Alberto Gonzalez and Habeas Corpus

[MaxTheVool]

I feel like there must be another thread around here somewhere on this topic, but I couldn't find one, so...

Our Attorney General is a scumbag (http://consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html).

In short, when arguing against Habeas Corpus for enemy combatants, he's not making one of various at least quasi-legitimate arguments concerning the scope of the constitution, non-citizens, emergency situations, or anything of that sort. Rather, he's saying that the constitution says "habeas corpus shall not be restricted", NOT that "people actually have habeas corpus", and thus, there's no actual guarantee of the right of habeas corpus in the constituion, just a guarantee AGAINST that right being taken away IF it exists, which he doesn't see any reason to think it does.


Can anyone believe this shit? I mean, really?

[Liberal]

Why would anyone be surprised at this. I've been bitching for the past 6 years that Bush and the Republicans are trampling on our rights and destroying our liberty. A little here, a little there, and a lot when people just plain get used to it.

[Leviosaurus]

Just checking out this other section of the constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Kinda looks like this says the same thing as habeus corpus. I guess freedom of speech, religious freedom, and freedom to assemble don't exist either.

[Ogre]

Make sure you carefully read the rest of the article as well...especially the part about the Military Commissions Act of 2006, to get an idea of just how many of our rights have been eroded away to authoritarianism. Take away habeas corpus, and we might as well be a dictatorship.

[tdn]

Why would anyone be surprised at this.
Because I still find it hard to believe that anyone electable or appointable could be so blatently knuckleheaded. I'm surprised any time these fuckbombs do something like this.

Needless to say, I spend a lot of my time surprised.

[Evil Captor]

Hey, they instituted fucking TORTURE as an approved procedure and tried to say it wasn't torture. I'd LOVE to see Bush, Cheney and Gonzalez waterboarded until they "confessed" that waterboarding is torture.

(This doesn't violate any precepts about wishing harm because, of course, waterboarding isn't torture ... our Fearless Leaders say so!)

[elucidator]

This one totally slays me. Even such an unrepetentant power whore as Bertie has proven himself must have a limit of embarassment, there must be some shit he won't eat.

Sadly, no.

[you with the face]

Can anyone believe this shit? I mean, really?

I don't.

His "logic" reads like something straight out of The Onion.

This is from The Onion, right?

Right?

[nitetime]

I collapsed into a fit of high pitched laughter after reading that article.

This administration has discovered the ultimate secret for destroying the constitution and the bill of rights: just outright take away our rights. It's so incredible that everyone who hears about it can't believe it isn't a joke. Even me. Even now.

[Liberal]

That's what happens when people believe their rights come from scribbles. What is written can be erased.

[Gorsnak]

Oh quitcher whinin'! Maybe if habeus corpus were the single most important legal right there is, the bedrock at the very foundation of western legal tradition, then this would be worth getting worked up about. Do you people want the terrists to win???

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

*sigh* There just aren't words. These "interpretations" of the Constitution continue to go down like a hearty gulp of 12M HCL.

[elucidator]

That's what happens when people believe their rights come from scribbles. What is written can be erased.
What did you have in mind, runes carved into walrus tusks?

[Lissa]

I have been reading alot of books lately about U.S. History. It seems to me that H.C. has been "overlooked" numerous times throughout history when the president felt the need. Most notably, in the Civil War, Lincoln had political dissidents seized and placed in prison. It seems this "erosion" has been going on for sometime. However, it would seem that there has been a long tradition of suspending H.C. rights in the U.S. Thus, I would not say we are losing any rights, rather we are still seeing the practices of old being used.

This, IMHO, does not make it right, nor does it invalidate the assertions of many herein that it is wrong. Rather, I am simply pointing out that I have recently learned that the U.S. Constitution appears to be a moist towlette that Presidents have historically used to clean their hands when doing dirty jobs.

[whole bean]

I have been reading alot of books lately about U.S. History. It seems to me that H.C. has been "overlooked" numerous times throughout history when the president felt the need. Most notably, in the Civil War, Lincoln had political dissidents seized and placed in prison. It seems this "erosion" has been going on for sometime. However, it would seem that there has been a long tradition of suspending H.C. rights in the U.S. Thus, I would not say we are losing any rights, rather we are still seeing the practices of old being used.

This, IMHO, does not make it right, nor does it invalidate the assertions of many herein that it is wrong. Rather, I am simply pointing out that I have recently learned that the U.S. Constitution appears to be a moist towlette that Presidents have historically used to clean their hands when doing dirty jobs.
with respect to Lincoln, assuming the suspension of habeaus corpus occured during the Civil War, I think you'll find it's in line with the Constitution, Artile 1, Section 9[2], which provides that "the privilege of the Writ of Hebeaus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invazion

[whole bean]

with respect to Lincoln, assuming the suspension of habeaus corpus occured during the Civil War, I think you'll find it's in line with the Constitution, Artile 1, Section 9[2], which provides that "the privilege of the Writ of Hebeaus Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invazion
dammit, I missed the edit window and hit submit by accident, that should read:

with respect to Lincoln, assuming the suspension of habeas corpus occured during the Civil War, I think you'll find it's in line with the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9[2] provides that "the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it."

