Congress Knows/Does NOT Care: Suspension of Habeas Corpus=UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[kpete]

Sorry, I just cannot express my anger enough at this - where are our leaders? This cannot happen in America! They say they KNOW its UNCONSTITUTIONAL, yet they are NOT going to "DERAIL IT"??? kpete

Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday assailed the provision as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus, which he said was allowable only "in time of rebellion or in time of invasion. And neither is present here. "Congressional sources said Specter is unlikely to derail the compromise legislation over those objections.

Detainee Measure to Have Fewer Restrictions
White House Reaches Accord With Lawmakers

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; Page A01

......................

As a result, human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

"Supported" is a pretty far-reaching term that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual combat. And while this vagueness would be disturbing enough by itself, it's even worse than it seems because other provisions of the legislation prohibit someone accused of "supporting" hostilities from challenging their detention in U.S. courts — even if the detainee is a U.S. citizen.http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009570.php

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant. It is broader than that in last week's version of the bill, which resulted from lengthy, closed-door negotiations between senior administration officials and dissident Republican senators. That version incorporated a definition backed by the Senate dissidents: those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

...........

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that by including those who "supported hostilities" -- rather than those who "engage in acts" against the United States -- the government intends the legislation to sanction its seizure and indefinite detention of people far from the battlefield.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514.html

[acmavm]

1. So are we not all 'supporting hostilities' against the United

States everytime we talk about the lies that got us into Iraq, the lies that may get us into Iran, and the lies that 'justified' all that money (that's not missing) that went to Iraq?

[kpete]

9. I think

You SEE what I SEE....

[acmejack]

2. Tony Snow says only the President can make that determination.

It is up to the President not the Supreme Court to decide what is Constitutional! Tony Snow revealed this bit of wisdom in his press conference yesterday. I had went through over fifty years not knowing that, I thought that the SC did that, however imperfectly.

[texpatriot2004]

3. So much for the Oath that they swore to uphold the

United States Constitution.

[WinkyDink]

4. Thus, Bushco can arrest and detain indefinitely PROTESTORS of any

Bush policies.

[spanone]

5. I heard a lawyer for the govt arguing we are still under invasion

from the 9/11 attacks yesterday on NPR. His logic was that if terror cells are still in the U.S., we are under invasion. What a load of shit.

Wake up Congress.

[papau]

6. I screamed and ranted last week about the McCain evil bill - not that WP

shouldn't be applauded for finally reading the damn thing.

Where is the rest of the media?

US citizens jailed forever with no ability to get to a court?

And this is not on the 6 o'clock news?

[Hubert Flottz]

7. If Bush Issues a Fuhrer Order against you...

you are dead meat!

[Hosnon]

8. Just a note: It's not unconstitutional to suspend the writ. It can be done

"when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." U.S. Const. Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 2.

Bullshit though to call present circumstances an "invasion".

[Coexist]

10. It is sickening

I hope history tears their names up so bad, their great-grandchildren are too ashamed to keep them.