Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Fails To Reinstate Habeas Corpus
Khyber notes that yesterday a vote in the US Senate fell four votes short of what was needed to restore habeas corpus — the fundamental right of individauls to challenge government detention. Here is the record of the vote on the Cloture Motion to restore Habeas Corpus. Article 4 of the US Constitution states that habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion and invasion when the public safety may require it.
Just like the updates to the Insurrection Act of 1807 didn't enable martial law under nearly any circumstances or revoke Posse Comitatus, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 didn't revoke Habeas Corpus. To believe otherwise about either is politically charged fantasy.
Note that the linked article is an opinion piece from The Nation, self described as "the flagship of the left", so when it says things about Habeas Corpus such as, "which the Republican Congress revoked", it's not a fact, it's just what the type of article it is explicitly states: an opinion. Further, we don't have a Republican Congress anymore, so I'm not sure how that is even meaningful. I guess I'm supposed to assume that even a Democratic Congress doesn't want to "restore Habeas Corpus"? (And naturally, surprise, this is posted by kdawson.)
The fact of the matter is that Habeas Corpus was not suspended in any way, shape, or form. The Military Commissions Act does not apply to US citizens, permanent residents, or persons with a valid legal status within the United States. Only US citizens have a right to Habeas Corpus (Gonzales' ridiculous statements on the issue aside). MCA only applies to "aliens [that is, not US citizens] with no [US] immigration status who are captured and held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"; that is, MCA does not apply to US citizens. Therefore, Habeas Corpus was not suspended, and to argue that it was is puzzling to me.
The argument that Habeas Corpus needs to apply to literally everyone because otherwise there is no way to "prove" that you are a US citizen to which MCA doesn't apply is something of a curious one. MCA already does not apply to US citizens apprehended on US soil. You do not need a court to affirm what is already known. If you believe the authorities will ignore the fact that someone is a US citizen and detain them anyway, then there are larger fundamental issues than whether or not someone can challenge detention; indeed, if the government really wanted to secretly detain someone without cause or ability to challenge, US citizen or not, they simply wouldn't give them any recourse at all, Habeas Corpus or no, now would they?
On this general issue, there is certainly some merit to the argument that things like terrorism should be treated as a civil or criminal matter and not a military and national security issue. However, I do not subscribe to that viewpoint. Our freedoms and rights are things that US citizens and immigrants enjoy. Else, there is no function or purpose for immigration or even borders.
Some tend to confuse US citizens and residents with everyone else on the planet, and pretend that the Constitution actually applies to everyone on Earth (which it doesn't), or that it should (which it shouldn't - perhaps in an idealized world, someday, everyone can expect and enjoy such a baseline of freedoms and rights).
And to those who will come out of the woodwork saying, "What about Jose Padilla?"
That was before MCA, which is what people say "suspended Habeas Corpus". That is, Jose Padilla did have Habeas Corpus rights and yet was still detained. That's part of reason MCA came into existence: to clarify this situation. Such detention of a US citizen apprehended on US soil, regardless of designation, has subsequently been clearly determined to be legally inappropriate, and, as such, does not fall under MCA.
On top of all of this, to those that think that administration officials are going to lie and ignore any and all laws anyway, then what difference does any wording of any law really make?
Disclaimer: portions of this post were culled or paraphrased from a couple of previous posts of mine here on the topic, but is precisely on point, so there is no need to retype.
Republicans voting yes: 6 out of 49 (1 non-voting)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Sununu (R-NH)
Democrats voting no: none
Every single Democratic senator voted in favor of the amendment. 85% of Republicans voted against it.
Its just sad that legislation to confirm a constitutionally-guaranteed right which (in theory) protects people from government abuse has been reduced to partisan bickering.
Habeas Corpus lasted 9 centuries so at least we can say it had a good run.
How about a list of the people who voted against?
/.ers
I'm sure they would love to hear from 40 zillion angry
as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31
What a totally loaded statement. No wonder it got voted down. Hidden agendas should always be outed.
It's shit like this that makes me believe in my credo that much more: "I may answer to the government, but the government answers to Smith & Wesson!"
The game.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
That was the most misleading and infantile summary of a worthless piece of sloganeering shit I have ever seen on this site. I'm impressed you're even willing to argue the point(s) raised in the linked article, since the gross intellectual dishonesty apparent in the article and the summary suggest the authors and any of their fellow travelers would be quite immune to the influence of reason and good sense.
Seriously, is kdawson an alias for kos? Because his stories look just like those you can find on dkos.
Habeaus Corpus never went anywhere and kdawson is just trolling when he says it has been revoked. It's just a flat-out lie that he should be fired for saying.
Your post should be modded +5 insightful. Anybody who mods this overrated or troll is just abusing mod points.
The only democrat who voted nay was Lieberman, who's not even a democrat any more. The problem is that the democrats don't have a 3/5 majority, even with 6 republicans voting outside their party. I think the people you need to be thanking about the republicans how stuck to their party line instead of doing what they know is right.
Who are these "some" that you're talking about?
If you have to ask that then there's no use explaining it to you.
The LAWS we pass are what defines our country. So the wording of those laws DOES matter, even if the law will be ignored.
Most everyone would be opposed to having a law that said that no Jews could hold public office. Even if that law was mostly ignored.
Despite this not really applying to US citizens, shouldn't this be viewed as an unalienable right of the people, regardless of affiliation? Even if other gov't choose to not pursue this right(since you ARE human, right?) as yours and cannot be taken away, shouldn't this be a "practice what you preach" sort of deal?
import system.cool.Sig;
This was not a failed vote to reinstate habeas corpus; this was a failed vote to end a threatened filibuster by Republican Senators.
After years of crying that Democrats threatened filibuster, and the media reporting it as such, we have come to a time where the Republicans have turned almost every debate leading to a vote into a threatened filibuster... and the media are not reporting it as such. Instead, they swallow the GOP line that there needed to be 60 votes for it.
Stupid, lazy, cowardly reporters.
Caligula reigns
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans
No shit? Let's read the first sentence of the Bill of Rights, then:
"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons."
Son of gun, you're right, it says "persons" not "citizens!" So I guess every forty thousand persons -- anywhere on the planet, whether or not they're the subject of some other king, or citizen of some other republic -- have been entitled to a representative in the US Congress since 1789. Amazing! And those bastards in Washington have just ignored this fundamental right of South Africans, Samoans, Libyans and Mongolians since the very founding of the Republic. Most of the planet has been disenfranchised for the last 220 years, apparently.
Not only that...did you notice they didn't make a distinction between criminals and free citizens? So all felons worldwide -- Nazi war criminals, Stalin's secret policemen, Pol Pot and his henchmen, Idi Amin's murdering thugs, and South African apartheidists -- have always been entitled to vote in American elections, too.
For that matter, they didn't make a distinction between adults and children, either! So this business of not letting people vote until they're old enough to, say, read and write, is totally unconstitutional.
Although...I suppose a cynic might say that the context of the Bill of Rights matters, and that only an idiot would assume the "persons" the document addresses are meant to be understood as all people everywhere, anytime as opposed to, say, the "people" specifically addressed in the opening sentence ("We the People of the United States....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...")
