Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics Your Rights Online

US Senate Fails To Reinstate Habeas Corpus 790

Posted by kdawson
from the bound-by-oath-or-affirmation dept.
Khyber notes that yesterday a vote in the US Senate fell four votes short of what was needed to restore habeas corpus — the fundamental right of individauls to challenge government detention. Here is the record of the vote on the Cloture Motion to restore Habeas Corpus. Article 4 of the US Constitution states that habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion and invasion when the public safety may require it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Senate Fails To Reinstate Habeas Corpus

Comments Filter:
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:46PM (#20682839)
    Just like the updates to the Insurrection Act of 1807 didn't enable martial law under nearly any circumstances or revoke Posse Comitatus, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 didn't revoke Habeas Corpus. To believe otherwise about either is politically charged fantasy.

    Note that the linked article is an opinion piece from The Nation, self described as "the flagship of the left", so when it says things about Habeas Corpus such as, "which the Republican Congress revoked", it's not a fact, it's just what the type of article it is explicitly states: an opinion. Further, we don't have a Republican Congress anymore, so I'm not sure how that is even meaningful. I guess I'm supposed to assume that even a Democratic Congress doesn't want to "restore Habeas Corpus"? (And naturally, surprise, this is posted by kdawson.)

    The fact of the matter is that Habeas Corpus was not suspended in any way, shape, or form. The Military Commissions Act does not apply to US citizens, permanent residents, or persons with a valid legal status within the United States. Only US citizens have a right to Habeas Corpus (Gonzales' ridiculous statements on the issue aside). MCA only applies to "aliens [that is, not US citizens] with no [US] immigration status who are captured and held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"; that is, MCA does not apply to US citizens. Therefore, Habeas Corpus was not suspended, and to argue that it was is puzzling to me.

    The argument that Habeas Corpus needs to apply to literally everyone because otherwise there is no way to "prove" that you are a US citizen to which MCA doesn't apply is something of a curious one. MCA already does not apply to US citizens apprehended on US soil. You do not need a court to affirm what is already known. If you believe the authorities will ignore the fact that someone is a US citizen and detain them anyway, then there are larger fundamental issues than whether or not someone can challenge detention; indeed, if the government really wanted to secretly detain someone without cause or ability to challenge, US citizen or not, they simply wouldn't give them any recourse at all, Habeas Corpus or no, now would they?

    On this general issue, there is certainly some merit to the argument that things like terrorism should be treated as a civil or criminal matter and not a military and national security issue. However, I do not subscribe to that viewpoint. Our freedoms and rights are things that US citizens and immigrants enjoy. Else, there is no function or purpose for immigration or even borders.

    Some tend to confuse US citizens and residents with everyone else on the planet, and pretend that the Constitution actually applies to everyone on Earth (which it doesn't), or that it should (which it shouldn't - perhaps in an idealized world, someday, everyone can expect and enjoy such a baseline of freedoms and rights).

    And to those who will come out of the woodwork saying, "What about Jose Padilla?"

    That was before MCA, which is what people say "suspended Habeas Corpus". That is, Jose Padilla did have Habeas Corpus rights and yet was still detained. That's part of reason MCA came into existence: to clarify this situation. Such detention of a US citizen apprehended on US soil, regardless of designation, has subsequently been clearly determined to be legally inappropriate, and, as such, does not fall under MCA.

    On top of all of this, to those that think that administration officials are going to lie and ignore any and all laws anyway, then what difference does any wording of any law really make?

    Disclaimer: portions of this post were culled or paraphrased from a couple of previous posts of mine here on the topic, but is precisely on point, so there is no need to retype.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Where does the Constitution say "Citizen" or "Resident" when dealing with rights other than holding office or voting? Everything is phrased in term of "Government" and "Person".

      • by Jhon (241832) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:16PM (#20683471) Homepage Journal
        Right at the beginning...

        "We the people of the United States of America" So where it says "the people" generally applies to citizens.

        Yes there are some ambiguities that the courts have addressed (see MATHEWS v. DIAZ, 426 U.S. 67, for example), but just because it doesn't SAY "citizen" or "resident" or whatever doesn't mean it covers the world's population.
        • by mmeister (862972) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:27PM (#20683713)
          For the record, those that voted for the Constitution were not "citizens" since the Constitution didn't exist when they voted for it.

