# Abolition of habeas corpus (long) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2004, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772 "2004-12-20T11:00:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/21 "2004-12-20T21:40:57Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > How utterly irrelevant. But no, if one of those three countries had such a policy, I wouldn’t ‘support’ it. If it were, say for example, Great Britain, France, and Germany we were talking about, though, I would. Not all nations are alike, you know. Good, now we’re getting somewhere. So, you agree that this power would be a bad thing in some people’s hands. To support it in the US government’s you must therefore: 1. Trust the US government to a very large degree. 2. Trust your own judgment in deciding who should and who shouldn’t have this power to a very large degree. 3. Believe that it is impossible for the US to one day be led by people in the second category. Agree? > [@](#): > > Damnit, leave your stupid drama-queen bitching in the Pit, would you? It’s bad enough that you pollute the hell out of that Pit thread, but to do the same to your own GD thread? Actually, that Pit thread is mine too, and I’m really hard put to see how asking you to answer some simple questions is equivalent to “stupid drama-queen bitching”. Using language like that is also, I think, utterly inappropriate for Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/22 "2004-12-21T00:06:02Z")
Exactly how far are you willing to go in insisting that the US follow due process and so forth? Would you accept, for example, if we captured a bunch of enemies who were fighting against us (even though they weren’t uniformed) and held them in a prison camp without offering them lawyers? How about if they aren’t citizens? What do you think the rules ought to be? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/23 "2004-12-21T01:15:58Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > 1. Trust the US government to a very large degree. They already have several thousand nuclear weapons, and they seem pretty responsible with those. Obviously, you _must_ trust them as well, for the same reason. After all, the ability to destroy the world trumps the ability to snatch up old Swiss grannies or whatever, and I don’t see you guys freaking out on a daily basis over those. But sure, I trust our gov’t to a large degree with certain matters. It’s not binary, you know. I can distrust the pig-eyed little bastards when it comes to taxation or social policy, but I can trust them when it comes to prosecuting a international counter-terrorism war. So far, I have seen nothing that raises concern that their new powers are being used for anything but counter-terrorism. > [@](#): > > 1. Trust your own judgment in deciding who should and who shouldn’t have this power to a very large degree. Of course I trust my own judgement. > [@](#): > > 1. Believe that it is impossible for the US to one day be led by people in the second category. Irrelevant. If Hitler came back to life and got elected (Dems do need a strong candidate in '08…), it’s not like a law or two will give him, or people like him, any pause. Besides, we are treading on old ground. Habeas corpus has been suspended before, during the Civil War. As the need declined, it was reinstated, and we are more free, as a nation, now than we were then, you must agree. > [@](#): > > …I think, utterly inappropriate for Great Debates. But calling people a troll in your OP is appropriate? Funny that. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/24 "2004-12-21T08:10:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Exactly how far are you willing to go in insisting that the US follow due process and so forth? Pretty far. > [@](#): > > Would you accept, for example, if we captured a bunch of enemies who were fighting against us (even though they weren’t uniformed) and held them in a prison camp without offering them lawyers? Depends on the circumstances. Did you attack their home town and they took up arms in defense? Then I think they should be released. Do you have some sort of legitimate grievance against them? Then present it and give them lawyers as soon as you can. > [@](#): > > How about if they aren’t citizens? Of where? The US? Doesn’t matter. > [@Brutus](#): > > They already have several thousand nuclear weapons, and they seem pretty responsible with those. Obviously, you must trust them as well, for the same reason. After all, the ability to destroy the world trumps the ability to snatch up old Swiss grannies or whatever, and I don’t see you guys freaking out on a daily basis over those. I’d feel better knowing there were no nuclear weapons in the US or anywhere else, but the existence of nuclear weapons doesn’t mean I want the US to get more powers. Besides, what’s the incentive to destroy the world? There isn’t one. I “trust” them not to do that because