...that doesn't make it any less true!
and the laws we apparently have, is pretty damned embarrassing to me. America seems to keep becoming more and more un-American, and I'm rather displeased by that.
Republicans seem disturbed about it too, when they're not in power. I so love Republicans when they're at a disadvantage. At least, unlike Democrats, they can talk the talk.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Who stuck to party lines more, Reuplicans or Democrats? It seems six Republicans broke away, but only 1 Democrat did the same...hmmmm. So what you really meant to say is, "why can't those stupid Republicans see they are voting incorrectly and they should vote the way I want them to vote". Or maybe you meant to say, "since I agree with the Democrats on this issue, it is obvious that Republicans are stupid." Scary.
Just vote all fucktarded Republican Rednecks out of every office along with their fucktarded Libertarian redneck counterparts, including the Democrat In Name Only Lieberman.
Why does it seem all the Slashdot political articles seem to pop up only when they show the Democrats in a good light (which I admit isn't so difficult to do these days)? The sponsor of this particular bill was a Republican.
From my perspective, our mess is a bipartisan one. In the short run, the neocons have been an historic disaster, but in the long run of history, both parties are for limiting government only when it suits their particular needs. They are all willing to drive a bulldozer over the constitution when they see fit. They have no principles that don't bend as public opinion suits.
They are also fair-weather federalists. The Republicans are all for states rights until you grant abortion rights, or legalize medical marijuana. The Democrats found a new respect for states rights when they were in the minority position, but now that they righty take back the country from the neocons, I suspect they won't be so fond of any limits to forcing universal healthcare down the states throats or any of the other good works they want to perform.
Republicans ignore the constitutional limits with their authoritarianism and Democrats do the same with their paternalism. None of them have any principles that would have them stand against the tide of madness that often sweeps through the American people.
You lost me at "spritual destiny". Flame-bait indeed.
Let's be completely honest on this subject: It didn't "fall short"... it was filibustered by obstructionist Republicans who are continuing to persue their radical, America-hating, conservative agenda.
I've been seeing all kinds of colorful phraseology to dance around the Republican's obstructionism: "failure to pass", requiring a "super majority", etc. But as anyone who understands how the US Government works, bills pass with a simple majority. It doesn't require 60 votes to pass a bill- it requires 60 votes to end a filibuster.
So Republicans need to admit to their obstructionism, and explain to the American people exactly why they don't believe prisoners have the right to find out why they are in prison, or why the government thinks it has the right to hold anyone indefinitely without charge. Republicans need to explain why they think America is so weak it can't handle letting people have their day in court. The real reason is simply because the case against these people is so weak... it won't hold up in court.
Also, why the hell are Democrats letting Repukes get away with this? If the Republicans want to filibuster giving our brave troops the time at home they should be getting, or the training they should be getting... let them keep talking and talking and talking, putting on the good show for their obstructionism.
This is how the "liberal media" does it: when Democrats filibuster, it's evil and obstructionist and anti-American. But when Republicans do it... it's an "obscure procedural action"... or the rules just magically changed to require 60 votes to pass a bill.
Now we won't have to let these guys out of jail once they are out of power :p
Funny, i listen to talk radio to see what the neocon enemies are up to...
Generally just blaming liberals & atheism for everything under the sun.
What I expect is for you to say "Oh, looks like I was wrong saying that linking this bill to habeus corpus is merely an opinion voiced by _The Nation_ that we should ignore because it's a leftist rag."
If you don't think Leahy is an accurate source to the statement that the bill was about restoring habeas corpus, here's Republican Senator Arlen Specter's comments: "The issue of the availability of habeas corpus for the detainees at Guantanamo is a matter of enormous importance. It is a matter of a fundamental constitutional right that people should not be held in detention unless there is an evidentiary reason to do so, or at least some showing that the person ought to be in detention. It is a constitutional right that has existed since the Magna Carta in 1215, and it has been upheld in a series of cases in the Supreme Court of the United States."
daveschroeder continues: "...To believe otherwise believes that the Constitution applies equally to every human on the planet, whether they are a US citizen or permanent resident or not."
No, in fact the constitution applies to the actions of the U.S. government.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Hey Shroeder, you just got http://gallery.danoz.net/d/8803-1/stallowned.jpg
I rather liked McCain back in 2000, but over the past few years he's been drifting further and further right, and seriously courting the fundamentalist base. Maybe we're seeing his true colors, maybe he's changed his views, or maybe he's compromised his principles for political gain. Whatever the reason, he's long since lost my interest.
The only link I put in the submission was the senate.gov link for the record of the voting. The yahoo opinion piece was someone else's doing.
I also noted something - this actually counts as a violation of their oath of office, as stated in Article 6. Does this count as treason against the United States in one form or another?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Certainly any responsible politician would want to hear from someone who foams hysterically at the mouth because he thinks (having apparently been stoned throughout all of 8th-grade civics class) that Congress can by a simple majority vote suspend a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Such a herd beast could probably be convinced to believe anything, which is as useful to a politician as to any other con man.
Look out! Aliens are invading the Earth and taking over your neighbor's mind! Anal probes! You could be next! Send my campaign $100 quick so I can stop this terrible menace to your freedoms! Call now and have your credit card ready, operators are standing by...
Democrats in Congress suffer from Autoshadowphobia, or fear of their own shadow, and believe that the public will fall for the Innocent Bystander Fable, the notion that Democrats are powerless to change the war in Iraq.
I usually roll my eyes at complaints of the "two party system", but we need to be able to vote out these cowardly Democrats without handing their seats over to even worse Republicans.
It also has to be mentioned the great Republican hypocrisy of the "up or down vote". They blasted Democrats for being obstructionist, but now threaten to filibuster everything. I wonder if the media will lampoon Senator Warner for "voting for the bill before he voted against it" the way they did Kerry. But then, IOKIYAR.
Mod parent up. Seems most of the people upset at this development don't actually have a clue about what it pertained to. This is about extending habeas corpus to detainees outside of the US. These detainees are most likely terrorist suspects.
I'm not surprised the Republicans were largely against the proposed amendment; what's interesting is that the Democrats were all so staunchly for it, possibly just so they could complain more about the current administration.
I like basketball!!1!
Why not respond to the posts that have proven the central thesis of your argument wrong? Habeas Corpus applies to everyone, as written in the constitution. Ever single person the Federal government comes into contact with. Everyone.
The reason you have not responded is that your post is professional propaganda paid for by the US government. You are an employee of a government agency with a sordid history of using propaganda against our citizens. Why should we believe you are not engaged in that activity right now? You know quite well how propaganda works: you've made your point, and made it first. You don't need to refute anything. The people who want to believe you will, and the people who don't, never would have. You've already won over the idiots and the easily swayed, so you've done your job and will certainly get kudos from your employer.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Why in the hell is there even a DEBATE about granting CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to those would seek to have our Constitution DESTROYED? Oh, have all the people detained by our military been charged with seeking to overthrow our government, given fair trials, and been convicted? I hadn't heard.
