US Senate Fails To Reinstate Habeas Corpus

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.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Maximum Prophet]

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.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Geoffrey.landis]

daveschroeder wrote: "Note that the linked article is an opinion piece from The Nation, self described as "the flagship of the left"... it's not a fact, it's just what the type of article it is explicitly states: an opinion."

That may be so, but other links could have been used. Here's RTE news [www.rte.ie], for example, or tothecenter [tothecenter.com], or any of a hundred other links you could get from Googlenews or your search engine of choice.

daveschroeder continued: "The fact of the matter is that Habeas Corpus was not suspended in any way, shape, or form."

The co-sponsor of the bill, Senator Leahy, explicitly stated that the bill was about habeas corpus [nytimes.com]: "The truth is, casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values and calls into question our historic role as a defender of human rights around the world."

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Lally Singh]

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.

Re:Who?

[Fengpost]

Just look here and take out the Republicans mentioned above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress [wikipedia.org]

Pick up the phone and call them!

This is being reported incorrectly

[kithrup]

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.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Dr. Manhattan]

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.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[dada21]

You're quoting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- which dictates that the individual States are also barred from usurping the inherent rights of the citizens, yes. But the Constitution itself was not written to give citizens rights, but to stop the Federal government from harming those specific rights of ANYONE it involves itself with -- foreign, domestic, citizen, alien. Have you read the Constitution, the debates before it, and the Articles of Confederation?

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Well I wouldn't say *all* humans. The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments were needed to fix that gap.

Re:Disgustingly Partisan Vote

[wifeshack]

There was only one abstainer, Chambliss (R-GA). Every Democrat voted and voted aye.

You fail polysci 101

[eli pabst]

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:Bill O' Rights?

[tolydude]

The American constitution applies to residents and tourists only withing the US borders, not outside of the country.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[imgod2u]

Erm, no. The Constitution has limit of legal power to the *United States Government*. This ridiculous idea that the Constitution is there to dictate to citizens is somewhat frightening. The *vast* majority of it is to outline and *limit* what the *government* can do. And yes, if the U.S. government is operating oversees, it is *still* bound by what the Constitution allows it to do.

Aside from the legal issue, may I remind everyone of the *intent* of the law vs the letter:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

What the fuck has happened that have made people forget this?

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[TubeSteak]

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 "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" or "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

I'd also feel really bad if I didn't mention that Government also exists "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads". I find your narrow reading of the document to be very confusing.

Fascists all here, I see

[Master of Transhuman]

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

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll note that every Democrat voted to restore it.
[snip]

Except for the ones who didn't think it was worth the time to vote on this.

Or do they not hold a majority anymore?

Only one senator did not vote, and he was a Republican [senate.gov].

Really. If you're going to troll, at least check your facts first.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Dr. Manhattan]

And exactly under which Army or Country do these militants fall so as to be extended Genevea Convention rights again?

Exactly how were any of them actually determined to be 'militants' again?

That's the entire damn point. That taxi driver was killed because a real militant turned him in for reward money and to curry favor with U.S. troops, and those U.S. troops assumed - just like you - that if he was in custody, he must therefore be guilty.

The whole point of citing that section of the Geneva Convention is to illustrate that people like you are flat wrong. It specifically says that you have to extend protections first, and then, if a competent tribunal determines that they don't apply, you can stop. That's to prevent things like taxi drivers getting beaten to death for no reason.

Let's assume that 99.9% of these detainees are scum of the Earth. (They're not, and if you read any of the links I pointed to, you'd know that. But just for the sake of the argument...) They are detained. They are not going to be shooting at anyone or blowing anyone up. We do have the time to examine them and make sure we actually have a 'person of interest' before we start with the clubbings, just to make sure we don't kill some poor guy who was turned in for the reward money.

Oh, wait. Unless your goal really is to just terrify the populace. In which case I take it back, how are we better than Saddam Hussein again?