they have no reason to. As for the little old lady in Switzerland, apparently anything done in the name of the “war on terror” is fair game, mistakes are made, and I don’t want to have to risk being disappeared just because I disagree with somebody. > [@](#): > > Of course I trust my own judgement. You don’t think you can be deceived, have incomplete information or be unable to interpret it perfectly? > [@](#): > > Irrelevant. If Hitler came back to life and got elected (Dems do need a strong candidate in '08…), it’s not like a law or two will give him, or people like him, any pause. Ah. So basically you’re saying that you can give government any powers whatsoever, because “good” governments will use them for good and “bad” governments will do what they want anyway, legal powers or no? > [@](#): > > Besides, we are treading on old ground. Habeas corpus has been suspended before, during the Civil War. As the need declined, it was reinstated, and we are more free, as a nation, now than we were then, you must agree. So they did something wrong during the Civil War, it accidentally came out all right, and that somehow justifies doing the same thing again (for less reason, I might add)? > [@](#): > > But calling people a troll in your OP is appropriate? Funny that. I didn’t call **Ryan\_Liam** a troll, I pointed out that he is in fact a self-admitted troll and provided a link to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/25 "2004-12-21T09:32:16Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I’d feel better knowing there were no nuclear weapons in the US or anywhere else, but the existence of nuclear weapons doesn’t mean I want the US to get more powers. Besides, what’s the incentive to destroy the world? There isn’t one. I “trust” them not to do that because they have no reason to. And the ‘incentive’ for our forces to have a go at little old Swiss grannies is…? > [@](#): > > You don’t think you can be deceived, have incomplete information or be unable to interpret it perfectly? As unlikely as it is, I suppose it’s possible. But it’s still irrelevant; I don’t see why a goverment that was going to follow the laws of the land would lie and scheme their way into office. I mean, once you get into office through plotting and mischief, it’s happy hour, well-intentioned laws be damned. > [@](#): > > Ah. So basically you’re saying that you can give government any powers whatsoever, because “good” governments will use them for good and “bad” governments will do what they want anyway, legal powers or no? Not hardly. But note that the Presidency already carries great powers. Always has, probably always will. Executive Orders, for one. Quite amazing what those can do, and all a President needs is just over 1/3 of Congress to back him, and he is in like Flynn. Besides, if a majority of the electorate (and EC) decides that said powers are being abused, the near-worst case scenario is that you have 4 years of dealing with it. And if things are uber-bad, you know, man-the-ramparts bad, be grateful for the 2nd Amendment. But ridiculous melodrama aside, we recently had an election. The majority of the American electorate didn’t see a need to change leaders, so it doesn’t look like you guys are making a compelling case for abused powers or whatnot. > [@](#): > > So they did something wrong during the Civil War, it accidentally came out all right, and that somehow justifies doing the same thing again (for less reason, I might add)? The Civil War showed that there were times and instances where applying protections to the ‘t’ would have been detrimental; When the danger was removed, so were the enhanced powers. Nothing accidental about it. > [@](#): > > I didn’t call **Ryan\_Liam** a troll, I pointed out that he is in fact a self-admitted troll and provided a link to that effect. You most certainly did, and your link doesn’t save you from that. There was no confession of guilt in that link. You and **World Eater** seem to have a fetish with **Ryan** and calling him a troll and goading him; Why not just leave that in the Pit thread instead of bringing it up in your OP? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/26 "2004-12-21T09:44:19Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > And the ‘incentive’ for our forces to have a go at little old Swiss grannies is…? Once again: mistakes can be made. Even if they aren’t made, the possibility brings fear. I’m afraid that someone will make a mistake or that someone will decide I’m a good person to not have around. I wouldn’t trust anyone with those kinds of powers. Anyone who runs an entire country must be sorely tempted to abuse that power. > [@](#): > > But it’s still irrelevant; I don’t see why a goverment that was going to follow the laws of the land would lie and scheme their way into office. I mean, once you get into office through plotting and mischief, it’s happy hour, well-intentioned laws be