That was a proposed amendment to the Constitution that was never ratified - i.e. it is not US law. Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about?
The bottom line of course is that habeus corpus is a fundamental component of Western law. Therefore it should and does apply to everyone arrested in the US, whether citizens or not.
And more importantly, even if it didn't, it should.
That is the point that all the anti-Ay-rab fascists here don't comprehend - and never will.
I quote Wikipedia:
"The right of habeas corpus--or rather, the right to petition for the writ--has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty."
Further:
"The writ of Habeas Corpus was originally understood to apply only to those held in custody by officials of the Executive Branch of the federal government and not to those held by state governments, which independently afford habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws. The United States Congress granted all federal courts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by any government entity within the country from custody in the following circumstances:
* Is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
* Is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
* Is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
* Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
* It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or for trial."
Further, as to previous suspensions in the US:
"Suspension during the Civil War and Reconstruction
On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.
In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court of the United States decided that it was unconstitutional for the President to try to convict citizens before military tribunals when civil courts were functioning. The trial of civili
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Um, no. What he was saying is that in response to the "way to go democrats" troll post, that there was a 3/5 majority needed, the failing of the amendment had nothing to do with how the democrats voted, only how the republicans voted (excepting the few republicans that voted yea.)
Those who would seek to have our Constitution destroyed? You mean like Nalini Ghuman, a British musicologist who taught in the US until she was detained for no given reason, denied access to legal counsel, and excluded from any sort of due process only to have her visa and passport destroyed and be deported.
Yeah, good thing we god rid of that one. Shit, if she had had a chance to have crimes (what were they again?) reviewed by a judge, there's no telling what havoc she'd be wreaking upon our nation and our children. What a horrible, horrible person.
Yeah, destroying the Constitution in order to protect it makes so much more sense than using our existing Constitutional powers to prosecute and detain those who actually do wish to destroy it.
every single democrat voted to restore and so did a handful of republicans. the measure was stopped by a bunch a worthless traitors and failures who call themselves 'republicans'
If they are out in the battlefield, actively working to destroy members of our military, the only "trial" that is warranted is the ordinance that is deployed in return.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
If they're most likely terrorist suspects then they will most likely be served the justice that they deserve under due process.
The process isn't there to protect the guilty--it's there to protect the innocent.
Whatever, dude. Would you like to assert that the Constitution doesn't specify the right of "persons" to be represented in Congress anywhere at all? Does it matter where, precisely, it lies? Does that change my point, that the Constitution says all kinds of things about "persons" that only a nitwit would assume must apply to every organism that fits the dictionary definition of "person"?
/. much of the time.
Or is it your position that any mistake whatever in an argument vitiates the whole thing? So for example if I had misspelled "Constitution" then my entire argument would necessarily be trash? Come to think of it, I guess that would be what passes for "logic" on
to my Republican Overlords for keeping the soil of my precious judicial system clean from the terrorist scum.
Added Pressly: "Oh, and by the way, milk is nothing but liquid meat."
*Although there are an increasing number of Republican representatives that are breaking ranks
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
The reason suspension of Habeas Corpus is Constitutional is that the government knows the people are going to rebel against to due to its suspension, and rebellion is a condition under which the suspension of Habeas Corpus is Constitutional. Do I get to be on the Supreme Court now?
Seastead this.
Because you need to PROVE in a court that they seek to destroy our Constitution otherwise we have destroyed it ourselves.
If you don't know, then you're an idiot.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
The fact that the "Yea" side had supporters from both parties (as well as independent Sanders), whereas the "Nay" side was all Republicans (the "D" next to Lieberman is meaningless in his case, he's a traitor to his party) means one thing: The "Nay" position is the ideologically-driven extreme position, and the "Yea" side is the norm.
The Republicans who voted Yea -- people like Hagel, Specter, Snowe -- are all known for their moderation when it comes to social and civil rights issues. Even right-of-center Dems like Clinton and Feinstein voted Yea.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
That is supposed to be funny - your mod should be modded unimaginative Let me break it down for you dumbass 1. Republican Overlords... they are the minority 2. Keep soil clean? 3. My precious Judicial system - that is a joke in and of itself 4. Terrorist Scum was a Star Wars tribute.. You mister no imagination modder are an f-ing idiot This is flamebait....
Added Pressly: "Oh, and by the way, milk is nothing but liquid meat."
The Federal government is there for four reasons: to PROTECT the inherent rights of individuals from any government or State, to coin money in gold or silver only, to call up militias of individuals in order to defend against a real attack within the borders of any State, and to defend against piracy on the high seas.
... coin money; ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ..." Nowhere in there is your assertion that money issued by the federal government has to be in gold or silver -- they could coin money from plastic or bubble gum or specially stamped hamsters if they chose to. See the legal tender cases. Otherwise, you're just asserting gold-standard crackpot theories of the law.
Gosh. What about laying taxes and tariffs, borrowing money; regulating commerce with foreign nations, between states, and with Indian tribes; establishing rules on naturalization and bankruptcies, fixing standards of weights and measures, providing punishment for counterfeiting, establishing post offices and post roads, promoting the progress of sciences and useful arts, declaring (national) war, granting letters of marque, raising and maintaining a national army and navy, and to make the laws for DC? You know, all those other powers you skipped over just in Article I, section 8.
By the way, the Constitution grants Congress the power to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Article I, Section 10 states "No State shall
The Federal Government also exists to keep the states from coming into conflict. This is why section 10, mentioned above, also contains language to constrain the states from several other actions such as signing treaties, levying their own duties and tariffs, and maintaining their own armies and navies. Article IV also ties some states' hands to prevent conflict.
In other words, that's some pretty selective reading there for you to pull out only a handful of Congress's powers and claim that that's all the government is there for.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Yeah, destroying the Constitution in order to protect it makes so much more sense than using our existing Constitutional powers to prosecute and detain those who actually do wish to destroy it.
Look at what you are writing.
You have actually advocated destroying the Constitution... of your own country.
Seditious.
Shameful.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Even the Cato Institute, which is considered a conservative think tank, is unhappy about the denial of habeas corpus. They're also opposed to the extension of "anti-terror" legislation.
It's not clear why so many Republicans are still supporting this. It's not like being aligned with Bush will get them re-elected.
The Congress suspended Habeas Corpus, directly violating the Constitution, when Republicans ran it for Bush. The Republicans just refused to reinstate it.
YOU ARE DEFENDING CONGRESS VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST TYRANNY.
Who cares what excuses you're peddling? You are backing up these criminals. YOU ARE A TRAITOR.
I'd shoot you myself if I saw you coming.
When you Republican traitors get some power to put people in concentration camps and torture them, you do it. You have no lower limit. You should be utterly destroyed, and your name remembered only as the most vile of traitors.
--
make install -not war
Why should some of them still be paying taxes, then? I thought "taxation without representation" was considered a tyranny?
Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
No, that was the parent I was replying to. *I* was being sarcastic.
