An editorial in today’s New York Times notes that

The right of habeas corpus is so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution: it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Yup.

Of course, the right to keep and bear arms is so central to the American legal system that it has not just its own clause but its own Amendment, which is even more absolutist in affording no exceptions to the stipulation that the right “shall not be infringed.”

Pity The Times isn’t willing to grant law-abiding citizens as much constitutional protection as alleged enemy combatants. But then there’s a lot of that going around.

Biscuit head Ed is correct in noting that democracy isn’t simply a matter of letting people vote. This was made plain by the election of Hamas, a neo nazi death cult, by the Palistinians a few years back. It also did nothing to keep the Nazi’s from rising to power. In both cases, democracy failed because there were no democratic traditions evident prior to the imposition of elected gov’t.

Now, I know some of you are moist with anticipation and can’t wait to blurt out that Iraq is no different and, if you did so, you’d be correct. As it stands now, the people of Iraq are incapable of governing themselves without resorting to a dark age Islamic thug state or a strong man dictatorship. This is not to say that it’s pointless because history tells us they can be modernized if the West is willing to put forth the effort (ikky!)

We saw what happened in Germany after WW1. We saw what happened after WW2. The difference? We stayed on aftr WW2 to make sure the centuries old tradition of Prussian militarism didn’t revive itself in our absense as it had done after WW1.

Of course, we also beat the Germans (and Japanese)into absolute submission and that was a big help.The same can’t be said for Iraq because we no longer fight that kind of war (extra ikky!)

The same analogy can be applied to our own Civil War. After the south was beaten into submission, the Federal gov’t made a short, half heated attempt at reconstruction before becoming bored with the whole affair. After a decade, the South, which being more in line with a feudal agrarian autocracy, simply reverted back to it’s old ways for the next 100 years. (or to the present day, if bobo has anything to say about it...recreate 68!!! weeeee!)

And this is not to say that we, with our long tradition of democratic gov’t aren’t prone to slipping backwards. We’ve already allowed an entire generation of our children to be brainwashed into believing that restricting speech for the sake of feelings is ok, that racial identity is more important than national unity, that questioning mass hysteria should be criminalized and that feeling good about ones self is more important than actually accomplishing anything. Oh...and gov’t is the answer to every problem.

So in a way, where like 2 trains heading towards one another on the same track!

I guess when we meet we’ll have the perfect society! A quasi dark age police state where the citizens have lots of neat stuff to play with!

They played the Magna Carta card in the British habeus corpus debates (yes, they are struggling with these issues too).

If you guys think a magical document will protect you from abuse, more power to you. The rule of law is sometimes as much a highly organized and systematic infrastructure of civilized behavior as it is a series of magical documents or magical beans that may or may not grow into beanstalks leading to hypothetical geese who shit gold on command.

Just don’t sell my cow please.

It’s only a theory, but the theory goes that one reason we are having such a hard time exporting democracy across the world is that free elections is not democracy. Democracy must have an infrastructure, a foundation, a sound basis of fully functional institutions such as rule of law and mutual respect as opposed to the anarchy and despotism R.Smith playfully refers to.

Now, that rule of law was sorely tested during the 2000 elections but it won out because one side did back down and there was no crisis.

Keep your magic beans but don’t sell the cow. By the way, the Great Ape is a myth. King Kong was really a California hairdresser who changed his name and constructed this elaborate myth to hide his identity after joining the Republican Party. 

There was no Great Ape, no King Kong, but there is a golden goose. I just need to find it. Then I can get stuff.

Bill,

I thought our foundational document was the Sacred Scrolls set forth 1000 years ago by the Great Ape. Or was it Grape Ape?

I don’t like foundational documents anyway. They make me do stuff I don’t like. We should rewrite the Scrolls to say “Every citizen has the right to do stuff and have lots of stuff and not have to pay for stuff”

That’s the change I’ve been waiting for.

So it is written...So it shall be done…

Dear Bart,
Will you consider changing the background color of the responses to your blog.  I, for one, can barely read it.  Thanks for considering,
Rain

Dammit.  Typing can’t keep up with stream of thought again.

“we should lightly stray from or discard its fundamental precepts” obviously should be “we should NOT lightly...”

Duh.

Larry -

First, let me be clear: I’m not really sure yet where I stand on the whole Gitmo ruling.  I have yet to read it, and I don’t really know the facts of the individuals involved.  I seem to recall, however, that they were grabbed either during or closely following battles, under the conclusion or presumption that they were “enemy combatants.” I suppose if you had just been involved in a lengthy firefight and as the smoke was clearing, you saw some guy running around in sandals and a turban, holding an AK-47, you would presume he was a bad guy.  But what you don’t know is the guy is some goat-herder who was on his way home from the mud farm and was hiding in the mosque until the shooting was over.  So the facts under which these guys were grabbed can be very important.  I dunno about any of the individual cases, though.