damned. Not really. If you don’t follow the laws, you need a much larger part of the apparatus of society on your side and cooperating. > [@](#): > > Not hardly. But note that the Presidency already carries great powers. Always has, probably always will. Executive Orders, for one. Quite amazing what those can do, and all a President needs is just over 1/3 of Congress to back him, and he is in like Flynn. Besides, if a majority of the electorate (and EC) decides that said powers are being abused, the near-worst case scenario is that you have 4 years of dealing with it. So, because the President is _already_ powerful, giving him more powers doesn’t matter? > [@](#): > > The Civil War showed that there were times and instances where applying protections to the ‘t’ would have been detrimental; When the danger was removed, so were the enhanced powers. Nothing accidental about it. So if the powers had been abused back then (in your opinion), you would be against instating them now? If not, what is the relevance of the Civil War comparison? Besides, what’s the enormous danger that didn’t exist before and does exist now? That there are 11 fanatic terrorists less in the world? > [@](#): > > You most certainly did, and your link doesn’t save you from that. There was no confession of guilt in that link. Since you obviously didn’t read it, I’ll quote it for you: > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I know what I write is dumb, but I like to piss you all off. Clear admission of trolling, as **Lynn Bodoni** and others saw. > [@Brutus](#): > > You and **World Eater** seem to have a fetish with **Ryan** and calling him a troll and goading him In fact, I soon learned to ignore him. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/27 "2004-12-21T09:44:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Exactly how far are you willing to go in insisting that the US follow due process and so forth? > > Would you accept, for example, if we captured a bunch of enemies who were fighting against us (even though they weren’t uniformed) and held them in a prison camp without offering them lawyers? > > How about if they aren’t citizens? > > What do you think the rules ought to be? > > Regards, > Shodan Speaking only for myself, yes, I would find that satisfactory. Obviously, the US government is not doing this, and that is the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/28 "2004-12-21T09:49:36Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > You and **World Eater** seem to have a fetish with **Ryan** and calling him a troll and goading him This bit somehow disappeared from my post. I meant to ask when I ever referred to him as a troll prior to this thread, and when I goaded him. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/29 "2004-12-21T09:52:23Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Of course I trust my own judgement. Good for you; I just don’t trust yours. And by all that’s holy I shouldn’t have to. The law should exist for both of us, not just for you. > [@Brutus](#): > > Besides, we are treading on old ground. Habeas corpus has been suspended before, during the Civil War. As the need declined, it was reinstated, and we are more free, as a nation, now than we were then, you must agree. Re-read your history. The Supreme Court overturned Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus. He didn’t do it voluntarily. And he was one of the best presidents this country has ever had. What is Bush going to do? > [@Brutus](#): > > And the ‘incentive’ for our forces to have a go at little old Swiss grannies is…? Apparently it’s got nothing to do with incentive, only with will. And the will of the US is apparently enough to trump whatever international law we see fit to ignore. Read the article quoted in the OP - that is an exact quote from a US district attorney. > [@Brutus](#): > > But calling people a troll in your OP is appropriate? Funny that. He called himself a troll, and was cautioned by a mod. You are personally insulting someone, which is not allowed in this forum. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/30 "2004-12-21T09:59:27Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Irrelevant. If Hitler came back to life and got elected (Dems do need a strong candidate in '08…), it’s not like a law or two will give him, or people like him, any pause. > > Besides, if a majority of the electorate (and EC) decides that said powers are being abused, the near-worst case scenario is that you have 4 years of dealing with it. And if things are uber-bad, you know, man-the-ramparts bad, be grateful for the 2nd Amendment. Are these two quotes not contradictory? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/31 "2004-12-21T10:05:54Z")
