Habeas, Schmabeas
Saturday, May 24th, 2008
Maybe Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri really is a bad man. Or maybe he�s another Jose Padilla, and guilty of far less than what the government is claiming. What�s clear, is that what the government is arguing is some scary, scary stuff:

Al-Marri�s capture six years ago might be the Bush administration�s biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al Qaeda sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gases and plotting a cyberattack.

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president�s wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a resident and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

If the president gets these powers, it�s the end, gang. The writ of habeas corpus is 400 years old. The Bush administration is, rather incredibly, arguing that the �commander in chief� power of the U.S. Constitution authorizes them to vaporize it. Even if you subscribe to a Hinderaker-esque view of the current president, just remember, every future president will have this power, too. Think about the asinine process by which we chose our presidents. Think about what sorts of character traits it takes to want to go through all of the bull**** we�ve seen already this campaign season, and what traits it takes not only to endure all of that, but to win. Now think about giving those people these kinds of powers.

The Bush administration has defined �terrorism� in broad, vague terms. As Charlie Savage points out in his book Takeover, it includes not only Islamic terrorism, but domestic terrorism, and the Bush administration claims these powers not just against terrorists, but against the people who �aid� them. Savage explains that, for example, a more liberal president could claim these same powers against the farmers in the mountains of North Carolina who are suspected of helping Olympic Park and abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph evade the police.

Keep in mind, this isn�t a question of whether such people, or whether such people as al-Marri, should be prosecuted. We�re talking about whether we should give the president the authority to arrest and detain such people�American residents (and, the Bush administration has argued, American citizens)�without giving them a trial . . . forever.

The Bush administration is claiming its wartime powers give it this broad authority. But the war the administration says we�re fighting isn�t against Iraq or Afghanistan. It isn�t a war for which there will ever be a peace accord or the signing of a treaty. It�s a war against �terrorism.� It�s a war that quite literally is never going to end. And so any �wartime� powers we grant the executive, are powers we�re granting to the executive permanently.

It�ll take decades to figure out just how much damage this president has done to the Constitution. And it�s really almost impossible to overstate just how serious this is.


http://www.theagitator.com/2008/05/24/habeas-schmabeas/

Bush is a tyrant no different than the tyrants he claims are our enemies.

I read this and I went back to a unanswered question I posed to another member who happened to be in the military: Where will our Soldiers draw the line?

If they are ordered to shoot children, will they? If they are ordered to arrest or shoot a member of their family will they? How about just broad detaining of American citizens, say under Martial law, Will they comply and start rounding up Americans from behind the barrel of an M-16?

We The People have got to demand a restoration to the Posse Comitatus act.

**** this...we can't let that **** happen.They'll come in and take all of us eventually for whatever reasons!

Ok let me ask you something on the "flip side". If we get a president in (two of our upcoming Democrat contenders) that want us out of the war, BUT want firm gun control how are we as Americans any safer? Every country that has the let the government inforce gun control has had thousands if not millions of people killed (by the government) and you have no way of protecting yourself against anyone else INCLUDING the government. So at what point do we stop being "Cant we all just get along" peace loving woosies?

the constitution still allows for the hanging of treasonous slobs by mob.....no wonder their trying to abolish it

Sensationalist Paranoids

Good one

Actually it is a very real and viable possibility. Bush's own paranoia is part of the problem, he violates our civil rights in a heartbeat with no qualm already. It is not a big step to what is posted.

I don't like giving that much power to anyone. I don't think it's fair to compare him to other tyrants, either. I believe he has a power complex, but he certainly isn't as bad as some of the actual tyrants. We have all of these rules set in place to keep something like this from happening.




Great point. A lot of people don't see the contradiction in abolishing gun rights and protecting civil rights.

Good lord, Forbid, the day that the American people are disarmed, I think it's been one of just a few things that have kept us from going the full monty into a fascist regime.
If we start demanding that our "leaders" take their oath to the Constitution seriously, then we wouldn't have to worry about gun grabbers or any other subsection of our Government that would seek to usurp the rights of the citizenry.

Why is it paranoia when that's actually the power that he seeks?

Where are the FEMA Prison Camps that we were told were coming years ago by the same people that wrote this article? I'm really hoping to see

And, what civil rights of yours have been violated Dragoness since you said 'us'? None of mine have because of Bush. The only one that has been attacked over the years is the leftwing of this country trying to take away my right to own a firearm. The socialist leftwing of this country continue to take away and limit the second Amendment. Obama's own website says that he supports the right to hunt and target shoot. Nowhere does he say a person has a right to a gun to defend their property and life.

Now there is an attempt to limit my personal liberty as it goes to consumption with this whole green movement ridiculousness that Congress is trying to force onto citizens.

If you think Bush is a fascist attempting to enslave us why has he taken such a pro-gun stance throughout his political career since you consider that a key point to us maintaining our liberties?

It is the socialist Congress that is attempting to disarm the public. It is the socialist Congress that is limiting free speech with the political correctness ridiculousness that has swept this country for years now.

And, Obama, on his own website, unless he has changed it recently because he doesn't want a real picture painted of himself, said he ONLY supports the Second Amendment to guarantee gun rights for hunting and target shooting. That's it. Handguns go bye bye.

How would you know if they are tapping your phone, they don't have to give you notice?