You say “What the Bush administration is doing is versus TERRORISTS, not American citizens simply voicing opinions.”

That begs the question and is circular reasoning.  How do you know that any given one of the detainees actually is a “terrorist.” What the Bush admin. is saying is “we’re holding them because they are enemy combatants.” When asked “how do you know they are enemy combatants?”, the answer is “because we say they are.”

Am I proponing some sort of paranoia that the gubmint is out to lock up law-abiding `murican citizens for voicing their opinions?  No, not really - leastwise not yet.  We’ll see how it goes under Pres. Obama.  Take a look at what’s been going on in the sham Canadian “human rights tribunals” recently. 

And, in answer to your question regarding where does the right of habeas corpus come from: it is known as an “ancient writ”, having its basis in American common law by first having its basis in English common law, being guaranteed by the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D. 

In the U.S., it is enshrined in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the only time habeas corpus may be suspended is “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it.” The argument is that these guys were not invading the U.S., nor were they involved in rebellion, so this exception is not met and the government cannot deny them the privilege of a writ of habeas corpus.

So you might ask, if this is the U.S. Constitution, how does it apply to some dude from Afghanistan?  The argument, based on various specific wordings and provisions of the Constitution, is that the writ of habeas corpus applies not just to “citizens” of the U.S., but to ANY “person” under the jurisdiction of the U.S.  Since we brought these guys under U.S. jurisdiction by bringing them to Club Gitmo, this provision of the Constitution became applicable.  So the argument goes. 

My fear is that, although I agree that, as a matter of national self-preservation, this can’t be the “right” answer, it probably is the legally and textually correct one.  Unfortunately, this appears to be a set of circumstances the Framers not only failed to foresee but given how wars were fought at the time, probably could not have foreseen.

My take is that the Constitution is our foundational document, and we should lightly stray from or discard its fundamental precepts.  And don’t fool yourself for a minute that the federal government and those in power at any given moment in time would not and do not engage in creeping incrementalism.  They’ll take any opportunity to grab a little more power and serve whatever ends are politically expedient at the time.

Mr. Biscuit—Ed—I also stand 4-square with President Bush on this particular issue. Bush has done a ghastly job on certain fronts, but has been excellent in keeping us safe. Its important to be safe. Let nobody forget that…

Some people say, ‘Gee, if we don’t vanguard the terror detainees’ rights then next thing the evil government will soon do it to us.’ That seems to be where Bill is coming from, for example.

Bunk! Michael Moore couldn’t written a more paranoid script. If the government were going to lock-up any one of us ‘without cause’ they would’ve done it by now. Hello!  What the Bush administration is doing is versus TERRORISTS, not American citizens simply voicing opinions.

Its one thing to criticize the US government—its another to ATTACK it. If you attack you will pay. And I will have no sympathy for you.

Larry,

Back to habeas corpus again. I can see how Bart’s stand relates well to the rule of law, but I agree with the president (almost never) that this is a very dangerous precedent.

I agree to some extent with your philosophical position that granting rights is a luxury in a free society not a precondition.

We simply can not afford to extend luxuries to the undeserving nor even at times to the deserving.

Nah. When the satire works, they aren’t being “glorified class clowns” at all. Far from it.  They expose the foibles and the dark underbelly of our society with wit and whim.

When the satire does not work, it fails to even be amusing.

Naturally, the show is not likely to be a hit with conservatives, who take a more conventional and establishmentarian view of things, and do not appreciate their impudence and irreverence.

Naturally, that is also why they do score with youth, as young folks tend to revel in irreverence at their own peril.

I think it is serious business when it gets political but I agree completely with you it can be a distractiion.

The exact same charges you can level at talk radio you can level at Comedy Central. Rush Limbaugh says “incorrect” things some of us need to hear that the official sources won’t tell us. Well, so does Jon Stewart.

We worry that folks will take a pill popping egomaniacal raving jackass seriously. Well, folks worry the same way about a wiseass impudent glib fool.

These shows do serve a purpose, and exist to fill a niche in politics, but I find it quite natural for all of us to worry that people will be unduely influenced by shows that mix entertainment and opinion, not always up to snuff.

Sure, mainstream sources only hit the tip of the truth iceberg. The problem is when you veer off the beaten path into cable news, talk radio, Drudge Report, thinktanks, blogs, political ads, comedy, increasing danger of getting lost in the woods.

Less reliable. More partisan.

The argument made by anti-US government infidels right here on Barticles is that these terror suspects have got the right to habeus corpus, etc.

Where & how, pray tell,did they obtain these “rights”? Who gave it to ‘em? Are they allowed to vote in our coming election too? Can they now waltz into the local Chilis with a Sig-Sauer on their hip?

Post Your Comments: