.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Thursday, September 28, 2006

The future of Habeus Corpus

For just a minute, as we consider the torture/detainee bill currently passing through Congress, step away from this administration and the politics of this moment.

Imagine if Nixon had come to office imbued with the ability to detain whoever he wanted, for however long he wanted without any judicial review. As the paranoid hunt of those that were "unAmerican" led him into the many sins of Watergate, is it at all that unthinkable that the Nixon administration might have snatched up an SDS leader in an effort to break that effort?

Would that individual have been detained? Questioned? Kept awake? Made "uncomfortable?"

Because that's the Constitutional issue at stake here. The entire underpinning of the US Constitution is aimed at limiting executive power recognizing that grants of this kind of power will inevitably be abused.

5 Comments:

  • Imagine what these same people who voted down the Habeas Corpus Amendment would have said if Bill Clinton and Janet reno had wanted the ability to detain indefinitely any "enemy combatant" without judicial review?

    These same fuckers who were screaming about "Black Helicopters" back then would be yelling ti hugh heavens.

    But since it's their guy in power and since they see political advantage to giving the "Torture Preznit" absolute power, they have no problems with sending us further along the road to dictatorship.

    I have a serious question. Do you think that when 2009 comes around, if a Democrat is somehow elected president, that the current criminals will actually relinquish power? I'm starting to have my doubts. I don't know how they'll create their "Recihstag fire," but watching them lately, I'm becoming convinced that they absolutely will do it.

    Shrill? Sure. But possible?

    Absolutely.

    By Blogger Reality-Based Educator, at 2:29 PM  

  • I agree educator. I wonder how long before the Constitution just gets completely suspended for the "state of emergency"

    By Blogger Mike, at 2:52 PM  

  • Reality, In the first writing I had a paragraph referencing the Right wing militia movement, the black helicopters and the fear of a UN takeover. Remember all that?

    The Michigan militia armig up to protect them and theirs?

    And, I would argue we already had our Reichstag fire on 9-11, 2001. All of this has been pinned on that. We're not yet to dissolving parliament, but the Constitution is being rewritten, we've launched a war of choice for Oil which is our modern equivalent of Liebensraum.

    Yes, if there's another major attack it could get far worse.

    Mike, I don't think the Constitution will ever be completely "suspended" if for nothing else than to maintain the claim that it hasn't. Every clause may be broken, but I don't think, just for PR reasons, anyone would ever formally suspend.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 3:45 PM  

  • While we are on the subject, I ran into someone over here about a month ago that is convinced that they are going to blow up the capitol during joint session, blame it on the terrorists and declare martial law.

    Now, I think that is pretty crazy, but look how far we have come when successful ladies in their 60s are talking this way, in public.

    I think she is overshooting a bit, but maybe by less than we think. Could there be a contingency plan?

    Who knows.

    By Blogger Praguetwin, at 3:31 PM  

  • Reichstag fire. Yeah, that has been floating around for awhile. In many of the 9/11 theories it's a component.

    Frankly, I don't think they have to with the current media operation. I think they just need to generate enough fear.

    And there have been massive "continuity plans" constructed since 9/11 with all kinds of layers. Memory, so if I'm wrong, forgive me, I think if a Quorum is killed, the governors appoint.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 4:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home