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Mr.Intel]

I hate to break it to you, but the US government has sovereignty [wikipedia.org] over its citizens and that means it can do whatever it wants (up to an including killing them) without a "howdy hay" from anyone. Read up on Plato and Socrates before you post things you don't understand. The Constitution was vetted by men who believed in a social contract and in the idea of sovereignty. Sovereignty exists in the hands of the individual until the individual gives up that right to a government and that's exactly what the people of Colonial America did in 1783. They voluntarily gave up the rights of their individual government to the will of the federal government (or state -- see "clipped sovereignty" for me info.). Every nation in the world has claims on sovereignty and regularly thumbs their noses at international laws. Usually, the more powerful countries do it more often, but they all claim to have it.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[BlowHole666]

This post may help you you appear to be...slow.

The rights written in the Bill of Rights apply to all humans No shit? Let's read the first sentence of the Bill of Rights [earlyamerica.com], then: "After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons." Son of gun, you're right, it says "persons" not "citizens!" So I guess every forty thousand persons -- anywhere on the planet, whether or not they're the subject of some other king, or citizen of some other republic -- have been entitled to a representative in the US Congress since 1789. Amazing! And those bastards in Washington have just ignored this fundamental right of South Africans, Samoans, Libyans and Mongolians since the very founding of the Republic. Most of the planet has been disenfranchised for the last 220 years, apparently. Not only that...did you notice they didn't make a distinction between criminals and free citizens? So all felons worldwide -- Nazi war criminals, Stalin's secret policemen, Pol Pot and his henchmen, Idi Amin's murdering thugs, and South African apartheidists -- have always been entitled to vote in American elections, too. For that matter, they didn't make a distinction between adults and children, either! So this business of not letting people vote until they're old enough to, say, read and write, is totally unconstitutional. Although...I suppose a cynic might say that the context of the Bill of Rights matters, and that only an idiot would assume the "persons" the document addresses are meant to be understood as all people everywhere, anytime as opposed to, say, the "people" specifically addressed in the opening sentence ("We the People of the United States....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...")

Quadraginta (902985)

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[thule]

We're not talking just any non-Citizen though. We are talking about people captured on the battle field. There are specific rules that govern that situation. Think of the game capture the flag. It's a very simple reflection of the rules of war. If another team captures another team member on their side of the battle field, they get to keep you until the game ends. That is, unless you "break" out. In real war if a person is captured, they do not and never have had standing in domestic courts. They do have ways to be released:

Escape
Diplomacy (their home country can negotiate their release as has happened with some at GITMO)
End of conflict

Their standing is before a military court. Military courts work a bit differently with regards to prisoners of war.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

US constitution, article III, section 2

[Scrameustache]

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:Disgustingly Partisan Vote

[pokeyburro]

"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:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Shining Celebi]

Except for the ones who didn't think it was worth the time to vote on this. Or do they not hold a majority anymore?

The Republicans filibustered it, which is why a cloture vote is mentioned in the summary. It takes 60 votes to end discussion, while the Democratic majority is 51, IIRC. Incidentally, the Republicans are well on track to triple [mcclatchydc.com] the previous filibustering, only one Congress after whining about obstructionism. Now, the roles are reversed, and it's the Democrats whining about obstructionism. ;)

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[blueg3]

If I recall correctly, actual prisoners of war, those captured on the battlefield, do not have the right of habeas corpus but are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Detainees are not prisoners of war and are not afforded Geneva Convention protections. Whose jurisdiction they fall under and what rights they have is somewhat tricky business. (Note that a noncitizen arrested within the U.S. for a crime committed in the U.S. has the same legal rights as a citizen.)

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[RogerWilco]

In case you are suggesting that those detained in Gitmo are PoWs, then please read the Third Geneva Convention on how to treat those. Some quotes:

(Article 5): "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
(Article 25): "Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favorable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area."