AGAG's interpretation seems to be without precedent.

[elucidator]

Gotchaya! Habeas Corpus can be suspended in cases of rebellion and invasion! Iraq is a perfect example of an invasion followed by a rebellion!

[whole bean]

Gotchaya! Habeas Corpus can be suspended in cases of rebellion and invasion! Iraq is a perfect example of an invasion followed by a rebellion!
I like your thinking. There is work for a thinker like you in this adminstration.

[Lissa]

dammit, I missed the edit window and hit submit by accident, that should read:

with respect to Lincoln, assuming the suspension of habeas corpus occured during the Civil War, I think you'll find it's in line with the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9[2] provides that "the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it."

AGAG's interpretation seems to be without precedent.

Not disputing this, although Lincoln's staff allowed this to be used to stop those who spoke out against him (rebellion I guess), but what about during World War 2, or the War of 1812 where similar methods were utilized.

All I am saying is that the presidency has a long history of suspending constitutional H.C. when they deem necessary. In other words, using the moist towlette when needed.

[whole bean]

Not disputing this, although Lincoln's staff allowed this to be used to stop those who spoke out against him (rebellion I guess), but what about during World War 2, or the War of 1812 where similar methods were utilized.

All I am saying is that the presidency has a long history of suspending constitutional H.C. when they deem necessary. In other words, using the moist towlette when needed.
Yeah, I think it's safe to call the American Civil War a rebellion. As for the other wars, uh, you got me, invasion? There were attacks and battles on US soil during 1812 and WWII. All I'm saying is that previously, it appears as though administrations sought to justify the suspension of habeaus rights, as opposed to arguing that they never existed (for certain citizens).

[Liberal]

What did you have in mind, runes carved into walrus tusks?Nature works for me, thanks. Or God. However you want to put it. Rights come with your body and mind. You're born with them.

[Lissa]

Yeah, I think it's safe to call the American Civil War a rebellion. As for the other wars, uh, you got me, invasion? There were attacks and battles on US soil during 1812 and WWII. All I'm saying is that previously, it appears as though administrations sought to justify the suspension of habeaus rights, as opposed to arguing that they never existed (for certain citizens).

Ah yes, I agree wholeheartedly, I am not sure if this argument for H.C. has ever been used before.

Of course, you do know, that they may soon argue that the "War on Terror" did have a battle on U.S. soil. Please, for the love of Og, don't let the AG hear of this :)

[saoirse]

Nature works for me, thanks. Or God. However you want to put it. Rights come with your body and mind. You're born with them.

From you lips to God's ass. But it's still good to write them down somewhere, in case there's any questions.

[Liberal]

From you lips to God's ass. But it's still good to write them down somewhere, in case there's any questions.Write what down? I don't view rights as permissions. Permissions are granted by rights bearers. You have the right to use your body and your mind to the extent that you do not suppress someone else's same right. No one gave your mind and body to you, least of all any magistrate. If you say it is ethical that they dispense rights to us, then don't complain when they cut them off. You've already conceded that they're theirs to give.

[BrainGlutton]

At this point, we should be long past being shocked.

From The Nation: (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/editors)

Unwanted war, the threat of a wider, even less wanted war, a constitutional crisis: The United States has experienced this combination before, and not so long ago. The war of course was Vietnam, ending in defeat in 1975, and the President was Richard Nixon, driven out of office under threat of certain impeachment the year before. Commentators of every stripe have been reaching back to this period for analogies. Is the present moment a repeat of 1968, when President Johnson, facing defeat in his renomination bid in the Democratic primaries, resigned from the campaign and opened peace negotiations; or of 1970, when Nixon widened the war by invading Cambodia and touched off an explosion of protest around the country that forced him to reverse course (and led Congress to prohibit funding for Cambodian operations); or of 1974 and 1975, when the Nixon Administration and the war ended (not accidentally) seriatim? Iraq is different from Vietnam and Bush is different from Nixon, yet the elements of the crisis are the same, as if we were still looking through the same kaleidoscope but after it had been given a shake. Again, we have the war launched on the basis of deceptions, again the duel between popular opinion and executive power, again executive secrecy, again the contempt for law, again the smearing of political opponents as abettors of the foe, again wiretapping, again defiance of Congress, again the imperial pretensions.

