Can we save Habeas Corpus?

Glenn Greenwald is doubtful of the efforts at this moment:
"If Leahy, Chris Dodd and other Democrats are going genuinely to pursue the restoration of habeas corpus, they should do so in a way that creates some genuine opportunity for succeeding. The bill introduced yesterday has none. Their intention might be to introduce a full-fledged habeas restoration bill at first and then negotiate a more limited version that can attract the 66 votes needed to override a presidential veto (even forcing a presidential veto by overcoming a filibuster would be worthwhile on many levels). But it remains to be seen if this will be a real attempt or just a symbolic, futile one."

In the news:
"Specter on Tuesday repeated his contention that the act violates the Constitution.

"The Constitution of the United States is explicit that habeas corpus may be suspended only in time of rebellion or invasion," Specter said on the floor. "We are suffering neither of those alternatives at the present time. We have not been invaded, and there has not been a rebellion. That much is conceded."

His co-sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who'll become chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the Democrats take over in January, noted that the effort to secure habeas appeals for all detainees failed by only three votes.

"Since then, the American people have spoken against the administration's stay- the-course approach to national security and against a rubber-stamp Congress that accommodated this administration's efforts to grab more and more power," Leahy said. "Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong. It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands.""

Senator Lindsey Graham is working actively to prevent modification of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:
"But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who's served as a military lawyer and a judge and who helped craft the detainee legislation, said he'd oppose the move. And he said he doubted that even a Democratic-led Senate would go along with it. During the debate, Republicans had sought to portray Democrats who were opposed to lifting such rights as soft on terrorists.

"I'm curious to see what the five new Democrats would think about giving terrorists the ability to sue our troops in federal court and having federal district court judges make wartime decisions," Graham said Wednesday. "I got a feeling a lot of them would agree with me.""

Remember Keith Olbermann's take on this in his October 11th broadcast.