Luke was quoting the Talmud, which was quoting Moses, who was quoting God.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Not granting them the same rights as US citizens isn't "resorting to tactics from the [terrorist] play book." Far from it. The "destroying freedom" argument makes no sense to me, as if we are discussing our "enemies" then these are people that by their convictions/actions have basically forfeited their "freedom" and the rest of the world is better off for it.
Besides, there is no risk to the liberty of Americans here. We are as far from US citizens being stripped of constitutional rights as we've ever been. There is no slippery slope here. Republicans care just as much about *their* constitutional rights as do Democrats.
I like basketball!!1!
And before you dismiss me as a partisan myself, I land fully in the camps of those Republicans who voted yea, but I refuse to accept your notion that this is the "norm" and any opposing view is the extreme. They are both ideologically drive, obviously. You just tend to agree with the ideology of the side you support (as do I in this case, but that doesn't make it any less partisan). If it were a cut and dry case of the sky is blue, yea or nay? Then 6 Republicans voted yea, with all the Democrats, then you'd have a point, but this isn't a matter of one side being right and the other being wrong.
The traitors who should be tried for violating the Constitution and their oath to it:
Meanwhile, Republicans have filibustered a record number of bills that Democrats, who shut out Republicans in last year's elections, have been trying to pass. These Republicans, who so attacked Democrats for attempting to use an occasional filibuster while Republicans controlled the majority, now filibuster practically every bill Democrats try to pass. Republicans almost used the "nuclear option" to rewrite centuries-old Senate rules protecting the filibuster, to ram through their legislation. Now they've flipped the script, abusing the filibuster at every chance.
Before you say "that's just politics", remember that what hangs in the balance is your liberty. When the cops come to round you up in secret, on a malicious tip or just some typical bureaucratic mistake, then torture you to death because "you won't talk", the idea that it was "just politics" won't help you any.
--
make install -not war
I was, of course, offended by the Military Commissions Act, and the JW Defense Authorization Act, and a whole slew of other laws recently passed to extend the power of the government. I've sent letters to my congressmen as well as post on this and other sites. Today I found myself writing the Senate representatives from Texas (Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn.) You can find your Senate representative by visiting http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
I wrote my nasty-gram this morning which explained my amazement at the lack of respect my representatives have shown to the supreme law of the land, and the contempt they show for their constituents by their voting actions. I also mentioned the dishonor they show to those that died in the creation and defense of the constitution. Lastly, I mentioned that in the next election I will cast my vote for the devil I don't know.
Basically, I'd like to encourage everyone to contact their representatives and let them know how they make you feel when they assume that your liberty is worthless.
"Lame" - Galaxar
"We the people of the United States of America"
[...] just because it doesn't SAY "citizen" or "resident" or whatever doesn't mean it covers the world's population. Wrong.
And whenever a right is not granted to a person who is not a citizen of the united states, those conditions are explicitly enumerated:
Article I: No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Article II: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
And more importantly, article III says:
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html
You can't take the sky from me...
Sure. Same for guys captured after shooting at US troops in Iraq. That's fine--I don't care what gets done to them.
But a lot of the people that are being arrested now aren't just guys in Nazi uniforms being picked up off the battlefield. People are being arrested at airports and tossed into cells just because their name came up on some list. It doesn't even matter if they're not the same person, or if the name was a known alias for some terrorist.
I'm not saying they shouldn't necessarily be detained initially--that's what the list is there for. But they are never even given the chance to prove that they are not who the officials think they are, and that they have done nothing wrong. Believe me--if they were actual terrorists the government would be able to prove as much, and they would be tossed away for good. Otherwise an innocent person is being held with no recourse.
In other words, that would be you. How your logic breaks down at this issue, I cannot be certain.
One assumes that you have nothing but the best intent. Tossing terrorists in prison and throwing away the key is a fine thing to aspire to. But first let's make sure they're actually terrorists.
No, we don't.
This is a war. In a war, you don't invite your enemies from other countries into your courthouses in our own country and ask them, pretty please, to make their own case as to why they have the "right" to destroy us.
You destroy them. All of them. On their own battlefield.
End of story.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
One wonders if we should have a new Geneva convention, which spells out the rights (or - better yet - lack thereof) of non-state affiliated combatants who fight out of uniform, purposefully inflict casualties on civilian populations, and attempt to hide in said civilian populations where civilians effectively act as a "shield" against them.
Of course, any attempt would probably have opposition from Europeans who are scared of the militant Middle Easterners both in their midst and abroad, and Middle Eastern powers who support terrorism would oppose such measures because they would be promoted by "the West."
Keep in mind these senators can reduce what was once a core constitutional freedom to a debate about giving prisoners chunky or creamy peanut butter. Our freedom is fragile at best.
The entire country is DEAD. We've lost. It is not America anymore. The sooner we all realize it, the better of we'll be. They will do what they want, when they want because they can. Whatever freedoms you think you have, you are wrong. We live in a police state controlled by capitalism and the wealthy. It only serves the wealthy and they are the only ones with civil liberties.
OMG, LOL. heheheh. Whoops. Kinda pokes a hole in my argument, but you are absolutely correct. So some reason I had my head wrapped up in the Declaration of Independence. I feel like I've just face planted into a virtual rake while someone FRAPSed it and sent it in to "Slashdot's funniest videos".
Unlike a good number of politicians in the US, I am totally willing to fess up when I dropped the ball. Mods, if you could, knock my previous post down.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Sorry for not detecting your sarcasm.
The overriding point I have made all along here - including the one modded down to -1, is that engaging in acts of war is not the same as criminal behavior. Whether it be the coordinated flying of commercial aircraft into buildings, or setting off explosives at the side of a road... these are not criminal acts to be handled in courts.
Acts of war should be prosecuted only in one venue, and that is a theatre of war.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
[...]
at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills, Mr. Rove briefed the executives on the war effort, White House officials said, and discussed how Hollywood might contribute to spreading the Bush message. Officials have offered no specifics.
And that was after this horrible nightmare scenario was implemented:
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/print.html
With this deal in place, government officials and their contractors began approving, and in some cases altering, the scripts of shows before they were aired to conform with the government's anti-drug messages. "Script changes would be discussed between ONDCP and the show -- negotiated," says one participant.
Rick Mater, the WB network's senior vice president for broadcast standards, acknowledges: "The White House did view scripts. They did sign off on them -- they read scripts, yes."
The arrangement, uncovered by a six-month Salon News investigation, is known to only a few insiders in Hollywood, New York and Washington. Almost none of the producers and writers crafting the anti-drug episodes knew of the deal. And top officials from the five networks involved last season -- NBC, ABC, CBS, the WB and Fox -- for the most part refused to discuss it. The sixth network, UPN, failed to attract the government's interest the first year of the program; it joined the flock this current TV season.
Which leads us to the obvious conclusion that the White House, under the authority of Karl Rove (and now his successor, new boss, same as the old boss), is in charge of editorial influence on the content of network news.
You can't take the sky from me...
Isn't this all just political posturing?
When this was passed through the GOP didn't have 3/5 the vote, so they had some Democrats vote in favor of it!
The Democrats are all in favor of restoring it now, yet didn't have a problem suspending it before.
Doesn't that tell you something?
Both sides suck!
