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?
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.
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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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???
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
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.
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).