> [@marky33](#): > > Are these two quotes not contradictory? No. You need to re-read them. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/32 "2004-12-21T10:13:31Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I know that the US, including the Supreme Court, is calling it a war. I just don’t agree that it is, any more than the “war on drugs” is really a war. For a war to exist, I at least think there must be two sides fighting each other. I don’t see that here. I see one unusually successful act of terrorism and the vastly overrated reaction. The two sides are fighting. Al-Queda is attacking us as much as they are able; we have successsfully carried the fight to them. I don’t see how you don’t see this. > [@Priceguy](#): > > If you find it impossible or pointless to discuss anything but the US Federal Code or the US Constitution, then so be it. I think it’s highly interesting to discuss the right to not be detained without due process no matter what the Constitution or Supreme Court say. Actually, it is kind of pointless. We’re not talking about some vague legal terminology, but a real right that is being withheld both Americans and non-US citizens being held in custody without any redress to be tried and thus either convicted and sentenced or aquited and released. A right which the US government wants to further retract. If we’re not talking about that, why did you say Habeas Corpus in your OP? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/33 "2004-12-21T10:18:06Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > The two sides are fighting. Al-Queda is attacking us as much as they are able; we have successsfully carried the fight to them. I don’t see how you don’t see this. Name five of the attacks and I might be. > [@](#): > > Actually, it is kind of pointless. We’re not talking about some vague legal terminology, but a real right that is being withheld both Americans and non-US citizens being held in custody without any redress to be tried and thus either convicted and sentenced or aquited and released. A right which the US government wants to further retract. > > If we’re not talking about that, why did you say Habeas Corpus in your OP? Because habeas corpus is the name for that right and has been since 1679. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/34 "2004-12-21T10:18:10Z")
Just to be clear, **Brutus** and perhaps others, you are advocating the indefinite detention of _suspected_ criminals despite an absence of evidence with which to _convict_ them? ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/35 "2004-12-21T10:19:04Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Irrelevant. If Hitler came back to life and got elected (Dems do need a strong candidate in '08…), it’s not like a law or two will give him, or people like him, any pause. Very cute. If Hitler ran for any party, I would think it would be the party of hate and exclusion and gay bashing and and racism (Republican), not the party of inclusion. Just my 2p. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/36 "2004-12-21T10:30:15Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Name five of the attacks and I might be. OK: 1st World Trade Centre Bombing USS Cole Embassy attacks in Tanzania and Kenya Attempted 12-31-2000 bombings of LAX and Seattle’s Space Needle 9-11 Bali resort bombing (killing mostly Australians, so maybe that doesn’t count?) Various attacks in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Attacks in Egypt (resort full of Israeli students) may be Al-Queda (not proven yet but highly likely) Publishing of instructions on attacking and overthrowing Saudi government Repeated attacks on aid workers, including Doctors Without Borders and UN missions, in Afghanistan and Iraq Assasination attempts (3 at last count) on Musharraf Need any more? There’s lots more attempts out there. > [@Priceguy](#): > > Because habeas corpus is the name for that right and has been since 1679. Again, what is the point of debating a legal principle? We can’t enforce that. We can enforce the Constitution and the US code. Give us something to work from, or it’s just pie in the sky. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/37 "2004-12-21T10:37:06Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > OK: > 1st World Trade Centre Bombing > USS Cole > Embassy attacks in Tanzania and Kenya > Attempted 12-31-2000 bombings of LAX and Seattle’s Space Needle These aren’t part of the war on terror. I didn’t hear that term any time prior to the World Trade Center attacks. Was it used before that? > [@](#): > > 9-11 One. Even this one I hesitate to call an act of war. > [@](#): > > Bali resort bombing (killing mostly Australians, so maybe that doesn’t count?) I have severe trouble seeing this as an attack on the US. > [@](#): > > Various attacks in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Inhabitants of an occupied country attacking the occupants, you mean? > [@](#): > > Attacks in Egypt (resort full of Israeli students) may be Al-Queda (not proven yet but highly likely) How is this an attack on the US? > [@](#): > > Publishing of instructions on attacking and overthrowing Saudi government So a terrorist organization works out a plan to attack another country’s government, and that’s somehow an act of war against the US? > [@](#): > > Repeated attacks on aid workers, including Doctors Without Borders and UN missions, in Afghanistan and Iraq Last I checked, Doctors Without Borders and UN missions weren’t part of the US. > [@](#): > > Assasination attempts (3 at last count) on Musharraf Since when do assassination attempts by organizations constitute acts of war? > [@](#): > > Need any more? There’s lots more attempts out there. Keep them coming. I really don’t get the American need to label this a war. Why not just tell the truth: “They hit us, it hurt, we’re going to hit back”? > [@](#): > > Again, what is the point of debating a legal principle? We can’t enforce that. We can enforce the Constitution and the US code. Give us something to work from, or it’s just pie in the sky. The point of debate is “Should the US uphold the right to fair trial, freedom from detention without due process and so forth?”. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/38 "2004-12-21T10:47:04Z")
Actually, **Gomiboy** , everything you cited _after_ 9-11 (perhaps with the exception of the publication of that inflammatory literature) appears to be utterly unconnected with the handful of foreign Taleban fanatics financed by a rich Saudi psychopath. The name “Al Qaeda” was never used by _anyone_ before January 2001, when a supposed informer was prompted by the FBI to testify that Binladen headed an enormous, global organisation. “Al Qaeda” barely even existed then, and it almost certainly doesn’t any more. Jemaah Islamiah, the group responsible for the Bali Bomb, had [no link with Al Qaeda](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/01/08/bali.alqaeda/). The Madrid bomb was planted by a group called [Islamic Combatants of Morocco](http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/31/spain.bombings/) (GICM), who exchanged drugs for mining explosives - again, these are hardly the actions of a **global** terrorist organisation. The Chechen separatists and the Egypt gunmen had no AQ link either. These groups are isolated handfuls of psychopaths - only one of them, somewhere in the world, needs to put some cheap explosives in a public place once a year and the Al Qaeda illusion is complete. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/39 "2004-12-21T10:51:19Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I really don’t get the American need to label this a war. Why not just tell the truth: “They hit us, it hurt, we’re going to hit back”? The point being, the WOT (all capitols) didn’t come into play until 9-11, but Al-Queda declared war on the US long before that. And when someone attacks our staunchest allies (Australia, Pakistan, Saudi, Israel) we are obligated by treaties to reply in some fashion. Since their attackers also attacked us, then yes, I feel that it is equal to a act of war against us. They hit us, it hurt, we’re gonna hit back - is this not war in it’s basest terms? > [@Priceguy](#): > > The point of debate is “Should the US uphold the right to fair trial, freedom from detention without due process and so forth?”. Look, you can’t defend something that isn’t part of the Constitution or Legal Framework of the US. If you want to talk about the concept and history of Habeas Corpus, and then related that to current events, be my guest. But it’s nothing that will help us now. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772/40 "2004-12-21T11:15:24Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > The point being, the WOT (all capitols) didn’t come into play until 9-11, but Al-Queda declared war on the US long before that. Cite? As far as I know Al-Qaeda didn’t even exist long before that, and has never declared war on the US. > [@](#): > > And when someone attacks our staunchest allies (Australia, Pakistan, Saudi, Israel) we are obligated by treaties to reply in some fashion. What treaties obligate the US to retaliate when its allies are the victims of terrorist attacks? > [@](#): > > Since their attackers also attacked us, then yes, I feel that it is equal to a act of war against us. Most of the attacks you described were carried out by different people and organizations. > [@](#): > > Look, you can’t defend something that isn’t part of the Constitution or Legal Framework of the US. Why not? > [@](#): > > If you want to talk about the concept and history of Habeas Corpus, and then related that to current events, be my guest. But it’s nothing that will help us now. Nor will anything else, I fear. What I’m talking about is how we all (as in you, me, **Brutus** , **Shodan** , **SentientMeat** and all other participants) think that the US should act. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abolition-of-habeas-corpus-long/280772.md?page=3)