          While the Constitution "may" not apply to every citizen of the world -- it should at least apply to the "people" in the United States. The notion that we, as a nation, might condone holding anyone without charges ultimately makes us no better than the tyrants we overthrow. Habeas Corpus has been around for much longer than our United States and for good reason. Only tyrants feel it is their right to arrest someone for no reason, throw them in jail and provide no recourse for a check and balance of that power.

          And *even if* the MCA claimed not to apply to citizens today, if the arresting officer claims you are not a citizen and you have no way to going before a judge, how are you to prove that you are?

          While we are pushing "democracy" at the barrel of a gun, we fail to be a good example. Instead, we are well along the path to fascism.
        • by Scrameustache (459504) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:17PM (#20684889) Homepage Journal

          Right at the beginning...

          "We the people of the United States of America"
          [...] just because it doesn't SAY "citizen" or "resident" or whatever doesn't mean it covers the world's population.
          Wrong [cornell.edu].

          And whenever a right is not granted to a person who is not a citizen of the united states, those conditions are explicitly enumerated:

          Article I: No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

          Article II: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.


          And more importantly, article III says:
          Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
          http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html [cornell.edu]
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by _14k4 (5085)
        "We the people -of- the United States, in order to form a more perfect _union_"

        To me, implies or directly leads to, citizen or resident within said union... no?

    • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:53PM (#20683007) Homepage Journal
      I stopped reading when you said that only U.S. citizens have a right to Habeas Corpus. Sorry, but the Constitution was not written with the word "citizen" used often. The Constitution applies to the U.S. Federal government, and how it interacts with ALL people EVERYWHERE.

      The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans, and are not granted by the Constitution. The Constitution just reminds the Federal government that it can not revoke these rights, or change them. Habeas Corpus is an inherent right for all humans that we must demand to keep fully removed from any government's desire to remove it or restrain it.
      • by Maximum Prophet (716608) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:57PM (#20683085)
        Just to clarify, the US Constitution does use the word "Citizen" in places and in other places it uses "Person." Thus only a Citizen can run for President, but many rights extend to non-citizens.
        • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:04PM (#20683217) Homepage Journal
          Thanks for your clarification, I concur there. To clarify your clarification, though, ALL rights that "we" and the founding fathers considered inherent are rights afforded to all humans, regardless of citizenship and government. Government should never have the power to censor speech or opinion, nor the power to search your person or property with proof and a warrant, nor the power to restrict what arms you own or carry, nor the power to jail/enslave someone without giving a reason for it -- and allowing that person, citizen or not, the ability to defend themselves quickly and with a jury of their peers (again, not necessarily citizens).

          Government doesn't give you freedom, it doesn't grant you rights, and it isn't there to protect you from other individuals. The Federal government is there for four reasons: to PROTECT the inherent rights of individuals from any government or State, to coin money in gold or silver only, to call up militias of individuals in order to defend against a real attack within the borders of any State, and to defend against piracy on the high seas.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by TubeSteak (669689)

            The Federal government is there for four reasons: to PROTECT the inherent rights of individuals from any government or State, to coin money in gold or silver only, to call up militias of individuals in order to defend against a real attack within the borders of any State, and to defend against piracy on the high seas.

            I knew you wouldn't be able to resist.

            I'd like to welcome you to 1975, which happens to be the year that the USA depegged the dollar from gold and thought it would be a good idea to allow the currency to freely float. AFAIK, nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Gov't limited to gold or silver. The States are, but not the Feds.

            I also disagree with your notion that government exists only to fulfill those 4 roles. Try reading (Article 1, Section 8) the Constitution, because you left out stuff like "Powe

      • by Dr. Manhattan (29720) <sorceror171@GIRA ... minus herbivore> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:05PM (#20683243) Homepage

        The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans

        It's also worth pointing out that those rights aren't there to protect the guilty, they are there to protect the innocent. And there's good reason to believe that there are innocent people detained in these camps:

        • The vast majority were turned in by people looking for reward money or to suck up to U.S. forces. [nationaljournal.com] Witch hunt, anyone?
        • We know that innocent people have been detained and then killed by U.S. forces. If you're not familiar with the case of Dilawar the taxi driver, you need to read this [nytimes.com]. This guy was captured by an Iraqi warlord trying to deflect suspicion from himself for an attack on U.S. troops. Then, because they thought he screamed funny, a bunch of United States soldiers "pulped" (the words of the doctor who performed the autopsy) his legs. The other four guys were shipped to Gitmo and held for a year or so before they finally decided they posed no threat.
        • The soldiers there "know" these are bad guys, and treat them that way, regardless of who they are. You ask how I know that? So, a U.S. soldier at Guantanamo is asked to impersonate an unruly detainee for a drill. Unfortunately, the soldiers sent in to subdue him aren't told it's a drill. He ends up with brain damage and seizures. [cbsnews.com]

        Detaining 'enemy combatants' makes sense, to an extent. But they are still entitled to a tribunal under the Geneva Convention to determine if they actually are 'enemy combatants'. Go ahead, read Convention III, Article 5 [icrc.org] for yourself. Signatories (like the U.S.) are supposed to extend protection preemptively, until and unless a tribunal has determined that the Geneva protections don't apply.

        Sure, the U.S. is better than a Soviet gulag or Saddam Hussein's torture rooms. So what? That's not much to brag about. We ought to be an example to the world of the rule of law, like when we advocated and won trial against the Nazis in WWII. The Soviets and the British were all for summary executions... how far we've fallen.

      • by eln (21727) * on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:08PM (#20683301) Homepage
        Spot on. The Constitution does not give us rights, it simply innumerates basic human rights that the government is not allowed to mess with, as well as setting up the basic rules under which the government is allowed to operate. It's primary purpose is not to limit the rights of the people, but rather to limit the power of the government.

        This recent drive to define non-citizens as nothing more than cattle with whom we can do anything we please is distressing. How would we feel if we travelled to, say, France, and the government there decided to detain us for no apparent reason and deny us access to the courts or any other means of pleading our case. Would the US Government stand for that sort of behavior? If not, why is it suddenly okay for us to treat non-citizens the same way?

        The Constitution is careful to use the word "citizen" when it intends to refer to only citizens, and "person" elsewhere. The idea that the word "person" in the Constitution ever refers only to "citizens" is pure fantasy.
    • by Lally Singh (3427) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:59PM (#20683109) Journal
      You'll note that every Democrat voted to restore it.

      The MCA doesn't "clarify" anything that us citizens care about. It "clarifies" that folks in the current administration shouldn't go to jail for what they've done.
      From FindLaw: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20061011.html [findlaw.com]

      It immunizes government officials for past war crimes; it cuts the United States off from its obligations under the Geneva Conventions; and it all but eliminates access to civilian courts for non-citizens--including permanent residents whose children are citizens--that the government, in its nearly unreviewable discretion, determines to be unlawful enemy combatants.


      Oh, and the definition of Habeas Corpus, from those left-wing nutjobs at Wikipedia:

      In common law countries, habeas corpus (/hebis kps/) (Latin: [We command that] you have the body) is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.


      No legitimate government action should have problems with Habeas Corpus.
    • Some tend to confuse US citizens and residents with everyone else on the planet, and pretend that the Constitution actually applies to everyone on Earth (which it doesn't), or that it should (which it shouldn't - perhaps in an idealized world, someday, everyone can expect and enjoy such a baseline of freedoms and rights).

      Who are these "some" that you're talking about?

      On top of all of this, to those that think that administration officials are going to lie and ignore any and all laws anyway, then what differ

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KiahZero (610862)
      Yes, on it's face, the MCA doesn't apply to U.S. citizens. However, you're not thinking about this clearly, or you'd notice how the existence of the MCA denies habeas to everyone.

      Let's say, for whatever reason, the military comes to your home and takes you away to Guantanamo or some other military installation. You demand to be let go, of course, because you've done nothing wrong, and what's more, you're a U.S. citizen and they aren't legally allowed to do this to you. They say, "No, you're not a citizen."
    • You fail polysci 101 (Score:3, Informative)

      by eli pabst (948845)

      Further, we don't have a Republican Congress anymore, so I'm not sure how that is even meaningful. I guess I'm supposed to assume that even a Democratic Congress doesn't want to "restore Habeas Corpus"?
      It's a motion to end the Republican filibuster. They need 60 votes, not a simple majority. Not a single democrat voted nay, so to say the democrats did this is intellectually dishonest.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by slughead (592713)
      You forget that the US has suspended habeus corpus and has indeed made it illegal to criticize the government in the past. Some of those laws were temporary, but laws like the Smith Act [wikipedia.org], which make it illegal to even advocate violent overthrow of the US gov't, are still around.