But more important than the similarities is the direct continuity between the two crises. The war in Iraq was framed as the culmination of a long campaign to overcome what the current President's father called the "Vietnam syndrome." The goal--probably the most important of the many aims of the whole enterprise--was to demonstrate that the United States had at last restored its ability, thrown into question by Vietnam, to determine the political future of nations (to accomplish regime change) through the use of military force. And this aim was in turn a pillar of the grandiose ambition, announced in White House documents, of achieving global dominance for the United States. Likewise, the most important theme of Bush's other usurpations--for example, of power to wiretap without a warrant, in contravention of statute, and to imprison and torture citizens as well as foreigners without due process--was to swell the power of the presidency at home. For in the minds of the Bush officials, Nixon's pre-impeachment presidency was not a cautionary tale but a model to be imitated, as Vice President Cheney, for one, has stated on many occasions. It is not only the Vietnam syndrome but the Watergate syndrome that they want to overcome. If the keynote of Nixon's character was covertness (not for nothing was he called Tricky Dick), then the keynote of Bush's character is brazenness: He seeks to carry out in broad daylight, as his formal right, the usurpations that Nixon committed under cover of night.

[kaylasdad99]

What did you have in mind, runes carved into walrus tusks?C'mon, 'luci that's one of Lib's greatest hits. We're born with rights. "Scribbles on paper" represents a statement specifying which of those rights are to be guaranteed by all of us in concert, acting through the government we have constituted for ourselves. The rest, each individual is responsible for securing for himself.

When people speak colloquially of this statement, and the mechanisms for enforcing the guarantees, it is not uncommon for them to lapse into a verbal shorthand that has folks speaking of rights "granted" by the Constitution. Evidently, this shorthand is offensive to friend Liberal. His vigilance in the matter of making sure the map is not mistaken for the territory (as it were), is, on balance, a good thing (IMHO), if a tad repetitive.

[Gorsnak]

Write what down? I don't view rights as permissions. Permissions are granted by rights bearers. You have the right to use your body and your mind to the extent that you do not suppress someone else's same right. No one gave your mind and body to you, least of all any magistrate. If you say it is ethical that they dispense rights to us, then don't complain when they cut them off. You've already conceded that they're theirs to give.
Even if we grant the truth of natural rights theory, it doesn't mean a fig when it comes to legal rights. Just because you have a natural right to use your body to the extent etc., doesn't do anything whatsoever to prevent someone from coming along and violating that right. In particular it doesn't prevent the government from locking you up without judicial review. Natural rights are absolutely worthless in that regard. You might argue that the government should respect your natural rights. You may even be right. But the government should do a lot of things that it doesn't, and should refrain from doing a lot of things that it does, natural rights be damned. What constrains the government, or at least some governments (usually including the US Government) are legal rights. Legal rights are derived from scribbles, and never exist independently from those scribbles. Those scribbles do prevent the government from locking you up without judicial review (usually), unlike your natural rights which do no such thing.

[John Mace]

dammit, I missed the edit window and hit submit by accident, that should read:

with respect to Lincoln, assuming the suspension of habeas corpus occured during the Civil War, I think you'll find it's in line with the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9[2] provides that "the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it."

AGAG's interpretation seems to be without precedent.
Yes, and Article I concerns the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch. That was the big controversy, and the reason why the the US Circuit Court in Maryland ruled against him in Ex Parte Merryman. Lincoln chose to ignore the ruling.

[lissener]

That's what happens when people believe their rights come from scribbles. What is written can be erased.
You're right. It would be SO much better if all laws were unwritten.

Do you ever read what you post here, Lib? You give libertarians a bad name, by embodying all of the flimsiest, naivest qualities of the too-rarified-to-actually exist parody of a libertarian.

Are you seriously advocating actual, literal anarchy? Or ar you just drunk?

[Liberal]

Even if we grant the truth of natural rights theory, it doesn't mean a fig when it comes to legal rights. Just because you have a natural right to use your body to the extent etc., doesn't do anything whatsoever to prevent someone from coming along and violating that right. In particular it doesn't prevent the government from locking you up without judicial review. Natural rights are absolutely worthless in that regard. You might argue that the government should respect your natural rights. You may even be right. But the government should do a lot of things that it doesn't, and should refrain from doing a lot of things that it does, natural rights be damned. What constrains the government, or at least some governments (usually including the US Government) are legal rights. Legal rights are derived from scribbles, and never exist independently from those scribbles. Those scribbles do prevent the government from locking you up without judicial review (usually), unlike your natural rights which do no such thing.No argument from me there. Rights do not prevent tyranny. Only force does that. (And of course, you have the natural right to use force to secure your rights — though force against a government is usually futile.) But by the same token, squabbles over legal rights are moot for the same reason. It's not the scribbles that guarantee you a judicial review (usually). It's the people with guns who defend the scribbles. When they stop defending them, you'll stop benefiting from them.

[Liberal]

Are you seriously advocating actual, literal anarchy? Or ar you just drunk?No. I'm just intelligent, and you... maybe not so much.

[Rufus Xavier]

Maybe we could try to get a "Habeas Corpus" Amendment added to the Constitution? Just to be on the safe side, and all?

[Cervaise]

Maybe we could try to get a "Habeas Corpus" Amendment added to the Constitution? Just to be on the safe side, and all?"28th Amendment: Y'know that thing we mentioned in article one section nine? Well we really really mean it, dawg."

