Comments on: What ever happened to habeas corpus?

By: ron

ron — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:52:35 +0000

This president has made a shambles of the Constitution and very few people are pointing it out. Hence the ignorant readers responses on this blog. Likewise, few really understood how the Constitution was skirted in Iran-Contra. Sex scandals they understand. Anything more complex than that and it’s too much to think about. Keep up the good work Susan. Someone has to keep talking about this issue.

By: Patric K. Stanton

Patric K. Stanton — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 02:37:22 +0000

“Anoneemus” seems to have fallen into the simplistic trap that has been set by the Bushies.
The military commissions act gives the president SOLE power to label ANYONE an Enemy Combatant, after which is has SOLE power to strip them of citizenship and then detain them INDEFINITELY without any right to habeas corpus, so that they never have to see evidence against them, receive a trial, or any independent judicial review of the case against them.

This means, quite simply, that the loss of habeas corpus does apply to all of us, including you and me. It is NOT about the “enemy” who is everywhere and nowhere.

And, by the way, unless our government has suddenly become all-knowing, what exactly is the problem with presenting evidence to a judge that someone you are detaining actually might have committed the crime with which they are charged, and then trying them?

Or, have we already become the same as the people against whom we claim to be fighting?

By: Publius

Publius — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:49:07 +0000

Talk about press-release journalism…

By: John

John — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:13:53 +0000

Gee, I just needed to read the slanted headline to know that this was a Susan Elan post…

By: Anoneemus

Anoneemus — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:49:52 +0000

I think HC was meant to apply to citizens and residents. The people at Gitmo are enemy combatants. In case you have noticed recently, we are at war with an enemy that would like to eliminate or convert us all.