Prim -- from where I'm sitting this sounds exceedingly strange. I promise you that even in 2007, federal courts are issuing writs of habeas corpus with respect to American citizens and that the executive branch is complying with them.
ETA And in discussing constitutional protections afforded to non-citizens, I do think it is critical to consider whether they are on United States soil or not.
ETA2 - check your email.
Last edited by nerdanel on Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
The government has been suppressing political dissent?
Boy, it's more inept than I thought!
COINTELPRO is the best example we know of. Go look it up, as it's before your time. (Look up Project Northwoods too, while you're at it, just for fun.) But then they learned you don't have to suppress it if you can manipulate public perception of it. Thus the ongoing chorus, only recently faded, that said anyone who wanted out of Iraq was "out of the mainstream" even when a majority of Americans said they wanted out.
Faramond--
Lincoln had a Civil War to deal with, and hostile enemy armies within sight of the Capitol Dome. Even I am willing to cut him a tiny bit of slack.
halplm wrote:The government has been suppressing political dissent?
Boy, it's more inept than I thought!
I tell ya what... I'll conceed the super secret spying program, and the stolen 2000 election, if someone else will conceed the media has been in the left's pocket forever, and the left wants to keep everyone currently on welfare, on welfare in the future to maintain a poor voting base stronghold... I'll throw in a stacked conservative court if someone will give me something on global warming...
Does any of it really matter? It doesn't matter WHO's in office... they're going to abuse their power as much as they want to. Bush is currently the most powerful single person in the world. We SHOULD be thankful we've gotten as far as we have with only as little as we've had to deal with...
It's time the Ministry of Truth sent you guyz a new handbook. Those old canards can't even quack any more, never mind walk.
Your last sentence makes no sense to me. What is it that you're driving at, exactly?
that it's a miracle the world hasn't ended with the stupidity of the leaders around the world... and specifically Bush... We're lucky it hasn't all fallen apart.
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
The world hasn't fallen apart for you, maybe. But it has for millions and millions of others, here and there.
However, I take your point. The truth is that most people are pretty decent and have some common sense and they just struggle along despite what the leaders are doing.
The thing about habeas corpus dates back to the Clinton administration ... unfortunately I've forgotten the details of the little bit of research that I had done on this for a discussion on B77, and I can't use today to go look them up again, but it was Clinton who passed a bill that basically incorporated the Geneva Convention into the laws of the United States (1995, iirc) ... um, because it covered acts of war that transcended the homocide statutes we had on our books. Iirc, the talk about suspension of habeas corpus originally took place in that context. Then the Bush administration passed a law intended to close a loophole in the earlier 'Geneva Convention' law, which made it impossible to bring charges against the US government for violations. What was at stake there specifically was torture, iirc.
But the Supreme Court did issue a recent ruling that the remainder of the prisoners in Guantanamo may not exercise habeas corpus, did they not? But I don't believe that those whose appeals were at stake were U.S. citizens. Though I must say that the idea of the US government setting up secret prisons on foreign territory for the confinement of foreign nationals just so there can be no question of their possessing constitutional rights ... this strategy does not appeal to me.
But the big issue where US citizens were concerned was that the Justice department was not arresting people who were thought to have information about, or were suspected of collaborating with, terrorist organizations; rather they were detaining them under material witness warrants where habeas corpus does not apply, and people were being confined for many months and denied access not only to a grand jury but to legal counsel as well.
What Congress was been looking into, according to my understanding, is closing this loophole in the laws concerning material witness warrants. the law as it stands now had been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court, but there is no question among legislators and human rights attorneys that it is being used to do an end run around habeas corpus.
nel wrote:I promise you that even in 2007, federal courts are issuing writs of habeas corpus with respect to American citizens and that the executive branch is complying with them.
I think what Prim may have been referring to was that law that passed just before the Congress changed hands; I can't remember it's name, but it involved the military tribunals. That law allowed that anyone could be detained without the right of habeas corpus, citizen or non-citizen, at home or abroad, at the President's discretion if he judged they were giving aid or comfort to our enemies (not exact language). I'm sorry I don't have a particular reference, but I recall many articles written at the time highlighting that ominous language. There was speculation, for example, that given the Vice President's many references to people who disagreed with the Pres.'s policies as aiding terrorists, that it could technically be made to apply to, well, anyone who disagrees with the President's policies. People were speculating (somewhat jokingly) whether Keith Olbermann would suddenly disappear. I believe it is this law that is currently being taken up again with the intent of repealing at least that provision.