I know that the current USA government argues that they are not PoWs but "unlawful combatants". They would then fall under the Fourth Geneva Convention that handles civilians. It would still give them the right to a trial.

The scary part of the MCA, as I now understand it is this:

"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(1) (Section 7)

It means that the US can detain someone indefinately, as long as they decide not to determine what the status of their captive actually is. Even you or me. Being a US-citizen does not realy help, until they have decided your status.

It's very Orwellian in both being a nice kind of newspeak, and allowing "all animals are equal, but some are more equal then others".

It scares me, everytime I visit the USA, when I consider that because of some mistaken identity or mix-up, I could be detained, and held without any recourse. (I am Dutch)

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

My understanding is that many of the people were not 'captured on the battlefield' but in fact were turned in for a reward. How does that impact your conclusion?

According to This American Life episode 331: Habeas Schmabeas [thislife.org] only about 6 percent of those in Guantanamo were "captured on the battlefield."

That episode won a Peabody Award by the way - the same award that The Daily Show won for its election coverage. It is well worth a listen, especially for those who have faith that their government is doing the right thing in Guantanamo.

Like the story of one pair of brothers who were editors of a newspaper in Pakistan and were picked up because they published a political cartoon - one that offered a reward of about $25 for the capture of Bill Clinton after he ordered an attack on that aspirin factory in Africa. One of the brothers was released after 3 years, the other is apparently still in lockup.

Re:The letter I've written to my two senators...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government CAN'T detain US citizens indefinitely. The law only concerns FOREIGN CITIZENS picked up on FOREIGN SOIL.

Habeas corpus, as guaranteed in the Constitution, still applies to US citizens and US territory.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[triffid_98]

Well, since the prisoners aren't wearing uniforms and aren't part of any regular armed forces, I believe they fall into the Unlawful Combatant [wikipedia.org] category. If they'd like POW status, perhaps they should consider following the guidelines laid out below...

To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

If I recall correctly, actual prisoners of war, those captured on the battlefield, do not have the right of habeas corpus but are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Detainees are not prisoners of war and are not afforded Geneva Convention protections. Whose jurisdiction they fall under and what rights they have is somewhat tricky business.

GC loop hole

[OrangeTide]

You overlook the loop hole of the Geneva Convention. It is really only enforceable by another nation that agrees to the Geneva Convention. If you aren't a combatant of a particular nation, it's going to be rather hard for you to get support for your POW status at the international level. Basically when you fight against soldiers without being part of a sanctioned military, you run the risk of being completely fucked over.

You can argue about GC rights all you want, but it will do no good. What is necessary is federal legislation on how we plan on treating people who fall outside of the Geneva Convention. (yes, they fall outside because they have no county to speak for their rights and have them enforced).

You should be far more concerned with visiting European nations that have pushed Muslim immigrants into being second class citizens (or even non-citizens) while at the same time allowing them to enter your countries and establish isolated and sometimes radical communities within your own borders. Those nations (and the Netherlands is not one of them) that have this problem need to rectify it immediately and either ban the immigration of Muslims, or do the right thing and embrace and integrate new people into your society. Giving them a chance at real jobs, an education, and a chance for their children to grow up as full citizens. Multiculturalism is not a solution, it is just burying your head in the sand. (note - the opposite of multiculturalism which would be like enforced brain washing and removing of ethnic identity is also the wrong path)

The US has done fairly well with integrating different people together, considering on the immense scale it operates on. It's a bumpy ride, but no other country has had this much success on this scale. On the smaller scales, there are plenty of places that assimilate with far greater success. Although in small communities in the US there are excellent representations of those small scale successes as well, so we know that a trickle of immigrants coming into a community poses very little stress on that community.

ps - even though I live in the US and it's all f'd up, I am still allowed to criticize the politics and behavior of other nations. Just because I haven't fixed my country yet does not stop me from encouraging others to fix theirs.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[baldass_newbie]

That's because congress did not declare war, unfortunately.
Quite the contrary [wikipedia.org], it's because these are not citizens/nationals/armies of the country they were fighting in.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[E++99]

The Enemy Combatant designation is also a horrendous violation of rules of warfare. If we are at war, they should be treated as prisoners of war and be afforded rights as such.