[Gorsnak]

No argument from me there. Rights do not prevent tyranny. Only force does that. (And of course, you have the natural right to use force to secure your rights — though force against a government is usually futile.) But by the same token, squabbles over legal rights are moot for the same reason. It's not the scribbles that guarantee you a judicial review (usually). It's the people with guns who defend the scribbles. When they stop defending them, you'll stop benefiting from them.
Sure. The men with guns are inevitable. There has never been a society where physical force did not enforce the social order, and barring dramatic changes to human nature, there will never be one. Contriving a society in which the men with guns have come to feel obliged to defend those scribbles has been the great genius of the founders of western democracy. Pooh-pooh it all you like, our existing political and social structure utilizes human nature to perpetuate a social order which allows greater freedom than any other system ever has. Your own preferred political structure blindly ignores the reality of human nature, much as its diametrically opposed cousin communism always did as well.

[Squink]

Guess who can’t go to the State of the Union speech? Alberto Gonzales! Because just in case the aliens blow up this joint session, somebody from the White House must be able to continue illegally torturing people all over the world.SOTU Liveblogging (http://wonkette.com/politics/sotu/sotu-liveblogging-like-woodstock-for-wolf-blitzer-230971.php)

[Liberal]

Pooh-pooh it all you like, our existing political and social structure utilizes human nature to perpetuate a social order which allows greater freedom than any other system ever has.I'm not pooh-poohing anything. I'm shaking you by your shoulders and telling you that you are watching the legal rights you cherish die right before your eyes. You're just hearing what you want to hear.

Your own preferred political structure blindly ignores the reality of human nature, much as its diametrically opposed cousin communism always did as well.Democracy is a political structure. Republic, dictatorship, parliament —these are all political structures. Communism, libertarianism, authoritarianism, centrism — these are all political philosophies, adaptable to any arbitrary political structure.

I'm not going to suggest that you disband your Congress or rescind your Constitution (although that would be my personal preference) because you and I will never get past the practicality question. You will argue that my preference is impractical, and I will argue that what is practical depends on what you're practicing.

Neither am I suggesting that you ignore human nature. I'm just telling you that your governors have that same nature, and they are in the process of reaming you out.

[Doctor Who]

Gotchaya! Habeas Corpus can be suspended in cases of rebellion and invasion! Iraq is a perfect example of an invasion followed by a rebellion!
I know this comment sort of fell by the wayside, but I just wanted to say "Congratulations elucidator! First time I spewed Coke all over my laptop today!"

[Baldwin]

I have it on good authority that any and all objections to Alberto Gonzales are based on prejudice against Hispanics.

Actually, I can't remembering back to when Ashcroft left and I thought, "Well, at least the next guy has to be better." Schmuck.

(And, oddly, I keep remembering "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Funny.)

[Gorsnak]

I'm not pooh-poohing anything. I'm shaking you by your shoulders and telling you that you are watching the legal rights you cherish die right before your eyes. You're just hearing what you want to hear.

Democracy is a political structure. Republic, dictatorship, parliament —these are all political structures. Communism, libertarianism, authoritarianism, centrism — these are all political philosophies, adaptable to any arbitrary political structure.

I'm not going to suggest that you disband your Congress or rescind your Constitution (although that would be my personal preference) because you and I will never get past the practicality question. You will argue that my preference is impractical, and I will argue that what is practical depends on what you're practicing.

Neither am I suggesting that you ignore human nature. I'm just telling you that your governors have that same nature, and they are in the process of reaming you out.
Dude, I don't have a Congress and my legal rights are just fine. Just because your country is going all to shit doesn't mean mine is. If your politicians are reaming you out, vote them the fuck out of office.

Nitpick on 'structure' vs 'philosophy' if you like, it doesn't change the fact that libertarianism is hopelessly naive concerning human nature in much the same respect that communism is. Your preference isn't impractical because most people disagree with you. Your preference is impractical because people are wicked and nasty to each other unless constrained to a greater degree than your philosophy allows. Sure, a libertarian state would be possible, and sure, it would result in fewer injustices perpetrated by the government. But it would do so at the cost of far more and greater injustices perpetrated by private citizens. Not a bargain I care to make.

[treis]

Not disputing this, although Lincoln's staff allowed this to be used to stop those who spoke out against him (rebellion I guess), but what about during World War 2, or the War of 1812 where similar methods were utilized.

All I am saying is that the presidency has a long history of suspending constitutional H.C. when they deem necessary. In other words, using the moist towlette when needed.

The right of H.C. came back after those wars ended. The difference in this case is they are being stripped in the name of a fuzzily defined and open ended war on terror.

[John Mace]

Not disputing this, although Lincoln's staff allowed this to be used to stop those who spoke out against him (rebellion I guess), but what about during World War 2, or the War of 1812 where similar methods were utilized.

All I am saying is that the presidency has a long history of suspending constitutional H.C. when they deem necessary. In other words, using the moist towlette when needed.
Only if a "long history" means "once". Please see post #28. (Actually, Lincoln suspended it more than once, but still it was only one president and one war).