To think choosing the lesser of to evils is that right choice does nothing to improve anything.
Voting out incumbents, regardless of party, that disregard the will of the people would send the message that crap like this will not stand!
Then we don't have to put up with this garbage of one party trying to save face in the shadow of elections, voting to restore Habeas Corpus when they helped to get it suspended.
the headline is at least kind of mis-leading. The question regarding Habeas Corpus has very little to do with habeas corpus (your right to due process...in other words, your right to appear before a judge and argue that you are innocent instead of just rotting in jail or dealing with the military) and a whole lot to do with classifications of persons. Specifically, the question (at least in the Sup. Ct. opinion regarding Hamdi)is who qualifies as an unlawful enemy combatant. Unlawful enemy combatants get just about zero (0) due process, meaning the military can capture, detain, question, etc. with out ever giving them access to any sort of court or tribunal. The question is pretty much answered but becomes more difficult when the person the military is calling an unlawful enemy combatant claims to be a US Citizen. This happened. The nagging question is "who gets to decide who is an unlawful enemy combatant and is it subject to any judicial review?" The short explanation of the long answer is that The President gets to decide, especially if there is a war going on, and there is very, very little opportunity for the person to appeal to any other source. O'Connor wrote the latest opinion and the language made it sound like there might be a right to SOME sort of due process, like maybe a hearing before a military tribunal, but nothing like we generally consider full due process. And before anyone gets there undies in a wad about the administration, this issue was settled during the civil war while Lincoln was president. The only real twist here is that there is the distinct possibility that the President could claim that we are in a state of war with terrorism perpetually, so that what was considered a war-power becomes an always-power. I'll cut it off there. Constitutional Law was really interesting, though. A headline that would be at least as accurate could say "Senate Refuses to Limit Executive's Ability to Enforce and Protect the Constitution Of the United States."
Yeah, but it's the rest of you people with guns that keep voting for the politicians that support these policies. So, I'm glad you seem to think you have the solution for the problems you keep creating.
(Oh yeah, and Smith & Wesson answers to Colt.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Don't blame me! I vote Libratarian!
The game.
A man such as you, able to use homophones in lieu of the correct vocabulary, and so engrossed with his own sense of self that he does not need to read rebuttals to know that they are worthless, is not an adversary against whom I should engage myself.
Therefore, you MUST be right! That word you grafted into the preamble must have simply been invisible to an inferior man such as myself. You, born of noble blood and superior to a commoner such as me, have graced me by speaking my name! I feel humbled, and honored that you have shown me the ephemeral truth that my senses cannot detect on their own.
You can't take the sky from me...
It's always amazing to me that the big guys never even report on stuff like this. You won't even find it on CNN.com. We are in a sad sad state in this country. It's time to take it back.
There are special courts for dealing with these issues that are separate from the civilian criminal court system. No one is saying that enemy combatants captured in battlefields should be treated the same as anyone else. But this is being used to indefinitely detain people who have done nothing at all. I already gave you one example. And she was lucky--all she got was deported, ultimately. There are other people who have fared far, far worse. Just search Google News; it's not like this is a secret.
If every single person accused of being a terrorist should be dealt with in a theater of war, then I guess we shouldn't even bother interrogating them and holding them. Might as well just drag them out and shoot them.
The relevant clause you want is Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2:
Ex parte McCardle did rule that Congress had the power to strip the Supreme Court of the ability to review habeas corpus petitions from military courts created to try people accused of supporting the Confederacy.
The decision is frightening, and in my opinion a strong argument for a Constitutional amendment to strip Congress of that power. Fortunately, the Court may still be able to hear appeals on whether the tribunal system meets the test of due process on the grounds that the 14th Amendment overrides the excessively broad court stripping in the act which does not even allow appeals on the grounds of due process.
Now whether the Roberts Court will rule that way is another question entirely.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"If they are out in the battlefield, actively working to destroy members of our military,"
Then treat them as prisoners of war.
But that is beside the point. Not all of these people detained were plucked off the battlefield while firing at US troops. Where do you draw the line?
The submitter's Nation link was quite biased, and intentionally lied by omission and distortion of the facts.
/.
I appreciate you bringing some logic and sanity to the rabid 'digg-like' politics section of
Thank you for being here.
Ack... somebody please tell me, how can I filter out all posts by Dave Schroeder?
"This is a war."
It is? The War on Terror you mean? Does your thoughts apply to the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty as well?
The letter I've written to my two senators:
Mr. xxxxxxx,
I was shocked and appalled today by your "no" vote to reinstate habeas corpus via Specter Amdt. No. 2022. I believe that while terrorists are a threat to America, the threat of a government able to indefinitely detain it's own citizens without charge is greater. Habeas corpus is a basic human right dating back over 700 years, and America set out on the wrong path when we abandoned it. If people we have detained are criminals, let's please convict them in the manner that has served our great nation for over 200 years. I urge you to please change your position.
Sincerely,
Derek Anderson
http://kered.org
The problem is that even if you believe that GWB is the embodiment of these qualities, do you think Hillary (or whichever joker is next) will too? Remember, we are setting precedent here - what Congress has handed to the office of the president will transfer to the next one.
Not granting them the same rights as US citizens isn't "resorting to tactics from the [terrorist] play book." Far from it.
These are actually rights we extend to noncitizens as well -- anyone who is detained via our legal system, which does not include those who are captured as prisoners of war (for which there is a separate set of rules and procedures).
If American citizens were detained in a foreign country, incommunicado, without any rights, review, or legal recourse to challenge their imprisonment, how would we perceive that country? Is this behavior you'd expect of, say, the U.K, Canada, Germany, or any of our peers?
Glad you asked, let's look at what it says...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
So the whole idea that the Constitution doesn't offer protection to people of other nations is patently absurd, seeing as the United States is a signator of the United Nations Charter.
The Preamble of the UN Charter says:
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small...
You get the idea. Seeing as human rights are "the supreme law of the land" as defined under Article VI of The Constitution, it renders the "are non-citizens fair-game for a game of stack-the-enemy-combatants" moot. Nobody is fair game for any sort of POW stacking, under US Law.
It also tells us a lot about the people that define the treatment of POWs through euphamisms, to boot.
it's people like him that put bipartisanship and "crossing party lines" over the importance of doing the right thing. Or, as someone once said: bipartisanship is great if you're helping an old lady across the street. Bipartisanship is not great if you mug the old lady for her wallet instead.
Meanwhile, Republicans have filibustered [google.com] a record number of bills that Democrats, who shut out Republicans in last year's elections, have been trying to pass. These Republicans, who so attacked Democrats for attempting to use an occasional filibuster while Republicans controlled the majority, now filibuster practically every bill Democrats try to pass. Republicans almost used the "nuclear option" to rewrite centuries-old Senate rules protecting the filibuster, to ram through their legislation. Now they've flipped the script, abusing the filibuster at every chance.