It is not a violation -- it is part of the rules of warfare. There is a big difference between what is called a "legal enemy combatant" and an "illegal enemy combatant." The former has a uniform and a country, and is covered by the Geneva Convention, as there is a country we can return them to, and if we establish peace with that country, then we have nothing further to fear from the soldier. The latter is something different. The rules of warfare apply to him as well, and those rules are exactly what we've been following. They were formalized in I believe the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We do not torture. The CIA does perform interrogations in the field; and they use things like sleep deprivation and disorientation, but they are well versed in what is lawful and what is not.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[gurudyne]

"And it pains me to realize how screwed up the education system must be in regards to teaching American government if this is the understanding that people have of how the Constitution actually works."

I agree, in your case.

The Constitution does NOT "grant" rights, it guarantees them.

Review the first ten amendments for examples.

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[StikyPad]

The Constitution exists to describe the acceptable and appropriate behavior of the government, not the people, and therefore should apply to any and all actions taken by that government, or any agent thereof. It is not acceptable, for example, for the government to go to a foreign country and do human cloning research, not because it is unethical, but because the law forbids the use of government funds to promote such research. Similarly, the Constitution prohibits the government from suspending habeas corpus. It is not about the rights of the people, it's about the permissible behavior of the government, and this is clearly a breach of a restriction explicitly enumerated in the fundamental document of our federal government. The Constitution is essentially saying "We the people grant permission for you the government to exist, provided you follow these stipulations," NOT "We are the government and this is what we will allow you the people to do."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Habeas Corpus not "revoked"

[Copid]

I see this claimed all over the place by people who have some problem with Guantanamo, but I haven't seen where the evidence for this comes from. These people are given hearings to determine their status, and tribunals to determine their guilt or innocence, and without evidence, they are not found guilty. The charges against them are specific, and I read many of them online a while back. None of the charges read "some guy said he belonged to Al Qaeda." Yes, some were brought there without sufficient evidence... and were subsequently released. Doesn't that mean that the tribunals are working properly?

You might want to try the studies published by Steton Hall's law school. Specifically, here [shu.edu] and, more generally, here [shu.edu]. Many of the charges are very much just "some guy said he belonged to al Qaeda." Among the results of these studies: Only 5% were actually scooped up off of a battlefield. 86% were turned in by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance when we were offering rewards for tips. The bottom line is that regardless of the merits of the detainment (which appear very weak in many cases), we are being lied to by our leaders when they claim that the detainees are uniformly high value targets or that they were picked up off of a battlefield. We basically bought a bunch of them with little or no evidence beyond hearsay. I strongly recommend that anybody with an interest in these cases listen to (or read the transcript of) the This American Life program [thisamericanlife.org] on the topic and then chase down references as they see fit. It's stunning how close we're coming to simply disappearing people on little or no evidence the way a tin pot dictatorship would. Regardless of whether it's constitutional, it looks to me like we're we're going to be answerable for some very serious mistakes.

And no, if you're stuck in an isolated prison for years with minimal contact with the outside world before the people holding you admit that they have no reason to hold you beyond fear of embarrassment, the system is not working properly. I don't know about you, but I have a limited lifespan, and I would consider years of my life disappearing into a hole more than a minor bump in the road. There's a good reason why habeas corpus is recognized as a fundamental right by modern democracies. Without it, people disappear. The only distinction I see between myself and a farmer from Afghanistan on that issue is a legal one, not an ethical one.

Re:Thank you Dave Schroeder

[Khyber]

Umm, pay attention, I sad earlier that my story ONLY had the senate.gov link. THE EDITOR put the editorial bullshit in.