      This is a big issue for me. I can't believe people are so shortsighted they think The Patriot Act was the first real loss of freedom in this country.

      I see people ranting and raving about civil liberties nowadays and think "Where have
    • Why not respond to the posts that have proven the central thesis of your argument wrong? Habeas Corpus applies to everyone, as written in the constitution. Ever single person the Federal government comes into contact with. Everyone.

      The reason you have not responded is that your post is professional propaganda paid for by the US government. You are an employee of a government agency with a sordid history of using propaganda against our citizens. Why should we believe you are not engaged in that activity righ
  • by Kelson (129150) * on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:48PM (#20682891) Homepage Journal
    Republicans voting yes: 6 out of 49 (1 non-voting)

    Hagel (R-NE)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Smith (R-OR)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Specter (R-PA)
    Sununu (R-NH)

    Democrats voting no: none

    Every single Democratic senator voted in favor of the amendment. 85% of Republicans voted against it.

    Its just sad that legislation to confirm a constitutionally-guaranteed right which (in theory) protects people from government abuse has been reduced to partisan bickering.
    • by eln (21727) * on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:52PM (#20682975) Homepage
      The whole country has been reduced to partisan bickering. There is no independent thought anymore. You pick a party, and you automatically agree with whatever they believe in. Individual critical thinking does not enter into the process at any point.
      • by Kelson (129150) * on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:14PM (#20683411) Homepage Journal

        The whole country has been reduced to partisan bickering. There is no independent thought anymore. You pick a party, and you automatically agree with whatever they believe in. Individual critical thinking does not enter into the process at any point.

        And that's the tragedy of it. Sure, part of the point of political parties is so that politicians can pool resources and have built-in allies. But automatic support shouldn't be unconditional support. You should get more people like Specter & co. who said, "This is a good idea no matter what the party leadership says." And it shouldn't translate into unconditional opposition for the other party.

        It's been reduced to the level of a football game. Politicians are more concerned with which party "wins" than with what's actually a good idea. And the general populace is just as bad. There's a disturbing number of people -- or at least disturbingly vocal people -- who make the leap from "Dubya/Hillary/whoever supports position X!" to "I must oppose X!" without stopping to think that no, if someone on my side had proposed the same thing, I would be in favor of it. (And vice versa of course.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Rogerborg (306625)
      Not 'partisan'. Republican.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by faloi (738831)
      I thought Lieberman was still a Democrat, or at least I took the ID by his name to mean Independent Democrat. And, frankly, I have no problem with non-citizens who are detained by the US being denied the rights of citizens. I don't approve for the US citizens that have had their rights denied, though.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RingDev (879105)
        1) Lieberman keeps the D after his name so that he can distance himself from the social stygma of being associated with the Republicans. But his voting track record much more strongly reflect the Republican party than the Democrat party.

        2) Luckily for us, you didn't write the US Constitution. The US Constitution specifically states that all men* are created equal. (* men having the modernized meaning of people). The Constitution is a rule set for how the Government can interact with people. The Constitution
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by pokeyburro (472024)
          "The US Constitution specifically states that all men* are created equal." - RingDev

          The US Constitution never says that, much less specifically. You're thinking of the US Declaration of Independence.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        First off, these are not the rights of citizens, these are the rights of people. At least, as far as I understand your constitution, this is the case. Just imagine the following scenario, and see if you find something wrong with this. In the Netherlands, where I am from, we suddenly start to pick of all these US citizens that are frequenting the red light district in this capitol of ours. These are thousands of Americans. We will deny them any rights according to Dutch law, because, after all, they are not
  • Do unto others... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lucas123 (935744) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @12:54PM (#20683015) Homepage
    as you would have them do to you". Luke 6:31
  • Article 4 of the US Constitution states that habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless in cases of rebellion and invasion when the public safety may require it.
    or more precisely which suits their poltical agenda. these powers were self-given and not surprisingly the polical party with the most to lose from reinstatment of habeas corpus largely voted against it.
  • by kithrup (778358) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:03PM (#20683207)

    This was not a failed vote to reinstate habeas corpus; this was a failed vote to end a threatened filibuster by Republican Senators.