[Polycarp]

The late Chief Justice Rehnquist's book All the Laws But One deals precisely with Lincoln's putatively unconstitutional suspension of the Great Writ as an example of the balance between the protection of freedom for all and the guarantee of freedom for each. I don't necessarily agree with him -- in fact, I remember putting down the book disgusted more than once, but it's definitely a worthwhile read.

I've been waiting for Bricker to post to this thread, as I would very much like to see his perspective.

[Liberal]

Nitpick on 'structure' vs 'philosophy' if you like, it doesn't change the fact that libertarianism is hopelessly naive concerning human nature in much the same respect that communism is.It's amazing that someone would call differentiating a structure from a philosophy a "nitpick". It makes one wonder why you bothered to differentiat "libertarianism" from "communism". But hey, maybe you just have nothing serious to say. My apologies and regrets for bothering (with) you.

[John Mace]

The late Chief Justice Rehnquist's book All the Laws But One deals precisely with Lincoln's putatively unconstitutional suspension of the Great Writ as an example of the balance between the protection of freedom for all and the guarantee of freedom for each. I don't necessarily agree with him -- in fact, I remember putting down the book disgusted more than once, but it's definitely a worthwhile read.
One thing I will say in defense of Lincoln is that (IIRC) he only suspended the great writ while Congress was not in session. Once Congress convened, it did ratify the suspension. Given that presidents need to act quickly in times of war or rebellion, I don't find this to be unreasonable. Of course Congress is in session much more frequently now than in the mid 19th century, so that need is greatly diminished. In Bush's case, the need is nonexistent. And Lincoln actually announced his policy formally, while Bush simply assumed it be OK and proceeded to act without giving notice. Granted, Lincoln acted on that policy to much, much greater extent, but that's not relevant to the particular cases in which Bush did act thusly.

[Gorsnak]

It's amazing that someone would call differentiating a structure from a philosophy a "nitpick". It makes one wonder why you bothered to differentiat "libertarianism" from "communism". But hey, maybe you just have nothing serious to say. My apologies and regrets for bothering (with) you.
In the sense I was using "western democracy", it refers to a philosophy, not a structure, just as libertarianism does. This should have been abundantly clear from context. Hence when you said "democracy is a structure not a philosophy" you were completely missing my point. Nitpicking.

"Western democracy" in the sense I was using it refers to roughly the political status quo across western Europe, North America, and various other locations, with a mostly open market, government regulation in certain usually predictable areas, government responsibility for most infrastructure, etc. It also includes independent judiciaries, constitutions guaranteeing various basic civil liberties with certain exceptions, etc, etc, etc. In this regard "western democracy" is perfectly comparable to libertarianism. It's the political philosophy you rail against in most every thread you post in. It is not a content-neutral political structure.

But hey, I don't have anything serious to say.

[Liberal]

In the sense I was using "western democracy", it refers to a philosophy, not a structure, just as libertarianism does. This should have been abundantly clear from context. Hence when you said "democracy is a structure not a philosophy" you were completely missing my point. Nitpicking.Well, I'm sorry about that, but I've just never heard of democracy qua philosophy. I mean, there could be a philosophy of democracy, but then it wouldn't be democracy. Same as the philosophy of science is not science. It is evidence of the weakness of your argument that you have to summon a charge of nitpicking to defend it.

"Western democracy" in the sense I was using it refers to roughly the political status quo across western Europe, North America, and various other locations, with a mostly open market, government regulation in certain usually predictable areas, government responsibility for most infrastructure, etc. It also includes independent judiciaries, constitutions guaranteeing various basic civil liberties with certain exceptions, etc, etc, etc. In this regard "western democracy" is perfectly comparable to libertarianism. It's the political philosophy you rail against in most every thread you post in. It is not a content-neutral political structure.No, you're confusing democracy with majoritarianism. That's the philsophy. Yeah, I know... nitpicking, right? The fact is that there's nothing to prevent a libertarian society from functioning as a democracy. All that libertarianism requires of any political system is that participants be volunteers. It has nothing to do with how you set things up; only that you can't coerce consent. Libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms.

The democratic structures you mention (some of which are also components of other structures) like courts and constitutions and such are not tenets of a philosophy. A philosophy speaks to matters of metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, or epistemology — or some or all of those. It doesn't speak to matters of organization, dispensation, or infrastructure except inasmuch as they may be viewed through the filters I just mentioned. You can speak of the ethics of democracy, or the even the aesthetics of democracy. "Your system of justice is unethical" is a philosophical statement. But "there shall be a system of judicial review" is not a philosophical statement.

[Gorsnak]

Well, I'm sorry about that, but I've just never heard of democracy qua philosophy. I mean, there could be a philosophy of democracy, but then it wouldn't be democracy. Same as the philosophy of science is not science. It is evidence of the weakness of your argument that you have to summon a charge of nitpicking to defend it.

No, you're confusing democracy with majoritarianism. That's the philsophy. Yeah, I know... nitpicking, right? The fact is that there's nothing to prevent a libertarian society from functioning as a democracy. All that libertarianism requires of any political system is that participants be volunteers. It has nothing to do with how you set things up; only that you can't coerce consent. Libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms.

