During the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, and after Judge Sarokin had himself been appointed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Congress passed a law that was tough on terrorists. No one would disagree with the wisdom of such a law. But the new law also contained a provision which greatly diminished an American's right to habeas corpus. Previously, Congress had defeated the provision every time it had been attempted by death-penalty proponents.

This time - with this Bill - lawmakers who wanted to greatly restrict the constitutional right of people to challenge their convictions knew they were looking at a political coup. If they included the oft-defeated habeas corpus restriction in this Bill, it would surely pass. Who in Congress would vote against a bill which is tough on terrorists?

Recognizing the need to pass a law dealing harshly with terrorists, but wanting to protect the constitutional right of habeas corpus, the Senate considered an amendment to the proposed terrorist Bill which would accomplish both objectives. Senators wishing to seriously erode this basic, fundamental constitutional right had this to say:

In hearing after hearing, and debate after debate, we have challenged opponents of reform to tell us of even one case in which Federal habeas corpus review resulted in an innocent man being set free. No case has been brought forward. Cases such as the Rubin Carter case, which our colleagues have mentioned, hardly make the case for allowing Federal review. In that case, this man who had been twice convicted of three murders and whose convictions had been repeatedly upheld on appeal was released by one of the most liberal judges on the Federal bench, Lee Sarokin, on a procedural question due to the composition of his jury...Frankly, we want courts that are concerned with justice, not compassion. In our opinion, to put it bluntly, States have been adept at applying the death penalty constitutionally and in full compliance with all Federal laws. And Federal judges have been just as adept at improperly applying the Constitution and Federal laws to overturn those decisions.

It would have been helpful if Senators, wishing to diminish the right of habeas corpus, had their facts straight about Rubin Carter's release. But even when they heard the facts, their minds remained unchanged.

GO TO STORY INDEX