    After years of crying that Democrats threatened filibuster, and the media reporting it as such, we have come to a time where the Republicans have turned almost every debate leading to a vote into a threatened filibuster... and the media are not reporting it as such. Instead, they swallow the GOP line that there needed to be 60 votes for it.

    Stupid, lazy, cowardly reporters.

    • by mabu (178417) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:26PM (#20683693)
      Obviously that "liberal media" we hear so much about.
    • by MrAtoz (58719) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:38PM (#20683975)
      Mod parent up, please (I'm using up mod points to post a followup). Here's a McClatchey story [mcclatchydc.com] (with graphic), showing how bad the GOP filibuster threats have gotten. At the current rate, they will have forced cloture motions 153 times, three times the average over the past few years. All this to keep The Decider from having to take responsibility and veto something that the majority of US citizens approve of (like habeas corpus). While the reporting on these votes (including Webb's bill mandating more at-home time for troops serving in Iraq) is totally lame and misleading, I have to blame the Democrats for failing to make any stink about this at all. They need to be constantly harping about "obstructionist Republicans", etc. etc. Or, instead of just letting them threaten a filibuster, make them actually do it -- that would give the press a great story to report, and would force all these Republicans to explain how much they like torture, long tours of duty for soldiers, etc.
  • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:37PM (#20683943) Homepage
    The bottom line of course is that habeus corpus is a fundamental component of Western law. Therefore it should and does apply to everyone arrested in the US, whether citizens or not.

    And more importantly, even if it didn't, it should.

    That is the point that all the anti-Ay-rab fascists here don't comprehend - and never will.

    I quote Wikipedia:

    "The right of habeas corpus--or rather, the right to petition for the writ--has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty."

    Further:

    "The writ of Habeas Corpus was originally understood to apply only to those held in custody by officials of the Executive Branch of the federal government and not to those held by state governments, which independently afford habeas corpus pursuant to their respective constitutions and laws. The United States Congress granted all federal courts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by any government entity within the country from custody in the following circumstances:

    * Is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
    * Is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
    * Is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
    * Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
    * It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or for trial."

    Further, as to previous suspensions in the US:

    "Suspension during the Civil War and Reconstruction

    On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

    In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866), the Supreme Court of the United States decided that it was unconstitutional for the President to try to convict citizens before military tribunals when civil courts were functioning. The trial of civili
  • by Baldrson (78598) * on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:53PM (#20684339) Homepage Journal
    The reason suspension of Habeas Corpus is Constitutional is that the government knows the people are going to rebel against to due to its suspension, and rebellion is a condition under which the suspension of Habeas Corpus is Constitutional. Do I get to be on the Supreme Court now?
  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:04PM (#20684591) Homepage

    Even the Cato Institute [cato.org], which is considered a conservative think tank, is unhappy about the denial of habeas corpus. They're also opposed to the extension of "anti-terror" legislation.

    It's not clear why so many Republicans are still supporting this. It's not like being aligned with Bush will get them re-elected.

  • by deander2 (26173) * <public@kere[ ]rg ['d.o' in gap]> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @03:08PM (#20685925) Homepage
    The letter I've written to my two senators:

    Mr. xxxxxxx,

    I was shocked and appalled today by your "no" vote to reinstate habeas corpus via Specter Amdt. No. 2022. I believe that while terrorists are a threat to America, the threat of a government able to indefinitely detain it's own citizens without charge is greater. Habeas corpus is a basic human right dating back over 700 years, and America set out on the wrong path when we abandoned it. If people we have detained are criminals, let's please convict them in the manner that has served our great nation for over 200 years. I urge you to please change your position.

    Sincerely,
    Derek Anderson
  • New Hampshire (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Plugh (27537) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @03:37PM (#20686391) Homepage
    One of the Free-Staters in the New Hampshire House of Representatives [youtube.com] is introducing legislation this year to restore Habeas Corpus, at least for New Hampshire citizens.

    We opted out of Real-ID, we forgo Federal money because we refuse to pass a mandatory seat-belt law, we have no mandatory insurance.

    What are you waiting for? [youtube.com]

A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.

Working...