Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Habeas Corpus again.

Yeah, I'm going to keep beating this dead horse.

The record of the vote on the Cloture Motion to restore Habeas Corpus.

From The US Constitution Online:

Habeas Corpus
habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint.

The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ or habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

Can someone explain to me why smothing this is a good idea, even to the most strident, ignorant, fear-riddled Conservative?


( 11 comments — Leave a comment )
Sep. 21st, 2007 02:27 am (UTC)
*head explodes from the desire to drive into DC and start screaming*

*sigh* I just really wish I was at ALL surprised by this.
Sep. 21st, 2007 02:37 am (UTC)
I dont know why. Sometimes i wonder if people consider half the stuff they do. Especially people in power.

but Ill say this...

I sure do like your boomstick!
(Deleted comment)
Sep. 21st, 2007 03:25 am (UTC)
That's it. We need to resurrect Rod Serling to narrate the longest running episode of the Twilight Zone ever known to man.

And please slap me for stupidly, naively, thinking to check the votes from UT. Sometimes it just guts me to have grown up from there because in the back of my mind I know just how many Conservative mindlessly-following-my-church-leader idiots there are. If I acknowledge how thick and numerous they are, I just might become a cynical ass bitch with waning hope that things will ever get better.


Aw man, now I'm gonna cry.
Sep. 22nd, 2007 10:40 pm (UTC)
Fight the Piscean cynicism, woman! ;)

Sep. 22nd, 2007 10:44 pm (UTC)
I try. Most of the time I win. Other times I need a swift kick in the rear. XD

*hugs back*
Sep. 21st, 2007 04:42 am (UTC)
Because even though the Republican party is supposed to be about how Big Government is Bad, it has clearly been hijacked ever since Reagan by the Religious Right who have in turn paralleled questioning the US Government (so long as it is your flavor of Christianity) as tantamount to questioning God. It's not about politics anymore, at least not politics as it comes to the running of a large and powerful nation. It's petty inter-personal church politics blown to a national and international scale. You've got a country that was founded on a population (population, mind, not founders, they were decent deists) of religious radicals who said fuck you to the world and went to live somewhere else where they could gossip about each other. Oh, and those who came for the get-rich-quick idea.

So you've got a history of religious radicalism, add in a half century of unprecedented prosperity with virtually no competition, a willingness to forget the sometimes Government Fucks Up, and a general social culture that is hyperbolically individualistic and what you get is a larger number of affluent, hyper-religious people who feel that if you aren't doing as well as them it's because you aren't working hard enough so a) it's your own damn fault and b) they're going to do shit to help you.

And they really don't think it has to do with them or they have to worry because they're good, God-fearing, tax-paying American Christians, not terrorists. If you ask further, you dig up some frightening naivety because they'll often tell you that They (the people up top) won't do something like that to innocents, only to the people who really pose a threat. Poke even more and they'll trot out a belief that if someone really does more blatantly abuse power, the American people will vote them out and all will be fixed and happy and flowers and skittles. Because the voter turnout is sooooo great these days. And people really care about things that aren't directly affecting them.

Or, to put a shorter slant on it, it's still a dog-eat-dog world, but we've rolled over and put a pretty garnish on it. And maybe a nice braise.
Sep. 21st, 2007 01:02 pm (UTC)
Excellent post.
Sep. 22nd, 2007 10:40 pm (UTC)
And the garnish is always parsley, which I dislike.

Sep. 21st, 2007 07:04 pm (UTC)
Rant Incomming.
Conservatives believe that the Constitution only provides rights to Americans, and that non-Americans are only granted rights legally required by treaties with their respective countries, which the U.S. Government is allowed to break when it is in the best interest of national security. They believe that this includes treaties such as the Geneva Convention, which Alberto Gonzales called "quaint".

Liberals don't care if someone is an American or not, they want the rights provided by the Constitution to apply to all people the U.S. Government takes action against.

Fundamentally, conservatives begin their argument with the assertion that threats against the U.S. are to be resolved by whatever means necessary. They further assume that the presence of hate justifies any level of violence required to guarantee victory. Liberals reject this assertion, because they see the danger of threats toward national security as a sliding scale instead of a yes/no question, and they simply don't believe that every threat is at the top of the scale.

I am firmly in the Liberal camp on this. I simply don't care if that makes the Government's job to protect the citizens more difficult. I consider it a job requirement for them. If they are not up to the challenge, they should find something else to do with their time.
Sep. 22nd, 2007 10:39 pm (UTC)
Re: Rant Incomming.
I couldn't possibly agree more.
( 11 comments — Leave a comment )