The democratic structures you mention (some of which are also components of other structures) like courts and constitutions and such are not tenets of a philosophy. A philosophy speaks to matters of metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, or epistemology — or some or all of those. It doesn't speak to matters of organization, dispensation, or infrastructure except inasmuch as they may be viewed through the filters I just mentioned. You can speak of the ethics of democracy, or the even the aesthetics of democracy. "Your system of justice is unethical" is a philosophical statement. But "there shall be a system of judicial review" is not a philosophical statement.
Jesus Fucking H. Christ. I'm not confusing any fucking thing, I'm just not using terminology in your preferred manner. Since I explained what I meant by my terminology, your continued misunderstanding of my point means that you're either being obtuse or you're just a jackass. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which.

[BrainGlutton]

The fact is that there's nothing to prevent a libertarian society from functioning as a democracy.

No, you have that backwards. Democracy is a system where the collective will of the people, insofar as they have a will (and as expressed by majority vote because there's no other reasonable way to determine it), is done -- that is, is translated into public policy. There is nothing to prevent a democracy from functioning as a libertarian society, if that's what the people really want. But if the people do not have the option of a non-libertarian choice, it's not a democracy.

[Gorsnak]

No, you have that backwards. Democracy is a system where the collective will of the people, insofar as they have a will (and as expressed by majority vote because there's no other reasonable way to determine it), is done -- that is, is translated into public policy. There is nothing to prevent a democracy from functioning as a libertarian society, if that's what the people really want. But if the people do not have the option of a non-libertarian choice, it's not a democracy.
Well, but all he means is that people in a democracy could vote for libertarianism. That's fine and all. What is annoying me is that he is seemingly incapable of understanding that I used 'western democracy' to mean 'that political philosophy which is prevalent in western democracies', even after I made it extremely explicit and sketched out a little thumbnail portrait of it and everything. Instead of responding to the actual point I was making he lectures me on the definition of 'philosophy', as if I didn't know what it meant after having obtained two degrees and most of a third on the subject before abandoning the study of it.

[BrainGlutton]

All that libertarianism requires of any political system is that participants be volunteers.

I hope you realize that is too far beyond the pale even to be worthy of serious discussion. I mean, even the purest conceptions of communism make more practical sense. A government is by definition something that governs a whole society, and a society is something into which you are born. The only exception is immigration.

[Liberal]

No, you have that backwards. Democracy is a system where the collective will of the people, insofar as they have a will (and as expressed by majority vote because there's no other reasonable way to determine it), is done -- that is, is translated into public policy. There is nothing to prevent a democracy from functioning as a libertarian society, if that's what the people really want. But if the people do not have the option of a non-libertarian choice, it's not a democracy.Actually, you have it backwards. A democracy may enforce any arbitrary law that the majority supports, including one that outlaws, say, the Libertarian Party. That's why you see the unabashed usage of names like "The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea". On the other hand, if even one person has democracy forced upon him against his consent, it's not libertarianism.

[Polycarp]

Thweeet!!! (No, that's not Sylvester the Cat saying, "sweet!," it's an onomatopoetic whistle.

I am fascinated by libertarian political theory. But can we take it to another thread, perhaps in GD, and focus on habeas corpus and AGAG?

I find the recent willingness to consent to the creeping limitations on the Great Writ, concurred in by the supposedly-Honorable Justices of SCOTUS, the Attorneys General, and the legal profession generally, to be truly deplorable. And there is no. fucking. excuse. I don't care how busy the courts are, nor how far-fetched someone's alleged argument is, he is entitled to have it heard by a judge.

[Evil Captor]

Yeah, I see the way the wind blows. Liberal gets to hijack every thread toward libertarianism, but if I were to even suggest once that the real solution to habeas corpus issues is more sexual bondage, I get all suspended and everything. :p

[Steve MB]

I were to even suggest once that the real solution to habeas corpus issues is more sexual bondage, I get all suspended
Well, isn't that what you want?

[David Simmons]

I find the recent willingness to consent to the creeping limitations on the Great Writ, concurred in by the supposedly-Honorable Justices of SCOTUS, the Attorneys General, and the legal profession generally, to be truly deplorable. And there is no. fucking. excuse. I don't care how busy the courts are, nor how far-fetched someone's alleged argument is, he is entitled to have it heard by a judge.Your really don't know how valid an argument is until the person involved presents it to an impartial party at a hearing of some kind. If there is no right for a person to be heard, then the account of what they are claiming comes only from one side and that side is the prosecution which has already made up its mind.

I think it is quite possible for judges and attorneys to get bound up in the minutia of the legal process. So bound up that they forget to step back and remember that the aim of the process is equal treatment of everyone. The whole purpose of habeas corpus is to prevent the authorities from seizing a person and holding them in secret which is what now seems to be happening. Shocking and defending it is even more shocking. The emphasis on the fear of what might happen seems to have deprived a substantial fraction of the population of any sense of proportion as to the response to terrorists.

[Liberal]

I am fascinated by libertarian political theory. But can we take it to another thread, perhaps in GD, and focus on habeas corpus and AGAG?Now, Poly. That's what you get for reading with only one eye crossed. ;) It was not a discussion about libertarianism. It was a discussion about political theory versus government structure. We were discussing things like democracy, republicanism, monarchy, etc. as well as communism, majoritarianism, and so forth.

So far, I'm having a good time posting again. And most fellow Dopers have been very welcoming, including some whom I didn't get along with before. And I've been deliberately shy about bringing up my worldview despite that I, as a human being, cannot help but see the world through its filters. My first foray when I got back was into a GD thread that was about my political philosophy, but even there, I didn't post much.

Now, you have worldviews too. You're a Christian (like me). A modern liberal (unlike me — I'm a classical liberal). And as far as I can tell, you're a Platonic realist (unlike me — I'm an objectivist). You do not hesitate to bring your views to bear upon any discussion, including this one. You are posting as a political modern liberal. Your opinions are tinged with modern liberalism (and classical realism). You don't mind invoking your L-word either, whenever it suits you.

May I submit that it is unfair — and unlike you — to deny to me what you keep for yourself and do not deny to others.

If you believe that I am worth a paltry moment of your time and a minimum of effort, please review my participation in this thread. You may not have noticed that I was the first respondent. I had read the OP as ranting against the trampling of our rights. Habeas corpus was merely the object of Bush's latest slaughter of liberty.

It was not, to me at least, a discussion about the underlying theories of habeas corpus. And it certainly wasn't a discussion about Abraham Lincoln or anything that he did as president. But you were interested in the Lincoln discussion, and so you joined it without whistling down anybody at all.

Now, threads aren't like ladders. They don't progress one rung at a time along a perfect path to Internet enlightenment. Rather, they are like trees, with branches spouting all around. That way, people can bring their worldviews to bear, and they can talk about how it relates to Lincoln or how it relates to natural rights. And they can do this without thweeting one another.

My second big participation after my return, incidentally, was defending you vociferously against Mr. Badchad. I summoned every logical nuance I had ever learned to make the case that he was trolling. It could have been entirely a coincidence, but he was subsequently suspended. (Lots of others were putting together the same picture in different ways.) Same same for the troll, Ammoniam Sanctus, or whatever he called himself.

I'm not saying that you owe me anything for that, but it was not necessary for you to throw fuel onto the fire that is the myth about my hijacking threads.

The fact is that I don't do anything different from any of you. You bring your views to bear. You identify them by name. You do this in every thread on every topic where your views apply. I do not bring up my libertarianism in a Cafe Society thread about American Idol. I have not mentioned it in many other threads either, since my return. You've given Evil Captor now the opportunity to post "Liberal gets to hijack every thread toward libertarianism".

That's a lie. You know it. And you enabled it. Thanks a lot. For nothing.

[Northern Piper]

You know, I used to have a modicum of respect for Lib - didn't agree with his approach, but his emphasis on natural rights struck me as a morally defensible position.

However, with this passage, he shows that he's really not convinced by his own argument:No argument from me there. Rights do not prevent tyranny. Only force does that. (And of course, you have the natural right to use force to secure your rights — though force against a government is usually futile.) But by the same token, squabbles over legal rights are moot for the same reason. It's not the scribbles that guarantee you a judicial review (usually). It's the people with guns who defend the scribbles. When they stop defending them, you'll stop benefiting from them.He's got no conception of the principle that people voluntarily obey laws (which is supposedly the heart of libertarianism) because they see the benefit of a society governed by laws.

It's just force. That's the only reason people obey laws. All power flows from the barrel of a gun. Lib and Mao - ideological soul-mates.

[Liberal]

If I may be allowed to respond to that briefly, I would note that (1) a lot of people do not obey laws, often including the lawmakers themselves; (2) I have nothing against laws, other than ones that obfuscate and contradict — in fact, as I said in the thread about the Washington Times / Insight fiasco, I think laws should be more stringent against coercions like fraud; (3) it is common knowledge that power comes from power, and guns are presently our most powerful weapons; and (4) rights themselves do not come from power but from birth. A man who uses power to supress rights is called a "tyrant".

[Polycarp]

To clarify something which I have inadvertently started here, I was not accusing Liberal of having hijacked the thread, but rather that, he having posted from his views on political philosophy (duly held, and as he points out, as appropriate as anyone else's), we had gotten off into a rather theoretical discussion about the origin and nature of rights. I felt that the issue of Gonzales and his disgustingly wrong stance on habeas corpus was sufficiently important in and of itself that that theoretical discussion, interesting as it was, constituted a hijack from an important topic. My apologies to Lib for the seeming implication.

