![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Inalienable Rights: really inalienable?
...special at 11:00.
Anyone with a sense of self-preservation should probably read this.
Aside from the obvious things that can be said about this article, I would like to know how the major players in the news media world rationalize not informing the public of something like this. George Bush--the same man who manages to topple over segways and sometimes says words like 'edumacate'--has more power over the American people than any other president before him.
No, really think about this for a second. George W. Bush.
I'll wait.
How do they sleep at night, first of all. A lot of newspapers and television stations are controlled by a few elite companies that have a vested interest in keeping the American public dumb, so them withholding information isn't exactly new, but something this big? I would probably spork myself to death just to get some relief from the guilt. Second, where do they fucking get off? I'm sorry, but how arrogant do you have to be to introduce and pass an act that will negate Habeas Corpus? Pretty damn.
Also, while I was listing to Public Radio this morning in the shower, they were talking about the percentage of people who believe George Bush should be impeached--around 51% of all American voters, around 23% of Republicans in the senate. And yet, nothing's happening.
I kind of want to cry. I want to break my foot off in someone's ass more, though.
Also check out this page, the google news result for 'habeas corpus'.
Anyone with a sense of self-preservation should probably read this.
"ha·be·as cor·pus n : A writ (court order) that commands an individual or a government official who has restrained another to produce the prisoner at a designated time and place so that the court can determine the legality of custody and decide whether to order the prisoner's release. In other words, the right to a fair, prompt trial to determine innocence or guilt.
Habeas corpus was first officially recognized in the Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by King John. There, it was expressed thusly: "No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised [ousted], or outlawed, or exiled, or injured in any way, nor will we enter on him or send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." In other words, a person could not be imprisoned without due process of the law; an important step in the development of democracy, since previously the King's whim was as good an excuse as any to lock someone up.
From the 13ththrough the 17th century, common-law courts (made up of legal professionals) used the writ of habeas corpus to free people imprisoned by feudal or royal courts unlawfully.
The U.S. Consitutionmakes reference to habeas corpus in Article 1, 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 requireit." The writ of habeas corpus allows prisoners to protest being treated in a manner inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, including but not limited to the right to a speedy and fair trial, the right to a lawyer, protection from self-incrimination, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to know one's rights. Habeas corpus does not apply to the Fourth Amendment (the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures), as prisoners in custody have that right suspended.
Habeas corpus embodies all these rights, in the idea of "due process of the law," because the ability to file a write of habeas corpus implies the ability to protest unconstitutional imprisonment. It is a major foundation of democratic law.
Historically, habeas corpus has been suspended a handful of times. To disband the KuKlux Klan. (Didn't work.) To intern thousands of Japanese-Americans in WWII. (Widely hailed as one of the worst ideas ever.)
In November 2001, President Bush was granted the power to suspend habeas corpus in the case of non-citizen "enemy combatants" held in connectionto terrorist activities. Such enemy combatants were allowed to be detained indefinitely, with no right to a lawyer.
In October2006, the military-tribunal bill signed by President Bush erased habeas corpus for anyone considered an "unlawful enemy combatant." An unlawful enemy combatant is defined as anyone, citizen or non-citizen, who is a terrorist, or materially supports terrorist organizations. This definition is made at the President's discretion.
* * *
Did you catch that? Here, let me summarize: the President is now legally capable of suspending anyone's right to due process of the law, as long as they have been a terrorist, or associated with terrorists, or given money to terrorist organizations--perhaps even unknowingly.
But really, how do we even know that an "unlawful enemy combatant" DID support terrorists? We have no way of knowing. With habeas corpus suspended, there is no need to present evidence of guilt, or have a trial. A person could be imprisoned, and they would have NO LEGAL RECOURSE--and they could be detained indefinitely.
Allow me to summarize even more succinctly: Were you paying attention, America? Did you feel that jerk? That was the rug of democracy being pulled out from under your feet, if you'll pardon my metaphor. Bush II now has legal powers that no English king has had since KING JOHN before 1215.
Everyday, American soldiers are dying for our freedoms--and this is how we honor them? Rescinding our rights? Rescinding our most basic rights? Rescinding a right on which at least four Amendments depend?
This should be enormous news, front page news, above the fold, big bold letters. Unfortunately, spinach, Foley, and scandals take up lots of room too. But hey, America: wake up! You just lost something important--more important than your cell phone, even. Seen the Constitution anywhere?"
Aside from the obvious things that can be said about this article, I would like to know how the major players in the news media world rationalize not informing the public of something like this. George Bush--the same man who manages to topple over segways and sometimes says words like 'edumacate'--has more power over the American people than any other president before him.
No, really think about this for a second. George W. Bush.
I'll wait.
How do they sleep at night, first of all. A lot of newspapers and television stations are controlled by a few elite companies that have a vested interest in keeping the American public dumb, so them withholding information isn't exactly new, but something this big? I would probably spork myself to death just to get some relief from the guilt. Second, where do they fucking get off? I'm sorry, but how arrogant do you have to be to introduce and pass an act that will negate Habeas Corpus? Pretty damn.
Also, while I was listing to Public Radio this morning in the shower, they were talking about the percentage of people who believe George Bush should be impeached--around 51% of all American voters, around 23% of Republicans in the senate. And yet, nothing's happening.
I kind of want to cry. I want to break my foot off in someone's ass more, though.
Also check out this page, the google news result for 'habeas corpus'.
no subject
O M G! WHAT THE FUCK?
SO STUPID.
How is he allowed to LIVE?
HOW?
REALLY?
HOW?
*finds you an ass to kick*
He needs to be GONE.
He's fucking up everything
Don't cry.
Just keep us informed
:D
no subject
I can't stand republicans...
no subject
no subject
*hides*
I admire your passion. Bush is a twit. Good on you for speaking out. Let's just say I am very grateful to be living in Australia...except for that whole 'say sorry Aboriginal' thing...and the 'boat people' thing.
...
Damn it.
no subject
At least the Democrats won the House of Representatives (and possibly the Senate) and Rumsfeld is stepping down, so that's a step in the right direction. Only 2 more years.
no subject
*clings* Two more years. Two more years [of PAIN].