Everyone: get on your email or your phone, contact your representative, and tell them to support HR2826, the house bill to restore habeas corpus. You can find the text of the bill here (search by bill number for “HR 2826”). This is an opportunity to tell your congresspeople to support a positive action to restore a little bit of respect for the constitution, instead of the usual desperate call to oppose some odious scrap of legislative defilement coming out of the far right reaches of political hell.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Thanks for the scoop PZ, Ill see if I can motivate out two Oregon Senators in that direction. I totaly agree, it’s nice to see legislation that you want, instead of constantly fighting to keep our freedoms.
Whoa!
I’m a Canadian and I really want to support this bill as well.
I’m beginning to acquire a great deal of respect for the founding fathers of America and the provisions they put in place to ensure the freedom of individuals and the balance power among the branches of government. It makes it all the more painful to see removal of freedoms and the undermining of the checks and balances put in place to prevent these things from happening.
Start putting it back together!
Done! I just finished writing to my representative to (politely) request that he support this important bill. Habeas corpus is arguably the most fundamental right, necessary to secure all others. It’s scary what the current administration has been able to get away with in this regard – reminds me of a YouTube video of Alberto Gonzales essentially saying the writ of habeas corpus is not granted by the constitution. How do these people manage to get into positions of power?
Bart, HR bills are in the House of Representatives, not the Senate, so the person to talk to about this is your representative. There are five of these in Oregon; if you don’t know which one represents your district, you can find out here.
A Senate bill to restore habeas corpus (S185) was introduced by Arlen Specter in January but has still not been voted on. I haven’t had a chance to compare the text of this bill with HR2826. According to govtrack.us, “This bill was considered in committee which has recommended it be considered by the Senate as a whole. Although it has been placed on a calendar of business, the order in which bills are considered and voted on is determined by the majority party leadership.” So it sounds like what’s needed here is pressure on Harry Reid and his minions to get a vote on this scheduled.
“Habeas corpus is arguably the most fundamental right, necessary to secure all others.”
Hmmm… I’ll grant Habeas corpus is very important, but I’m not sure it’s the MOST important. For instance, without the 2nd amendment, the rest of the document is just wishful thinking.
The US Constitution may not be perfect, but it sure beats what we are living under now.
Re: instructor
That’s why I added “arguably.” In the discussions I’ve heard on the issue, the 3 most important rights continually brought up are the right to bear arms, habeas corpus, and the right to property. You could spend all day arguing which is “the” most fundamental, but obviously they are all important and need to be upheld.
That’s a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think? I’m against gun control, but it’s hardly a fundamental right. Any number of free, functioning democracies worldwide have restricted gun ownership without turning into a dictatorship.
Thanks noncarborundum, I should have paid more attention to the bill name. And the description ‘the house bill’. Im going to call my old scout master, and return my ‘citizenship’ merit badge.
<--- seriously ashamed for not paying attention.
Interestingly, habeus corpus is the only fundamental right in the Constitution that has its own explicitly defined limitations as to when it can be suspended and/or restricted (i.e., in times of insurrection or invasion). All other rights (e.g., freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc.) have no explicitly defined limitations, and the Supreme Court has therefore determined that there are a variety of reasonable restrictions that can be placed upon their free exercise (e.g., shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre or owning surface-to-air missiles can be prohibited). So, therefore, habeus corpus is the only right that the founders felt was so important that its full protection should be enshrined in the Constitution itself, and its possible restrictions definitionally enumerated.
In other words, the founders strongly believed that habeus corpus is very, very important, and is our finest protection against tyranny. The fact that Congress allowed the Military Commisions Act and the “lawfare” theory of the unitary executive to abrogate this essential right constantly fills me with disgust and outrage, and is one of the prinicple reasons I am in law school (the other being the impeachment of god from our government, but that’s a whole other story ;) ). Supporting this simple bill in the House is the very least we can do as citizens to preserve the Republic.
S.G.E.W.:
At the risk of being labeled a spelling pedant, I suggest that while you’re in law school you may want to learn how to spell habeas corpus. Not to mention the difference between principle and principal. Yes, these are fine distinctions, but isn’t that what the law is all about?
BTW, re: “the impeachment of god from our government”. I don’t know that “impeachment” is really the word you’re looking for; it’s conviction that removes, not impeachment. On a more basic level, are you fer it or agin it?
See the article in Wikipedia, “The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact” for an introduction to the case against granting habeas corpus to terrorists in time of war.
No, I don’t think I’ll do that.
I sort of like Thomas Jefferson’s idea that a “strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
Those of us who are U.S. citizens and not waging war against Uncle still have our rights to Habeus Corpus. I’ve not very concerned about the rights of some terrorists who are quite happy about sawing off people’s heads over religious disagreements.
Sorry, this bill doesn’t go nearly far enough to earn my support. The bill that does will read something like:
(a) No person detained by the United States shall be denied the right of habeas corpus.
(b) Every person adjudicating the right of habeas corpus on behalf of the United States shall be deemed a member of the Judicial branch of the United States Government.
You really don’t get it, do you? If they don’t have the right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus, how do we know they’re terrorists in the first place?
And until then, what? We leave things as they are?
Done and done. Is it wrong for an atheist to write “God bless Texas” if I think it will help get the point across?
#14: And your point is? Who do you think is in Guantanamo? A group of kids who were out on a picnic? Shoppers on the way to the mall?
There were certainly some mistakes, just as some were mistakenly freed. I really don’t see why they should have the same rights and privileges American citizens do. I don’t recall any reciprocity agreements with the Taleban or in Sharia law.
To remind you, the legislature passed SB 3930. This was not just a unilateral decision by King George II.
Who do you think is in any American maximum-security prison? Mostly people who in some way or another have earned their way there. The difference is that the prisoners in Guantánamo can be held perpetually, based on nothing more than executive whim, and with no judicial review. This is, to put it baldly, wrong, and it would be wrong even if it turned out that everybody in Guantánamo is in fact a terrorist. The fact that we have more than adequate reason to suppose that innocent people have been caught up in the net makes it even more deplorable.
It’s not just citizens. Illegal aliens charged with crimes in the U.S. go through the same justice system with the same rights and privileges, including habeas, as everyone else.
Yeah, thanks for that. I was totally asleep during the entire month of September, 2006. (Is this a sly way of accusing me of Bush Derangement Syndrome, or do you really think that Congress is incapable of error?)
To remind you, the Constitution clearly states that “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.” Congress overstepped its Constitutional authority when it passed the Military Commissions Act suspending habeas for prisoners in Guantánamo.
Congress made a mistake. At least now it has an opportunity to begin to redeem itself.
And I think that’s great.
But the bill is not about extending habeas corpus to illegal aliens. Its about extending it to a type of enemy that is not state-based (although Iran may have its fingers in the pie) but is still capable of striking like a state would. I would call a crashing a jet into skyscraper rather invasive? Yes?
No, I don’t think any of the Congresses are incapable of error. I do think we have a new class of threat, and we have to figure out how to adapt our system to that. Giving them the same treatment as illegal aliens (who want to live here, not convert or destroy us) seems excessive.
o.b., What type of rights would you grant to people who had no connection with flying airplanes into buildings, but were just snatched off the street while minding their own business? Should they be deprived of the right to contest their imprisonment, just because they’re imprisoned with terrorists?
There may be no one at Guantánamo who fits that description, or there may be dozens. What I’ve read certainly suggests that there are some, but I just don’t know. And neither do you. That’s the whole point.