5 ms·

U.S. Senate considering to suspend habeas corpus

6 points by gasull 17y ago

dzlobin 17y ago
Alright, first of all, not it isn't. The senate has a ton of horrible, nonsensical bills that are introduced, but they never see the light of day. This is just linkbait and a two paragraph explanation of some obscure McCain bill that nobody will care about.
- hga 17y ago
  I wouldn't say it's entirely nonsensical. The Miranda-izing of the Christmas "Knicker Bomber" resulted in a loss of intelligence about what is going on in the rather hot area of Yemen, the same place where Anwar al-Awlaki is thought to be residing, who is an American citizen whom the President of the United States has ordered the "targeted killing" of (!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Current_status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Current_status). Nonsensical, perhaps, in that in practice the Congress can't force the Executive's hand like this, but perhaps adding a little clarity here might help in the long run.
hga 17y ago
"The bill's sponsors are surely aware that much of the language is flagrantly unconstitutional." Garbage, and it's even a power that is clearly given to the Congress in Article I Section 9: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Section_9 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Sta... "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."
- ratsbane 17y ago
  That last clause is quite clear, isn't it? "...unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." - It says "invasion." This doesn't mean just an attack, even if it is a successful terrorist attack by nineteen people. Wikipedia has a good definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion Thus, except in cases of rebellion or invasion, Habeas Corpus may not be suspended. As far as I know this country has not suffered a rebellion since 1865 and has never been invaded. - The constitution also says "...the public Safety may require it." Thus even if there were an invasion or rebellion, it's not automatic.
  - hga 17y ago
    It's certainly arguable that a series of attacks by foreigners in an auto-conspiracy (a group of like minded people) that is explicit and public about its goal of destroying the United States (as a political entity) and enslaving its population (well, those who don't convert) constitutes an "invasion". Heck, half of those 19 were reattacking a target that the auto-conspiracy had failed to destroy earlier (while it woudln't have worked, they were trying to topple one tower into the other; fortunately the bomb prematured on a ramp). So I don't count this as "flagrantly unconstitutional". One frequently mentioned example nowadays of this is the Nazi saboteurs who landed in the US from submarine and were dealt with as spies, not afforded the civil liberties of the period.
    - hga 17y ago
      Feel free to down vote me, but I'd really like to hear the arguments that this doesn't constitute an "invasion" in any reasonable construction of the Constitution. What if a good part of Manhattan Island and D.C. are reduced to radioactive slag sometime this decade? Will that count as an "invasion"? Will we then regret treating this issue like a law enforcement problem instead of like a war? (Do you think we'll forever be able to avoid the jihadist's being able to light off a nuke on or above an American city?)

6 points by gasull 17y ago

Alright, first of all, not it isn't. The senate has a ton of horrible, nonsensical bills that are introduced, but they never see the light of day. This is just linkbait and a two paragraph explanation of some obscure McCain bill that nobody will care about.

hga 17y ago
I wouldn't say it's entirely nonsensical. The Miranda-izing of the Christmas "Knicker Bomber" resulted in a loss of intelligence about what is going on in the rather hot area of Yemen, the same place where Anwar al-Awlaki is thought to be residing, who is an American citizen whom the President of the United States has ordered the "targeted killing" of (!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Current_status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Current_status). Nonsensical, perhaps, in that in practice the Congress can't force the Executive's hand like this, but perhaps adding a little clarity here might help in the long run.

hga 17y ago

"The bill's sponsors are surely aware that much of the language is flagrantly unconstitutional." Garbage, and it's even a power that is clearly given to the Congress in Article I Section 9: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Section_9 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Sta... "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."

ratsbane 17y ago
That last clause is quite clear, isn't it? "...unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." - It says "invasion." This doesn't mean just an attack, even if it is a successful terrorist attack by nineteen people. Wikipedia has a good definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion Thus, except in cases of rebellion or invasion, Habeas Corpus may not be suspended. As far as I know this country has not suffered a rebellion since 1865 and has never been invaded. - The constitution also says "...the public Safety may require it." Thus even if there were an invasion or rebellion, it's not automatic.
- hga 17y ago
  It's certainly arguable that a series of attacks by foreigners in an auto-conspiracy (a group of like minded people) that is explicit and public about its goal of destroying the United States (as a political entity) and enslaving its population (well, those who don't convert) constitutes an "invasion". Heck, half of those 19 were reattacking a target that the auto-conspiracy had failed to destroy earlier (while it woudln't have worked, they were trying to topple one tower into the other; fortunately the bomb prematured on a ramp). So I don't count this as "flagrantly unconstitutional". One frequently mentioned example nowadays of this is the Nazi saboteurs who landed in the US from submarine and were dealt with as spies, not afforded the civil liberties of the period.
  - hga 17y ago
    Feel free to down vote me, but I'd really like to hear the arguments that this doesn't constitute an "invasion" in any reasonable construction of the Constitution. What if a good part of Manhattan Island and D.C. are reduced to radioactive slag sometime this decade? Will that count as an "invasion"? Will we then regret treating this issue like a law enforcement problem instead of like a war? (Do you think we'll forever be able to avoid the jihadist's being able to light off a nuke on or above an American city?)