3 ms·

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 does

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?)

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?)