Congress May Restore Habeas Corpus

A transcript from mcjoan at Daily Kos:

Olbermann: Supporters of this act, the Military Commissions Act ... point out that other administrations have suspended habeas corpus without destroying the republic. Is this time different, and if so how and why is that pretty much a sophistry argument?

Turley: It's hardly a convincing case that you have to have the collapse of the republic. It says more about the republic than the actions of the earlier presidents. This is a system of government that was designed to be idiot-proof and God knows we've tested that through the years. But it was actually designed for multiple idiots, and it means that we can go a certain period of time with the denial of rights and we have tended to correct that and it looks like we're about to do that now. This was one of the most disgraceful moments of the last Congress and it will be equally disgraceful to see many Republicans vote to fight the effort to bring back the great writ.

Olbermann: ... It is easy to imagine Americans who are patriotic but scared, who could just sort of dismiss habeas corpus and other civil liberties as luxuries that make us weak right now. Explain why that's exactly backwards, why they're not luxuries, why they're necessities that make us strong.

Turley: First of all, habeas corpus is sometimes treated like some trick by a Philadelphia lawyer. It is actually the foundation for all other rights. When the government throws you into a dungeon for what you say or who you pray to, it's habeas corpus that's the right that allows you to see the enforcement of the other rights. So without habeas corpus, the rest of it is just aspirational and meaningless.

The danger when you walk away from these values, these rights that define us have been proven by this president. The greatest irony of the Bush Administration is that his legacy will be to show the dangers of walking away from those rights that define us. We’re very much alone today. He can’t go to Canada without people protesting, Miss America can’t even go to Mexico without being booed. We’re viewed as a rogue nation and it is a dangerous world to live in when you’re alone. In Italy, they're prosecuting in abstentia our own agents. This doesn't make us safer.... It's very interesting that the lesson this president may leave for his successors is that whether you are inclined to walk away from those core rights or not, that is what puts us in the greatest danger.

Olbermann: The right to bear arms, to believe your religion or to not believe any religion at all, to say what you want, these rights get people fired up, no matter what side of the debate they're on. Is not habeas corpus essential to all of them? You don't have that, it doesn't matter what the second amendment says?

Turley: That's right.... all those rights are meaningless [without habeas corpus] because it's habeas corpus that allows you to get to a court who can hear your complaint. So without habeas corpus it's just basically words that have no meaning, and this president has shown the dangers of the assertion of absolute power. He has asserted the right to take an American citizen, declare them unilaterally an enemy combatant and deny them all rights. The courts have said otherwise and now Congress will say otherwise. [Any transcription errors mine.]

I Wish This Were an April Fool's Joke....

Glenn Greenwald in an article in today's Salon.com entitled Your modern-day Republican Party, revealed:

Two of the three leading Republican candidates for President either embrace or are open to embracing the idea that the President can imprison Americans without any review, based solely on the unchecked decree of the President. And, of course, that is nothing new, since the current Republican President not only believes he has that power but has exercised it against U.S. citizens and legal residents in the U.S. -- including those arrested not on the "battlefield," but on American soil.

To which a comment by "SteveLG" was left:

On the Bright Side

Those who "hate us for our freedoms" appear to have less reason to do so, every day.

Well said.

I recommend that you read the linked article above.

Hat Tip to Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo.

New video by Amnesty USA

I don't agree with everything Amnesty International believes in, but I do like this ad.

Keith Olbermann on the Death of Habeas Corpus

I don't know if the link above will work. If it does not, please let me know.

In the game of chess, there is a saying: "the threat is greater than its execution." As applied to the threat being used to justify eliminating Habeas Corpus (terrorism) is greater than its execution (actually blowing up things). The response (elimination of our civil liberties in response to security concerns) is a result that could not have have been achieved without the threat.

But we should be reminded of a saying attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

For more on the basics of Habeas Corpus see this entry at Answers.com (particularly the entry from the Legal Encyclopedia).

An anonymous comment

Someone who I met online sent me a personal email responding to my request on what they want to hear about.

I personally like your entries on Christian or faith-based issues, medical care and the law. For example, I wanted to know more about the habeas corpus issue -- what exactly does it do for average citzens, what the threat was, etc.

If you want more readers, I would have to say -- focus on housing in Oklahoma. People seem to want to read about housing -- prices, rip-offs, declines, where it's still cheap, etc.

I think what makes any blog compelling is original content. 99% are just links to other content, so what value is being added? Opinion doesn't really get people to come back, either, because its generally uninformed -- except for the super-ideologue sites where people preach to the choir. Not my taste, that's for sure.

Hope this helps...

Thanks for the comment. I will try to implement your suggestions. I was already planning to write another article about Habeas Corpus now that President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act into law today.

I definitely have something to think about from this email, however.

The End of Habeas Corpus?

***Updated link above***

It's not up yet, but Keith Olbermann had a segment on Tuesday night's show (October 10, 2006) regarding the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress seeking to abolish the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This ought to shock every American. The Great Writ, as it is called in legal circles, is the foundation upon which freedom in America is based.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

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.

There is no rebellion here in America (yet). There is no foreign invasion, either. As for Al Qaeda, they are just ordinary criminals whose motive is to create some fantasy "caliphate."

If Congress abolishes the Writ of Habeas Corpus, we won't be on a "slippery slide toward dictatorship" as former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor called it. We will be there already.

The mere fact the Republicans are seriously talking about this ought to be enough to severely punish them at the polls in November. If we get there in time.