus. But nine retired federal judges have tried to awaken Congress to this constitutional crisis. Among them are such often-honored jurists as Shirley Hufstedler, Nathaniel Jones, Patricia Wald, H. Lee Sarokin and William Sessions (who was head of the CIA and the FBI).
  They write, particularly with regard to Mr. McCain’s concerns about torture, that without habeas petitions, how will the judiciary ensure that “Executive detentions are not grounded on torture”? The judges also remind Congress that the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended only four times in our history — and then, the Constitution states, only in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion (when) the public Safety may require it.”)
  To be sure, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas during the horrors of the Civil War; but in 1866, the Supreme Court declared that action unconstitutional because the civilian courts were still open during the war — as they still are right now. So, if this suspension becomes law, say these deeply concerned retired federal judges, “there will be protracted legislation for years to come” — and many detainees may never experience justice.
  These judges also remind us — and Messrs. Warner, McCain and Graham (the latter has long wanted to undermine habeas) — that, as Chief Justice John Marshall declared, and warned, “ours is a government of laws, not men.” Having certainly acted on principle in putting the president on the defensive, McCain and Warner should now stand up for “the ‘Great Writ.'”
  And Thomas Jefferson, as the Constitution was being written, objected even to the inclusion of a clause suspending habeas corpus because of the danger that suspension could be “habitual.”

Remember, the whole concept that every person deserves a trial, to ensure that they weren’t just imprisoned for pissing off the wrong guy, was originally included in the Magna Carta. It was subsequently suspended, and not reinvoked in Brittain until the 1670s, when the members of Parliament realized that their lives were on the line after the peasants decided that perhaps they, too, deserved some rights.

It was then included in the Constitution, because the Founding Fathers had witnessed firsthand the abuses of a government that reclassifies people who disagree with it as criminals and locks them up indefinitely without cause.

And ever since that time, with a few exceptions which were roundly denounced by the Supreme Court, it has held as the law of this land.

Past administrations defended this country against entire nations without sacrificing our rights, but this crew can’t even protect us from a rag-tag band of thugs without destroying everything we stand for.

The right to a trial is the stepping stone that makes all of the other rights in the Constitution mean something. If you can be carted away for no reason whatsoever, and imprisoned without ever coming before a court of law, then you have no rights. You can have no “due process” those rights laid out in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights as amendments 4, 5, and 8, if you can’t even get into a courtroom to be heard.

All that has to happen for one to lose everything is to be declared an “enemy combatant” by someone, which means that without any evidence, without any warrant, without having committed any crime, you can lose your future. If this bill passes, you will have no right to a trial to make sure that you’ve been locked up for committing an actual crime. As an added bonus, most of the immoral and  counter-productive procedures formerly known as torture and rape will be re-defined as “forceful interrogation,” making them “legal.”

This means that, for the simple act of pissing off the wrong person, – or worse having the wrong name or looking suspicious –  you can spend months, years, or the rest of your life in a filthy cage, having other people’s genitals forced down your throat without it being considered rape, and you can have your face wrapped in Saran Wrap, then have water poured over your head repeatedly, so you’re suffocating and feel like you’re drowning, all while strapped down and unable to move, without it being considered torture. Note: You’ll actually be tortured and raped, but the torturers and rapists will be get off scott-free, because someone called you a combatant, like the guy from Canada who was dragged off to a rent-a-gulag in Syria and tortured for the horendous crime of catching a flight home.

So, again, thank you to Senator Leahy for this first salvo today. Please keep up the good work. Please do whatever you can to keep this piece of wicked doggerel from making its way to the floor for a vote.

If you think there is any way your constituents can help prevent this bill from seeing the light of day, let us know. We’re listening.

The news is clear now: the war in Iraq has increased the terrorist threat.

So what do we do about it?

Or better yet, since most of us aren’t running for Congress, maybe Martha Rainville should answer a few questions:

1. Do you agree that the country is more vulnerable to terrorist attack than it was five years ago?

2. Do you agree with the retired generals who have concluded that the war in Iraq has strengthened the position of the terrorists?

3. Do you agree with Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Pat Roberts and Democratic Representative Pete Stark that the new National Intelligence Estimate should be declassified?

4. Is “more of the same” still an effective strategy in Iraq?

Here’s how to get in touch with her: info@martharainville.com

( – promoted by odum)

Governor Jim Douglas’ objection to the New England Wilderness Act of 2006 is
perplexing, and reminds us of the last minute attempt to include all-terrain
vehicle access to the Lamoille County Rail Trail. In both cases he appears
to support the interests of motorized sports.

Thousands of acres of national forests in Northern New England would be
designated as wilderness by the federal government, thanks to a bill moving
through Congress that has angered timber industry advocates, but perhaps
more importantly, the motorized sports clubs.
The act won approval from the U.S. Senate last week with support from
Senators Pat Leahy and Jim Jeffords. Bernie Sanders has promised to support
the measure when it reaches the House.
The bill calls for adding 47,700 acres of wilderness in six different
parcels to the 400,000-acre Green Mountain National Forest in Addison,
Windsor and Bennington Counties.
The designation would more closely regulate the uses permitted on the land,
which conservation advocates say will permanently protect natural areas. It
would prohibit motorized access to the area.
Douglas has made it clear that he opposes the bill and would like to have it
stopped, going so far as to write a letter to Rep. Richard Pombo of
California, Chair of the House Committee on Resources that will consider the
bill before it moves to the full House. Douglas said in his letter that he
supported additional wilderness, but that he was concerned about the bill
because it went beyond a plan adopted by the Forest Service and because
several communities in Vermont oppose it.
Pombo is one of the most conservative, anti-environmentalist members in the
House who could use the Governor’s letter to stop the bill in committee.
What Douglas didn’t mention was that hearings were held over the course of
years that included responses from thousands of Vermonters, the vast
majority of whom support the wilderness designation.
Douglas appears to be seeking to please the special interests of loggers,
sportsmen’s groups and a few Select Boards by writing the letter.
This is where the similarity to the Lamoille Rail Trail situation exists.
After a multi-year process of hearings, the Vermont ATV Sportsman’s
Association suddenly appeared to have a chance of gaining access to the
96-mile former rail bed for trail crossings.
The Rail Trail will be constructed by the Vermont Association of Snow
Travelers, a large motorized sports club who want to operate the trail as a
snomobile through-way in the winter. Their lease from VTrans will require
them to maintain it as a recreation path for non-motorized use the other
three seasons.
In spite of opposition from almost every other user group, planning group
and local elected official, VASA was on the verge of having ATV access
written into the lease. The plan was killed by federal rules on the $5.8
million earmarked for the trail that prohibits such use.
Information obtained by the Friends of the Lamoille Rail Trail suggest the
administration was supportive of including ATV access to the LVRT and worked
with Steven McLeod, the VASA lobbyist to help make it happen.
McLeod used to be the lobbyist for VAST, as well as one of the antagonists
fighting the Champion land deal that set aside wilderness in the North East
Kingdom.
Douglas is playing to his conservative base by opposing the new wilderness
designation plan as well as by supporting ATV access to the LVRT.
We think opposing the wilderness designation is short-sighted and wrong.
Vermont needs to have places where there are no motors. The population of
the earth is rapidly expanding and finding forest areas without roads, RV
campgrounds and noise will become increasingly difficult. Setting aside this
land now will help ensure that there will be places to go to hunt, fish and
explore without the noise of modern society intruding.
There is no doubt that adding to the 5000 miles of snowmobile trails in the
wilderness areas will boost tourism, but the short-term gain will be out
weighed in 100 years when people look for a place in the wilderness.
We should designate the area as wilderness and let our children, or
grandchildren, decide if they want to open it back up.

This editorial is scheduled for publication in the 9/27 edition of the Vermont Journal.