Before you say "that's just politics", remember that what hangs in the balance is your liberty. When the cops come to round you up in secret, on a malicious tip or just some typical bureaucratic mistake, then torture you to death because "you won't talk", the idea that it was "just politics" won't help you any. --
And this shows the utter cowardice of the Democrats. IF habeus corpus IS such an important thing and IF they believed in the rule of law and IF they really cared about this, they WOULD GO to the FILIBUSTER, and they would FORCE the Republicans to read the phone book for weeks on end, 24/7 and they would DO WHAT IT TAKES, WHATEVER IT TAKES to defend the constitution.
However: the Democratic leadership are just a bunch of lazy cowards who refuse to do what must be done to
A: Stop this insane and stupid occupation of Iraq
B: Bring back a full and complete exercise of habeus corpus
C: Roll back the fascist programme of the neocon agenda
D: enact a crash programme in sustainable energy and resource development.
But, they don't. And they don't because fundamentally they represent the same set of corporate interests as the Republicans, and they haven't got any "fire in their belly". The Democrats are weak and worthless.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Many people have no clue whatsoever what they are talking about. It looks as if they've done a quick Google for the appropriate socialist slanted Wikipedia article, then cut and pasted things to prove their "argument". But then again, thats what they always do.
I guess by now it should be no surprise that all the political articles that appear here deal with Democrats = good and Republicans = bad. But its still sickening nonetheless. Some of you will rant and scream about things that you really don't care much about. You grandstand, you bellow, you pound your shoe on the podium over things that matter not one iota in your everyday life. "Blah Blah! History of Law! Blah blah! Ancient codes!" Then you leave your dorm room to go to the bars. (after you set your computer to steal movies and songs).
"Save the enemies of America!" You know, those folks we plucked off a battlefield where they were firing at our men a few minutes earlier. Lets put all our power and indignation towards making their lives better!
This is just another channel for you to spew your pre-programmed hatred; hatred of the traditional, hatred of religion, whites, capitalism, and America. Your crooked Communist party overlords in the public school/college re-education camps have done their jobs well. They got you while you were young, now you are lost for good. You will think how you are told to think by the "Progressive du jour" for the rest of your lives now. (why do you think they want kids at younger and younger ages? Early Government brainwashing programs are now from *birth* to age 5). Your conditioned white guilt is sickening and weak. Natural selection, please hurry up and get busy here.
We opted out of Real-ID, we forgo Federal money because we refuse to pass a mandatory seat-belt law, we have no mandatory insurance.
What are you waiting for?
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Sure. Same for guys captured after shooting at US troops in Iraq. That's fine--I don't care what gets done to them.
The problem with this attitude is that we don't get to have one set of rules for ourselves and a higher standard for everyone else, especially when we're crowing about fighting tyrants and spreading freedom. For example, the U.S. military routinely strikes "military and economic targets" during military actions. What were the Pentagon and the WTC? Military and economic targets. The same applies to torture and holding prisoners indefinitely without trial.
Because the US is supposed to hold the high moral ground? And beyond that, they don't want the constitution destroyed, they want us to end our relationship with Israel so it can be removed from existence.
Right, it's rarely a clearcut case. I was trying to make the point that if it is, then that's fine. However, that's usually naive.
Don't blame me! I vote Libratarian! Is that like a Librarian Libertarian?
You make a good point. Though I think it's reasonable to expect a nation to protect the rights of its citizens/residents and not necessarily those of others, I also feel that with such an approach there is not enough ACCOUNTABILITY on the part of those who are in a position to respect (or not) the rights of non-citizens/residents.
So, having pondered the issue a bit more, I do think that habeas corpus is a step towards having that accountability. Nevertheless, I also think that some detainees deserve more respect/protection than others, and that perhaps a tiered sort of protocol is in order. In other words, I expect the U.K. and the U.S. to be nicer to each other's citizens than, say, the U.K. and Syria. In the world we live in, that just makes sense to me.
I like basketball!!1!
One of the things that has bothered me the most about the current administration is how they have redrawn many of the assumed lines of our government. National Guard is now in Iraq, when their *purpose* is to guard American soil. The FBI has been in Germany (and other places?) helping/training their law enforcement on "fighting terrorism" when I thought the FBI was only supposed to work *inside* the USA and the CIA *outside* the USA.
And here we see the line between citizen and non-citizen somewhat re-drawn. I actually thought we *wanted* non-citizens to respect our constitution, and to spread democracy to all lands. It seems to me that if we treat non-citizens, EVEN combatants captured on a battlefield as less than respectable (or less than we want to be treated) that we work COUNTER to the goal of spreading democracy. Just one more line foolishly redrawn.
You overlook the loop hole of the Geneva Convention. It is really only enforceable by another nation that agrees to the Geneva Convention. If you aren't a combatant of a particular nation, it's going to be rather hard for you to get support for your POW status at the international level. Basically when you fight against soldiers without being part of a sanctioned military, you run the risk of being completely fucked over.
You can argue about GC rights all you want, but it will do no good. What is necessary is federal legislation on how we plan on treating people who fall outside of the Geneva Convention. (yes, they fall outside because they have no county to speak for their rights and have them enforced).
You should be far more concerned with visiting European nations that have pushed Muslim immigrants into being second class citizens (or even non-citizens) while at the same time allowing them to enter your countries and establish isolated and sometimes radical communities within your own borders. Those nations (and the Netherlands is not one of them) that have this problem need to rectify it immediately and either ban the immigration of Muslims, or do the right thing and embrace and integrate new people into your society. Giving them a chance at real jobs, an education, and a chance for their children to grow up as full citizens. Multiculturalism is not a solution, it is just burying your head in the sand. (note - the opposite of multiculturalism which would be like enforced brain washing and removing of ethnic identity is also the wrong path)
The US has done fairly well with integrating different people together, considering on the immense scale it operates on. It's a bumpy ride, but no other country has had this much success on this scale. On the smaller scales, there are plenty of places that assimilate with far greater success. Although in small communities in the US there are excellent representations of those small scale successes as well, so we know that a trickle of immigrants coming into a community poses very little stress on that community.
ps - even though I live in the US and it's all f'd up, I am still allowed to criticize the politics and behavior of other nations. Just because I haven't fixed my country yet does not stop me from encouraging others to fix theirs.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
There is a matter of setting an example. Giving a citizen of Syria fewer legal protections than a citizen of the U.K. is tantamount to saying it's fine for nations who don't like us to give our citizens fewer protections. Beyond basic protections, though, there is some level of "tiered protocols", a lot of it based on what we can expect the other country to do for us in a similar situation. We are much more likely to extradite, for example, a U.K. citizen than we are a citizen of a various other nations.
Accountability is exactly what habeas corpus is about. Ideally, if you are not wrongfully imprisoning people, you should have no reason to suspend habeas corpus. Its suspension is generally done for practical reasons, and there, you tread the dangerous waters of practicality versus basic freedoms.
...is that it seems to have driven the left equally mad.
Support for civil liberties is not an ideology. It's an obligation.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Both define the extent to which the laws of the USA apply. It is apparent that the US Constitution does not apply in Canada or Mexico or beyond the internationally recognized control of the oceans.
...
Article III does not say what you think it says. It is describing how disputes between parties are to be settled.
"to controversies between...."
