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.
Guess what, America? George Bush sold you the fuck out!!
And, before anyone tries to blame the Senate, the conditions that exist today are a direct result of George Bush prior to 9/11 scrapping the anti-terrorist measures left in place by the previous administration. Plus a lot of rather bad decisions Bush has made since then.
Good job on getting some common sense and reality as fp on this article. Too bad there are people who already posted without reading this.
Not 'partisan'. Republican.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
What a totally loaded statement. No wonder it got voted down. Hidden agendas should always be outed.
The nature and extent of our current national crisis, as well as its causes and cures, are the subject of intense political struggle. I offer this letter as a contribution to that struggle and debate in hopes of helping to pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny. Although not without overlap and simplification, I plan to identify three primary positions on George W Bush's ravings. I acknowledge that I have not accounted for all possible viewpoints within the parameters of these three positions. Nevertheless, if Bush's bons mots get any more shabby, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. The idea that people want maledicent cozeners to win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats is a fundamental misunderstanding of the human condition, which makes it obvious to me that Bush twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. Bush unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to prevent us from getting in touch with our feelings. He wants to pigeonhole people into predetermined categories. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background.
Bush is unquestionably up to something. I don't know exactly what, but there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Bush. If my own experience has taught me anything, it's that he wants nothing less than to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. His apostles then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with moonstruck, bloody-minded serpents who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that Bush wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey his every command. To produce such an army, he plans to destroy people's minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach he takes, if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Bush is clearly going to be the first to go. Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Bush so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? The answer is almost thoroughly obvious -- this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that if, five years ago, I had described a person like Bush to you and told you that in five years, he'd outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness, you'd have thought me anti-democratic. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how if everyone does his own, small part, together we can set the record straight. Whether or not you realize this, many savages have an intense identification with nit-picky converts to racialism. In fact, I have said that to Bush on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to sweep his peccadillos under the rug. He recently stated that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary, because his put-downs are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I act as a positive role model for younger people, Bush's invariant response is to pursue a condescending agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever.
Bush has abandoned ethics altogether. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. Far too many people tolerate his ebullitions as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that Bush wants to get me thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some stat
Of course the cosponsor of the bill said that. What do you expect? He also said that the the Insurrection Act changes in the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill enabled the president to easily declare martial law, when in reality the changes were made in large part because of the outcry related to Hurricane Katrina, and actually had stronger guidelines for domestic use of the military than the previous provisions of the act had for the prior two centuries.
This is a political move, and if it was as clear cut as you claim it is, this act to "restore" a fundamental principle of our country should have passed unanimously. Except that it didn't, because it is nothing more than a political move. 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. That notion is ridiculous to me and many others, for some of the reasons I briefly alluded to in my post.
So how exactly does the United States enforce the supposed "inherent right for all humans" to have Habeas Corpus when you hippy types get your panties all in a wad anytime the United States tries to implement US policies anywhere outside our borders? Are we "occupying" Iraq, perhaps to institute your mythical view of the US Constitution? If not, should we? If we should, then why do you and your ilk complain so loudly when we do?
for me to never cross the boarder. As a Canadian citizen I would be without the rights of habeas corpus, while I don't plan on doing anything illegal, that wouldn't stop them from arresting me anyway.
no thanks, would rather just stay up here where I have a reasonable expectation of human rights.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
I browse "The Nation"'s drivel to know, what the illiberal enemies are up to...
Now, thanks to KDawson, I can get some forewarnings right here on Slashdot.
The sooner the comrade gets sent to Siberia (for having been born and having relatives in a capitalist country) the better...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why in the hell is there even a DEBATE about granting CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to those would seek to have our Constitution DESTROYED?
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
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."
While thats a nice principle and I agree, in principle, you missed some important points.
If he did, you're certainly not pointing it out. You are so incredibly wrong as to most likely be insane or a troll. A little very simple common sense and some third grade level reading comprehension would have prevented you from demonstrating yourself to be a liar or a fool (or both, of course).
So let's go over your idiotic attempt at making a point at which you failed so totally:
The constitution only applies to US citizens because it is only upheld by US Citizens.
