Thursday, October 19, 2006

Good bye City on the Hill

Article I, Section 9:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Which of these requirements is the United States under?

And as Jonathan Turley and Keith Olbermann have stated, for the most part other than them and a few bloggers, no one has even given a shit. Such are the vagueries of how dearly we hold the love of what America is about, in place of individuals who made statements like "you don't have liberties when you are dead".

(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—(A) The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means—

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

Part (ii) is not defined by the prior clause, nor anywhere limited, in fact it expands it to include the entire universe (including American Citizens) and one will try in vain to find a modifier narrowing down this definition. Further, the GOP led Congress has given not only the President, but the Secretary of Defense, the ability to appoint a group of lackeys to throw anyone they damn well please into jail with NO RIGHT to appeal their incarciration.

As Olbermann stated last night, Bush has given his successors the ability to toss not only John Walker Lindh into jail without hope of judicial explanation of the cause, but also George Walker Bush.

There is hope, even THIS Supreme Court will find these provisions unconstitutional, but one should never agree to legislation that one thinks the court will save you from -- in order to get you reelected. Such is the level to which our elected representatives hold your (and their) Constitutional Rights -- cheaply.

Other than the aforementioned news sources, little to no attention has been given the death of these protections. The Press, which naturally goes apoplectic on limits to it's First Amendment Rights, pays no attention to the underlying doctrine that gives power to that Amendment. Without a right of appeal to the courts, the First Amendment depends on the rationality and prudence of the Chief Executive and the Secretary of Defense.

Lincoln, yes, a man who temporarily suspended the writ of habeous corpus during a time of Rebellion (later ratified by Congress...and which again was temporary) also once appealed to the "better angels of our nature".

Well, I'm waiting for George Bush to do that. When exactly, has he even arguably done that?

True, he has urged tolerance to Muslims, but what is the point of that, when he deliberately hobnobs with, well, nobs such as Neil Bortz that say stuff like this:

You know what? Sooner or later, you really start to get the idea that this is not a very pleasant religion. Sooner or later, you really start to get the idea that these people are violent...This is a virus. Islam is a virus. It is a deadly virus that is spreading throughout Europe and the Western world, and it is going to completely and totally change the way we live our lives in this country. And we're going to wait -- we're going to wait far too long to develop a vaccine to find a way to fight this.

Remember when every individual who met with Bill Clinton was treated by the media as some part of a grand cabal and talked about on the evening chat shows ad naseum? Yet, nary a mention of Bush giving time to a group of mouth-breathing bigoted enablers...who will get a special "White House" rump-us room the week before the election.

And American Muslims are supposed to feel "good" about being in America? That the government will not act against are the rest of us, constantly portrayed as "on the side of the terrorists" now by statute under the domain and definition of the man who meets and gives special access to the individuals who constantly proclaim us so?


Thanks to Scout Prime for putting up the video of Olbermann at YouTube.

No comments: