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.
as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31
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.
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...")
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.
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
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.
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.
In case you haven't noticed, 6 straight years of a Republican Senate, House, Presidency, The New Cheney Branch, and Supreme Court (ALL facets of our government) have resulted in unmitigated disasters both at home and abroad. That's what you get for electing people to run your government who think government is a bad thing. Don't try to blame this mess on BOTH parties now.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You are missing the previous poster's point. The Republicans filibustered this bill and, aside from one report on NPR and one report on MSNBC, no media outlet has labeled this as a "filibuster". Apparently it's only a filibuster if the Democrats do it. And many of the headlines have been downright misleading, saying things like "the bill was defeated 56-44," leading one to believe that it didn't even gain a simple majority.
And I remember only two years ago, during the Alito nomination, hearing how a filibuster was "undemocratic" and that we must have a "straight up or down vote." And now that the Republicans are in the minority, that whole idea just vanished. How convenient. They are going to TRIPLE the previous record for number of filibusters in a two year session (which was 58; we're on target for at least 160 at the present rate).
And after at least tens of thousands people killed with in Iraq that you paid for (you pay taxes, don't you?), you certainly deserve to be stopped.
We're not talking about detaining citizens, or even migrants. Only those individuals who are either illegal (ie: should be either kicked out of the country or thrown in jail anyways) or enemy combatants engaged in foriegn conflict zones.
We are talking about detaining people. Habeaus Corpus is a human right, not American citizen's right.
From the point of view of other coutries (eg. Iran, China, Canada or whatever) you are an "enemy combatant" and deserve to be "detained". If you voted for Bush then you get a life sentence.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
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.
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
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
After a tribunal has actually determined that someone is, in fact, a member of such a group, sure. The official policy has been directly opposed to that for a long time, however.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
"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."
Blah blah blah Might Makes Right.
The U.S. signed and ratified the Fourth Geneva Conventions. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=375&ps=P) We promised to uphold those principles. If we don't, then we're a bunch of immoral liars.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes