http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/29/senate-votes-to-let-military-detain-americans-indefinitely_n_1119473.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

 

I'm fairly certain this would require a Constitutional amendment to be legit, since we're granted the right of Habeas Corpus. If Obama has any integrity, he'll veto this. On a side note, what constitutes a terrorist group? North Georgia Militia? The Tea Party? OWS? The Congress that passed this terrible bill?

As a historic note, President Lincoln suspended the right to Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

 

Can anyone point to any instance in which this suspension was woefully unavailable to apply prior to its inception or to any instance in which it was gratefully applied afterwards? I can't.

 

What makes this power even worse, if I am correct, is that the citizenry be left uninformed of any application of this suspension. So, one day Chris Smith goes missing, and no one — not even the local authorities — knows why.

So much for the "land of the free".

I note that Senator Lindsey Graham, arguing in favour says "They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody ..."

 

Why is he scarred of rights and lawyers?

How does he define "humanely in military custody"?

Like this perhaps

http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testimonials-project

As a historic note, President Lincoln suspended the right to Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

 

Can anyone point to any instance in which this suspension was woefully unavailable to apply prior to its inception or to any instance in which it was gratefully applied afterwards? I can't.

 

What makes this power even worse, if I am correct, is that the citizenry be left uninformed of any application of this suspension. So, one day Chris Smith goes missing, and no one — not even the local authorities — knows why.

It also allows the use of torture, btw. So, this bill allows a citizen to be abducted and imprisoned and tortured indefinitely without notice to anyone at the mere suspicion of being a "terrorist". It also passed with a supermajority which means a veto by Obama would be meaningless.

It also allows the use of torture, btw. So, this bill allows a citizen to be abducted and imprisoned and tortured indefinitely without notice to anyone at the mere suspicion of being a "terrorist". It also passed with a supermajority which means a veto by Obama would be meaningless.

 

 

I think you are completely correct that it would require an amendment to the constitution - but the supreme court, in its position as defender of the constitution, would need to be the body that enforced this. A veto by the president would leave scotus in no doubt of the executive feeling. I recently wrote a post about scotus taking on congress (and in these cases the president as well) in a refusal to allow lawmakers remove/elide constitutionally guaranteed rights without an explicit engagement with amendment protocol http://www.sciencefo...on-be-approved/

 

But the court has changed personnel ( one bush nominee and two obama) since the run of cases roushdy, rasul, hamdan, and boumedienne - so who knows how they will react

Edited December 3, 201114 yr by imatfaal