If you spent ten seconds thinking about what you said you could have easily come up with a dozen examples demonstrating the totally lack of any sanity whatsoever to that completely idiotic statement.
You could have actually read some of the otehr posts explaining at a third grade level (the highest you could possibly hope to understand given your demonstrated lack of anything approaching an ability to think rationally.) how exactly you're wrong.
But for a really really simple example of how stupid what you said is, think about this.
I don't uphold drug laws, nor support them in any form. According to you, Einstein, that means that those laws do not apply to me and therefore I can go smoke a joint in front of the police station with no fear?
Pretty fucking stupid, right? Well that was exactly what you said.
Not to mention that first part "We the People of the United States..." indicates we are only talking about citizens and people (legal aliens) of the US.
So you take one part of a sentence out of context, obviously fail to read the rest and then expect to be treated as anything but the lying fool you've *proven* yourself to be?
"We the People" are the ones *establishing* the Constitution. That isn't a list of the people to whom it applies, nor could a sane person with any intelligence possibly make a mistake like that. You lied about something really obvious there, Sparky. In fact what you lied about was the rest of the sentence you quoted. That's really really stupid to lie about something that obvious.
Also, if you want to assume your point correct, then the Constitution applies to everyone, therefore we should be able to enforce it for everyone, otherwise we are in fact a mockery of your point and we really only mean ourselves after all.
Again, you really shouldn't speak in public when you're as stupid as you continually prove yourself to be.
The constitution applies to our government. Therefore it holds where our government has jurisdiction. It applies to people in this country.
Do you see how actually reading the words and knowing what they means helps you make simple basic logical connections like that?
You could learn to do that if you actually tried. But it certainly seems like you're happy to be known as a liar and a fool. You couldn't have posted anything that obviously retarded otherwise, now could you?
Seriously, I have to assume that we aren't blowtorching, amputating, skin peeling, anal assaulting, eye gouging, etc.
Why would you ever assume anything so silly?
You do know that it's *your job* to make certain that you *know* whether or not that is the case and kill the people in charge if it is the case, right?
That's what being a citizen is.
You have stated your case that you are not a citizen, do not care to man up and take on the responsibilities of a citizen and would prefer the delusional feeling of safety granted subjects.
Seriously, "assuming" that our government isn't doing the wrong things as they've been repeatedly caught doing in increasingly treasonous ways over the years is pure unadulterated stupidity.
Pull your head out of your ass and think. Quit assuming that your delusional fantasies are somehow magically true in spite of all evidence being to the contrary.
so assuming you know more then what some biased group it telling you, you would understand that we don't view things the same way as they do. No, it is mean to annoy them into saying something. It is meant to confuse them into forgetting what they have said and slipping something useful in. It isn't mental cruelty or demeaning to anyone except the person who is being interrogated. After all, they aren't doing this stuff in front of others. Outside the tied up, I don't think anyone has ever suggested the rest has happened. And that is my point. You go, and when I say you i mean all the biased people attempting to prove a point, and take something, blow it out of portion and then claim it is something it is not. You take isolated instances caused by unprofessional soldier with little training and oversight and act like it is happening everywhere with the permission of the government. This couldn't be further from the truth. But when has the truth ever stopped the opposition?
Ok, dude, you win. US soldiers and agents are butchering prisoners by the thousands, right now, even as we speak. Happy?
No, why would I be happy to have you change one ignorant uninformed answer for another? My hope is for you to actually think.
The fact is that we do not know whether or not that is happening and the people in charge are doing all in their power to prevent us from ever having the ability to determine if they are now or ever in the future are doing such things.
Those are the facts, so saying it isn't happening is an ignorant lie. Saying it is (on that scale, we know it is going on) is the same.
Also interesting that if you really think we have 80's Central American death squad action going on, you'd best keep your fucking mouth shut, too.
I didn't say that. You said that thinking something like that could happen was crazy talk. I pointed out that it has already happened very recently and the mass murderer in charge of the operation is back in a high profile position.
That is likewise a fact which *proves* your assertion to be entirely ignorant and delusional.
So all I want you to do is quit ignoring and denying very important relevant facts in order to pretend that there couldn't possibly be a problem.
In short, all I want out of you is a little bit of honesty.
Why is that so extremely difficult for you?