As for the firearms, I have no problem with a sane, levelheaded, responsible person having a firearm to protect themselves. It is the insane, mentally ill, hotheads and irresponsible people that bother me. There are citizens in this country who have no business owning or carrying a firearm so if that makes me bad, I will take it but I have seen drunk people waving a gun around in a dispute with a neighbor, I have seen road ragers step out of their car with a gun, I have seen children who have shot and killed their brother or sister because of the irresponsibility of the parents with their firearms. There has to be limits. It should not be an inalienable right of all.

How do you know they are tapping your phone, because you think you are so grand and have so much interesting things to say on the phone? And, prove that they have listened in on domestic phonecalls? I know they likely have, but that has likely been going on for decades.

It is NOT illegal for them to listen to an American citizen, in the US, talking with a non-US citizen overseas. AS LONG AS one side of that discussion is with a non-US citizen they can listen, according to lawyers who have won that case so far. People are paranoid, like they have real desire to listen to Bob talk to Mary from Italy about how he can't wait to see her in two weeks when he travels over there.

There are TRIGGER words, just like if you say bomb, or something of that nature over the phone. Those trigger words or code words they hear will bring them to tap into the lines of communication with foreign residents.

And, I don't believe you for one instant on your Second Amendment issue. It is an inalienable right by the Constitution, if you can cut that apart as much as you want, then you should have no issue with the government cutting up other Bill of Rights or Amendments to the Constitution as well. If they can cut up one as they want, they can cut up them all as they so desire.

You types are so easy, because you're so indoctrinated by the idea of partisan politics, however when you tie in the movement towards Globalism, you're just taking a favorite side of the same coin.

When discussing the DC gun ban, Judge Laurence Silberman stated that:"the Second Amendment is still �subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.�

Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill."

However, the Constitution states :
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

So when a government suffering from a corruption cancer like ours is, writes that we still have a second amendment, but it comes with "reasonable restrictions" that sounds like a big loophole with which you could drive a big APC full of gun grabbing Government types, right on through with room to spare. Infringement, playing under the costume of defending the rights assured by the Constitution.

As far as the restrictions that have been being placed on the 1st amendment. I do believe that same grand document states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Seems like with the advent of "free speech zones" there's been some Congress allowing or even endorsing laws and regulations that do in fact infringe on the rights of free speech, that came under a Republican controlled Congress, before '06.

If you want to buy into good guys and bad guys, when it comes to the Reps and Dems, go ahead, but the majority of them, both sides of the Aisle are sell outs to the country.

You want to know about the fema controlled camps? GO ask the people who got an extended stay at pier 51 in NYC or the people rounded up to a Fema controlled detention facility following the debacle that was the WTO protests of '99. Go check out the beautiful prison facility that comes complete with childrens playground equipment in Taylor, Texas, ran by a private company, but regulated by...you guessed it! FEMA!
If you think Bush is a protector of our 2nd amendment rights, then you've been buying too many lead tainted goods from China recently. Maybe you ought to research the Veterans Disarmament Act. Bush signed this and it's so broad in it's scope... Nevermind the DHS program, that Bush Co. authorized to recruit clergy, priests and pastors into using Hitlers tactic of taking Romans 13 out of context as a way to convince people to disarm and do whatever Government says. Clergy Response Teams... Yeah, thats what freedom is all about!

what i find interesting is i been saying this was going to happen ever since the patriot act was ratified

but hey what do i know

hey i am just a conspiracy theorist

Tell us something we didnt know adj!

How is he a tyrant. He is not ruling with an Iron Fist. In fact, he isn't ruling at all. He is merely our president, someone who is placed into power and can be removed from that position. He doesn't even have much power because he can not do much with out the senate and the house.

In Amyette v. State the Tennessee Supreme Court stated in 1840 that the term "bear arms" "has a military sense, and no other" and further stated "A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."


I don't think the 2nd amendment really said we could just keep guns. You have to go an look at what words meant back then. Such as bear arms. It meant to brandish a weapon in military service.

well chaz i unless you can explain this away i think your argument is incorrect

---------

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world

-----------------------------

****WHO IS GOING TO HOLD THE GOVT ACOUNTABL AND ENFORCE THE DECALRATION OF INDEPENDANCE

ENTER THE 2ND AMMENDMENT

----------------------------

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms

Amendment Text | Annotations

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

----------------------------

DEFINITIONS

-----------------------------

Main Entry: in•fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: in•fringed; in•fring•ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in•fring•er noun
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

en•croach (n-krch)
intr.v. en•croached, en•croach•ing, en•croach•es
1. To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land.
2. To advance beyond proper or former limits: desert encroaching upon grassland.
3. Football To commit encroachment.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

peo•ple (ppl)
n. pl. people
1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
3. pl. peo•ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" Thomas Jefferson.
6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.
7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people.
8. Family, relatives, or ancestors.
9. Informal Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/people

------------------------------------

SO IF THE GOVT INFRINGES (see DEFINITIONS)

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (SEE DEFINITIONS)

TO BEAR ARMS

WHO IS GOING TOENFORCE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
WHEN THE GOVT BEGINS ABUSING THEIR POWERS

------------------------------------


deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

------------------------------------

AND BEGIN RESTRICTING THE

------------------------------------

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

-------------------------------------

WHO WILL STEP IN AND REMOVE THE

-------------------------------------

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

----------------------------------

AND INSTITUTE THE NEW GOVT

DO YOU THINK THE GOVT IS GOING TO DO IT

IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE

AND TO DO SO THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ARMED

AN UNARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVE TO THOSE IN POWER

AND THE GOVT ARE THE MASTERS

WHICH IS NOT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE

-------------------------------------

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,