To Northern Piper, in furtherance of that hijack, my stance is something of a social contract one: we as a community (the US or Canada) have agreed that we will be governed by a government of law, and that the resistance of that agreement by force by any one individual will be repelled by even greater force -- in other words, the cops arrest the criminal, the cops and National Guard enforce the state of emergency declarations in the area hit by natural disaster, the troops suppress the rebellion, each with the level of force appropriate and necessary. The speeding ticket is issued with no force whatsoever, the armed robber with a bit more, and the gang warfare with more yet. That's the context in which I hear Lib meaning force: the power of state-as-community brought to bear to protect the rights of the individual and the community, against those who would use force or fraud to vitiate them.

The actual writ of habeas corpus comes up seldom in discussions of law, which masks its true importance. The point to the writ is that citizens of our respective nations have a right to a trial before a judge and/or jury in accordance with settled law, that they may not be held at the whim of the deciderer and his minions. You and I have the right to go about our legal business unmolested by the long arm of the law; should some officious official decide to interfere with that right, our recourse is to the courts, where we will be found guilty or not guilty of an offense known to the law -- common or statute, regulation promulgated in accord with statute, whatever. But not for some nebulous night-and-fog violation of national security.

This is what makes Gonzales's remarks so heinous: that the man charged with heading this country's enforcement of the law is prepared to vitiate the historically most important means of ensuring government by law and not by the whim of the leader, to claim that it is not in fact a right. Bluntly, the license to torture that his other memo asserts pales by comparison.

If I were a lawyer active in the Republican party, upon reading this assertion I would immediately be compelled by my oath to the courts to take every possible step to ensure that the Attorney General is not only fired but disbarred and sent where he would have sent others.

This is not a theoretical issue. It strikes at the core of the nature of our government. Either that, or we can paint a star on the ceiling of some courtroom, and create a new District Court that sits in camera there, declining to publish its rulings and rubber stamped by SCOTUS.

That most cases are brought to court without the need to revert to the Great Writ does not diminish its importance. There are many powers which government rarely uses -- but the fact they are there ensures effective government. In Canada, the Governor General may dismiss a ministry and call for an election. Ordinarily he or she will never do so. But that he or she has that power is the safeguard against a dictatorial Prime Minister retaining authority by force. Impeachment is rarely used in the US. But its presence is a safeguard against the abuse of power by the President, Cabinet secretaries, judges, and others. And the Great Writ, guaranteeing by right that any citizen detained has the right to a free trial before his peers and in accordance with law, is another such protection.

Personally, I hold to the Madisonian-Jeffersonian doctrine of natural rights: that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. That governments exist to provide governance by law and to guarantee those rights against all who would abuse them. Whatever your political philosophy, Americans are guaranteed certain rights by act of the Constitution, which is the only true source of their government's power. To arbitrarily suppress such rights, in the name of whatever supposed authority, is to vitiate the social compact under which the very government derives its authority from the sovereign people.

"Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the second may profit by their example." :p

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

Can anybody find a cite for this besides the one linked in the OP? I can't find any other mention of this exchange in Google, nor can I find a transcript of the hearing. I did find other news articles referring to the hearing, but they don't discuss the exchange in question. I'm unfamiliar with this particular news organization and I would like to read the quotes in context.

[Liberal]

To clarify something which I have inadvertently started here, I was not accusing Liberal of having hijacked the thread, but rather that, he having posted from his views on political philosophy (duly held, and as he points out, as appropriate as anyone else's), we had gotten off into a rather theoretical discussion about the origin and nature of rights.Thanks for clearing that up. I do think that the origin and nature of rights bears directly on this topic. If our freedom is slipping away, it is because government is using its power to usurp an unethical authority. What I'm saying is that if the right to the writ can be destroyed by this Gonzales maneouvre, then it is proof that the alleged Constitutional guarantees are illusory, and subject to the whims and interpretations of men with power.

[Squink]

Can anybody find a cite for this besides the one linked in the OP? I can't find any other mention of this exchange in Google, nor can I find a transcript of the hearing.
Video and transcript (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/gonzales-habeas/)

[Captain Carrot]

It occurs to me that, sidestepping arguments over what rights exist when they are discussed certain ways in the Constitution, there's a very simple thing going on here. The Constitution forbids restriction of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion, and Gonzales is...restricting habeas corpus. Not much you can really do with that.

[elucidator]

He did leave himself a weasel-hole, a rhetorical trap door. Note: "...I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn’t say, “Every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas...."

He could sidestep with "every citizen" not being equivalent to "every individual". He could say that of course every citizen has assurances of habeas, but that does not necessarily extend to every individual. Non-citizens such as terrorist infiltrators and illegal aliens of other stripes are not so blessed. As well as such persons who have voluntarily relinquished their citizenship rights by way of treasonous actions or utterances and whose names appear on The List....

(OK, made that up, not a true fact you can look up. I hope.)

So he has some squirming room.

[BrainGlutton]

. . . but if I were to even suggest once that the real solution to habeas corpus issues is more sexual bondage . . .

Nah. They already tried that.

[BrainGlutton]

As well as such persons who have voluntarily relinquished their citizenship rights by way of treasonous actions or utterances and whose names appear on The List....

Well, there's also this clause prohibiting Bills of Attainder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder) . . .