Anyway, I share Prim's viewpoint and concerns.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
I would remind you that the Constitution expressly grants Congress the right to suspend habeas corpus in time of war. To my knowledge, however, Congress has *not* exercised that power. What it has done is to clarify the non-applicability of habeas to foreign citizens abroad. Citizen terrorists like Jose Pedilla must still be tried in the civilian courts under the Federal Rules of Procedure.
The Bushies have not in fact been nearly as hardcore as they could be. Under the Hague Convention francs-tireurs (spies, saboteurs, and combatants disguised as civilians) are only entitled to a drumhead court-martial and a firing squad.
I, personally, would rather attempt to head things off before civil liberties are too degraded. The longer one waits, the harder it gets to stop. The tipping point can occur long before most people are actually affected.
Found reference to this in my email this morning. Apparently the suspension of habeas corpus for those detained by the US government is indeed a big issue for Congress and the Senate, which is probably where Prim got her idea that it has been suspended in general.
Just to help make my point about comparisons, Freedom House annually ranks countries by their political rights (how democratic they are) and civil liberties (how free their people are). Wiki has the full list, a map, and an explanation of how it works.
From 1 (best) to 7 (worst) the U.S. gets a 1 for civil liberties and a 1 for political rights. Compared with the issues the rest of the world faces, the problems identified in this thread are trifling and their chances of being resolved very good.
Freedom House does OK, but it does get most of its money from the US government. I wouldn't call it a government organ--it has serious issues with a lot of our "allies"--but it's not purely independent.
That said, it's not the state of the freedoms, but their fragility, that most concerns me. Breaking a handful of just the wrong ones could make a slide into nasty happen far more quickly than many think.
I'm not sure how fragile they really are, considering that on Monday the Fourth Circuit (generally the most conservative of all the Courts of Appeal) smacked down the White House' claimed power to detain noncitizens in the US without trial or habeas. There remains a tremendous strength in the Constitution.
Having said that, as always you've got to be careful what you wish for. The 4th Cir majority, at least acording to the NPR report, went off in a scary direction in reaching that decision. (In the US legal system, with an appellate decision it's often less important who won and who lost than the reasoning by which the court got there, since it's that which creates precedent for the future.) Here the court seems to be taking the line that 'civilian' and 'noncombatant' are synonymous, throwing away decades of Geneva jurisprudence. To try to claim that only members of a nation-state's armed forces can ever be combatants reflects a mindboggling blindness to present reality.
Last edited by solicitr on Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
axordil wrote:Freedom House does OK, but it does get most of its money from the US government. I wouldn't call it a government organ--it has serious issues with a lot of our "allies"--but it's not purely independent.
No, but it’s considered an academically good source and lines up well with other, similar agencies. You can also go through and measure up the countries using its standards yourself – it’s more or less the same as far as this thread is concerned.
axordil wrote:That said, it's not the state of the freedoms, but their fragility, that most concerns me. Breaking a handful of just the wrong ones could make a slide into nasty happen far more quickly than many think.
Aren’t freedoms always fragile, especially in times of concern and strife? Who was it that said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance?
Freedom House receives funding from several other governments and the EU as well. Similarly, the United Nations is hardly a US mouthpiece just because we provide most of its money!
But that vigilance must be directed not only at perceived enemies, but at the vigilant as well. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sure, but we're really talking about the margins of freedom compared to Belarus or Burma. Some Euros are down on the US because many states don't allow felons to vote; some Americans consider European nations less than free when they enforce "hate speech" laws. These are quibbles up against the many real hardass dictatorships that besmirch the globe.
They may be quibbles--but they're OUR quibbles. Just because I'm against genocide doesn't mean I'll let someone spray paint graffiti on my house, even though it's a "quibble" by comparison.
eta--I'll be frank, I have no patience for the "we're not as bad as X so don't worry about it" argument. Once one starts comparing us to Belarus, no matter what the result, something vital has been lost. It is my desire to see a world in which no one could even FORMULATE that comparison.
I don't think that's what's happening, Ax. I think what's being argued for is that a lot of the anti-Bush language is mega-hyperbolic right now. Nobody is out trying to destroy all our ciivl liberties. He's a bad president but he ain't bloody Hitler.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Thank you, YV. Speaking as someone who grew up with neighbors who lost most of their family in the Holocaust, I personally get very, very offended at people glibly trivialising that monster Hitler by equating him with Shrub.