"two or more states"
"a state and citizens of another state"
"a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
Foreign states, citizens or subjects are just a party to a dispute and the other party has to be a state, or the citizens thereof.
The constitution doesn't always say that the states and citizens thereof are one of the United States, it is rather assumed that the reader will get the hint. "We the People of the United States of America..." should be enough of a clue.
No US citizen has had their Habeus Corpus revoked. Only foreigners picked up on battlefields.
To hide this fact from the debate, proves just how dishonest and liberal the moderation system at slashdot has become.
They can literally use it to tilt the debate violently to the America-hating liberal side, and make it seem like US citizens have had their rights revoked, when no such thing has happened.
Just so everyone is clear, our constitution is for Americans. We have never historically provided enemies combatants with rights like a Trial or a Lawyer during an engagement with the military.
Stop lying slashdot. We know you wont. We know your liberalism has poisoned this entire site so that you will kill any dissent with moderation points. Who is the fascist? Slashdot and the liberalism. Stalin would be proud you pieces of garbage.
The US Government is not obliged anywhere in the Constitution or otherwise to ensure the civil liberties of the people of Earth. It is a nice IDEOLOGY, however.
"provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war"
It's nice that so many Americans still think the Constitution is a living document. Hate to break the news to you folks, but the Constitution hasn't been functional since the Civil war and was already being swept under the rug long before that. Quoting it makes no difference. Its just a piece of paper now.
Just being nitpicky, but preserving Habeas Corpus is in Article One, not Article Four, if anyone else is trying to actually read it...
The Articles of Confederation did exist from 1777 to 1788 and however strongly oriented towards the independence and power of the states does include language like this:
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce...
The Constitutional language is sparse:
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. Article I Section 9
The suspension of habeas corpus is a policy decision - a decision to be made by the legislature and the executive in a time of great danger. The writ remains as it has always been - a "privilege" and not a "right."
Why in the hell is there even a DEBATE about granting CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to those would seek to have our Constitution DESTROYED?
I suppose, but denying Constitutional Rights to the President seems a bit harsh. I mean, it's not just supposed to be for those who believe in it. Even George Bush should be granted Constitutional rights.
The enemies of Democracy are
Long may he be ridden backwards as befits his station.
Look further down my post. As I stated, the device he used is known as a "Rhetorical Question". He wasn't asking, he was telling, and you failed to understand, even when it was explicitly pointed out to you. Are you really that dumb, or are you pleading ignorance to save face because you have no rebuttal?
Admit it, you have no idea why two different words would be used, but you know it undermines your point completely, so you tell him to 'look it up' as if that even speaks to the point he made. You completely underestimate the intelligence of the average Slashdot user, because we can all see through your transparent ploy.
Let me state it explicitly: If the US constitution only applies to US citizens as you state based on the preamble, there would be no need for the document itself to use two separate words: citizen, and person. What all constitutional lawyers, and most reasonable people understand is that 'person' applies to everyone, and only when the word 'citizen' is used does the document restrict its scope to 'US citizens.'
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Riding from behind, more like.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
This poster brings up valid points, which is probably why it's modded down.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
MCA already does not apply to US citizens apprehended on US soil.
***
Military Commissions Act applies to anyone deemed an enemy combatant by the president, or attorney general.
If you are thrown in a mil brig tomorrow you have no rights until years down the line when they finally let you see an attorny. Thanks for mentioning padilla, a us citizen you proved my point without knowing it.
He was an American Citizen held in a US military brig for years with no rights. And you're right this was BEFORE the MIL commissions act was enabled meaning he SHOULD have had MORE rights not less.
The semantics of the legislation means nothing when the worst case scenario happens to you anyway.
I give you an "A" for effort, content, approach and reason.
I give you an "F" for failing to realize that 90% of slashdot will neither fully read, understand, or appreciate it.
Slashdot is now pretty much the dailyKOS for nerds.
Sure, my pointing out with anger that Republicans have destroyed our liberties, most clearly today in habeas corpus, is "just as crazy" as Republicans destroying those liberties.
Anonymous Coward tries the last refuge of the broken but still dangerous Republican apologist: "they're both just as bad". Republicans are worse. Just look at the votes.
--
make install -not war
You misunderstood, or I failed to make myself sufficiently clear. I said nothing about the U.S. Government in grandparent post. It is an obligation for individuals to support civil liberties. That is why it is not a matter of ideology when a Senator (who happens to be an individual) votes Yea on this measure. It is a matter of ideology when people are classified into groups with greater liberties who enjoy habeas corpus, and those with lesser liberties who don't, so that means the Nay vote is an ideological one.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Does anyone know why this vote required a 3/5 majority?
Fair enough, I'll buy that. I fully support the idea of the politicians TRYING to vote for things they want. I don't like the way they play with words, but that's what they do.
The one-line teaser on the front page of todays paper was a better recap than the Slashdot summary :(
Why are our headlines and summaries so bad here?
Does anyone else get most of this in the morning paper also or do they do a better than average job locally?
It's the Democrats who stuck to their part line instead of doing what they know is right. Letting Al Qeada operatives go free means they will kill innocent people. That's their agenda. And giving them a criminal trial in US courts, means they go free, as the evidence against them was collected by soldiers in a hostile area, not by cops waving warrants and reciting the Maranda speech.
To me, implies or directly leads to, citizen or resident within said union... no?
Yes, it would. The Preamble set out exactly who was establishing the Constitution and for what purpose.
The rest of the document established the checks and balances and the representative government. It specifies that the Federal government may do only what the Constitution permits it to do.
The article in question reads:
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.
In other words, the Federal government may not suspend habeas corpus AT ALL unless the U.S. is invaded or under rebellion AND public safety requires the suspension.
It is clearly a prohibition that applies to the federal government at all times and everywhere. That prohibition has only one exception and it has not been met.
The old processes worked perfectly well when the world prosecuted the Nazi leadership in Nuremberg after WWII. Al Qaeda are insignificant compared to those guys, and all the terrorist acts in the last ten years are the tiniest fraction of what WWII was. The events of Sep-11 2001 were an atrocity, but in WWII there were thousands of worse atrocities all over the world.
And yet somehow the US needs to remove fundamental legal rights from suspected terrorists. Be clear on this - anyone detained is not necessarily a terrorist, they are only under suspicion. Many have been let go completely as the reasons for the original detention were shown to be false some years after they were first held. The proper thing to do is gather evidence as quickly as possible and get these people into a real courtroom, not some kangaroo court with all sorts of suspicion hanging over it.
How are people under suspicion of being terrorists worse than the leaders of the Nazi party in WWII, that the US needs to remove constitutional safeguards specially for them?
Habeus Corpus is appropriate in every single case. It was appropriate in WWII, it is appropriate now.
Exactly correct. This is the same thing that happened to Japanese Americans during WWII. The police state was all like, "Oh, those people don't have rights because they don't have the proper papers," and the courts (eventually) were like, "Not your police state yet, you can't have one. The constitution states that all men are created with certain rights and doesn't talk about citizens".
But I guess this is a different police state this time...
"Your being right and has defeated me."
FYP.
I agree with you on your comment, but, unfortunately you are posting on a site populated by nutjobs on the left (democratic underground, huffington post, dailyKOS) These nutjobs have such a HATRED for anything that does not have a "D" behind their name that they will flame you relentlessly.
We should be debating this, and I'm glad we are. But the parent brings up an interesting point. More over, what constitutional adminmendment could best be drafted to stop those that are willing to destroy it? If you want to change it via vote, I'm ok with that. But to have it changed by force, violence, and terrorism is just **wrong**.
Given that most of the Democrats aren't taking global Islamic fundamentalism seriously, and most Americans seems to have forgotten that "911 feeling", I fear not even a nuclear bomb (smuggled in from a rogue nation) would wake us up. Ok, so maybe it would for a few years. But eventually, the tail of hurricane Katrina would rear its ugly head in politics again soon after. Call it sick, call it twisted. Better yet, call it American.
Life is not for the lazy.
It's very informative....
Support SETI@home
I'm the story submitter. Check this out. I put this story out there to see if anyone was going to ask the right question. As smart as every one of you may be, not a SINGLE one out here that I've seen so far has asked that question. WHEN THE FUCK DID THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO REMOVE HABAES CORPUS HAPPEN IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE?!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
mentions "that Canada has run a budget surplus in each of the last 10 years".
Hmmm.
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
He co-sponsored the amendment, co-authored it, and voted for it.
And this is hardly far flung information. The summary link to the voting record (same link as summary) refers to this as "Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Specter Amdt. No. 2022." (emph. added) Yup. That's the name of one of your so-called "Republican traitors" right there, though I'd guess by the rest of the rolls that he's only being called a traitor by you and the entire Bush Administration.
Hope you enjoy the company.
--
Toro
Well, I can understand high emotion when your kid has been killed by Bush's lunatic war policies. I'm not talking about Bush. I'm talking about all the points the AC actually mentioned; "hatred of the traditional, hatred of religion, whites, capitalism, and America." All of those things, (with the exception of 'whites' which I don't understand at all), are very intellectual problems which many find frustrating, to be sure, but hatred? Nope. When you say 'Hate Mongering' like the AC did, it carries with it, in my mind anyway, the idea of, well, hate. I don't hate religion, for instance, but I think it's stupid and destructive and I have no problem talking about it in those terms. But hatred? My blood doesn't boil and I don't want to kill things. That's a whole different realm which I rarely visit as it is. Hatred, I strongly suspect, is an emotion which is much more prevalent in the life and mind of the conservative, which is a big part of what makes him tick. And as such, also being self-centric, the conservative cannot understand that other people would feel differently. He projects. He sees people lambasting religion around here, and thinks, "When I say such things, I feel hatred so therefore everybody else feels hatred." But I really don't see it that way, (I'm using my own filters, of course, but I also think I'm more observant than the AC.) --The frustration with religion, to follow the example, comes from seeing the obvious flaws which are apparently invisible to everybody else, and having your life in many ways dictated by those same people. That can drive you crazy, but not insane. Hatred is insanity. It comes from down deep in the old cortex, the reptile brain, which is also where religion comes from in a large part. The Neo cortex is where the rational mind exists, (in very broad terms), and which allows one to see why hatred and religion are silly, and which allows one to bash them, but the bashing is based on rational roots, not the snake brain.
The more I study this puzzle, the more I think that the liberal mind-set is the result of having more layers of awareness accessible to the individual. You've got snakes and mammals all walking around wearing human costumes. --Or more accurately, you've got a whole race of Monkey-Snakes walking around, and it's up to each individual to decide which parts of their mammal-reptile brain they wish to invest energy in and develop.
As for the non-violent way to kill Bush. . . I think it would be a great idea to identify the psychopathic gene in people, run a bunch of tests, and put all of the psychos in a big walled city together. That's step one. Step two is to toss big bags of money and guns over the walls for them to play with. The problem would quickly take care of itself after that.
-FL
The us government has rebelled against its own people, its been invaded by courpurations and public safety has been given up on.
So by there own actions they can easily drop this minor fundamental human right
Good point. We'll be by to tase you soon.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
So I was saying something intentionally false to be corrected? Nope...
I was intentionally wasting other people's time? Nope...
Huh, look at that, I wasn't trolling. Guess someone shouldn't be allowed to have mod points if they don't know what to do with them.
You can't take the sky from me...
I'm just a sinner saved by grace. I'm no different from you.
No. You are a person who was indoctrinated into an illogical, irrational belief system. A belief system that is in constant contradiction with the laws of nature and the reality in which you live, which is why you aren't merely content with the "truth" you claim to know. You have to have your ever-fragile beliefs routinely recharged by attending church, imposing your morality and beliefs upon society at large, preaching to others and preferably surrounding yourself with like-minded people, and as evidenced herein, convincing yourself that anyone who disagrees with with you, while being someone "like you" is also missing something special, and therefore "unsaved" and inferior.
Guess what? Some of us aren't deluded. The irony of course is, as soon as you get really sick, you give up your faith in the supernatural and you head over to a hospital to provide some of that good 'ol secular science to heal you.
Just once I'd like to see a bunch of Christians wander into a hospital and see someone giving them a wafer, telling them to do a few hail mary's and pouring water on their heads and telling them they're healed...
The more practical issue is whether Canada will let you in as an immigrant - the last time I looked they had a point system, where you get points based on age, education, employment, language skills, marital status, and maybe some other things. If you're young and educated, they want you; if you're old and unskilled they don't. If I'd moved there back when Bush got elected, all I'd have needed was to have a job lined up; now that I'm Officially Over The Hill, my wife would also need to have a job lined up and one of us would need to learn French or find another way to earn a couple of points. (I don't know if learning a First Nations language counts as bilingual
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The US under Reagan Himself and VP Bush also ran a naval blockade against Nicaragua, which is legally an act of war, including mining their harbors and funding illegal combatants that fought the government, both after the overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship and also after Ortega's legal election in 1984. While Nicaragua didn't surrender to the US, it did contribute to the downfall of Ortega in the 1990 elections (though the Socialist incompetent meddling with the economy, the US spending roughly $9/voter supporting the opposition, and the US drug war funding the Contras also contributed significantly.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I note Senator Arlen Spector is responsible for this rider. It is attached to a bill to fund the military. The various amendments to the amendment made my head swim so much, I gave it up. It is time we, the American People, force our representatives to consider a bill on its own merits, not tack on riders with no connection to the original bill. "Politics as usual" is the offender and needs to be stopped. Perhaps we could get a riderless bill that would prevent any politician from doing this by denying them the privilege to accept "donations" for their next campaign for re-election?
The right of Habeas Corpus is a right that is protected by the many constitutions. Congress has no power to alter the constitution so congress couldn't have (and thus, technically didn't) remove the right of habeas corpus. What people should be debating about is why everyone is happy to pretend that congress has the right to vote on such things??? Why has America become so ignorant of their own legal history and tradition!?!?!? Madening.
-TheCreditMaster
Learn how to legally boost your Credit score in days
http://www.Positive-Credit.com