These are the conditions required by the constitution for suspension of habeus corpus.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-habeas18oct18,0,1856058.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
2006-10-18 06:55:33 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
None of the conditions have been met. The law is unconstitutional.
2006-10-18 06:57:07 · answer #1 · answered by Mark 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
eliminates habeus corpus ???????????
First of all the La Times is a left wing newspaper which grossly overstates the what has transpired.I used to think I was a Liberal but I am not nor do I hold many Conservative views.However the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights was never meant to pertain to people who are not U.S. citizens.The Article in the LA Times clearly admits
"no one has suggested that the Bush administration plans to use its newly won power to round up large numbers of immigrants."
The bill is meant to make the prosecution of the alleged terrorists in line with what the Supreme Court has said needs to be done.That is that the Congress needs to make the rules on tribunals.Now I must admit the President got most of what he wanted in the bill.However I must state that all American citizens are protected under the Constitution.There is now law that congress could pass that can circumvent our rights as citizens of the USA.I am so tired of everyone suggesting that these terrorists deserve Geneva Conventions treatment when they are not signatories to the conventions.I am not saying they should be mistreated but Americans need to seriously examine the extreme ideologies of both parties.Americans also need to stop falling prey to fear mongering from both sides the Republicans say the only way to be safe is vote for us and Democrats say we are heade down the road of becoming a Dictatorship.Nither of these assertions are true they are playing on the fears of the extreme wings of both parties.Fight the Power!!!!
2006-10-18 07:38:20 · answer #2 · answered by david r 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If public safety required it why did the framers of our constitution believe it was important to include the protection provided by habeus corpus in the constitution. I think they the framers recognized that the greatest threat to freedom and liberty in America comes from those within our government, not from foreign sources. The Bush administration is proving the wisdom of those who drafted the constitution.
2006-10-18 06:59:48 · answer #3 · answered by rec 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The military commisions act of 2006 does not allow for the suspension of habeus corpus.
It totally gets rid of it forever for all American Citizens.
The only reason it passed is becuase it will save a lot of asses from criminal prosecution when they are out of office. In otherwords, the administartion has already suspended habeus corpus for certain citizens(like that journalist that spent five months in jail in Iraq) and noww they dont want to get busted so this is just to cover their butts, not to make you safer.
2006-10-18 07:04:36 · answer #4 · answered by big-brother 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You are quoting the LA Times as your source!!! Typical.
Habeas corpus is a petition to have a judge review the legality of the prisoner's imprisonment. Originally part of the English system of civil liberties developed during the 17th and 18th centuries, habeas corpus limited the power of kings to arbitrarily imprison people.
Today, in certain democratic countries, including the United States, the codes of criminal procedure require that an arrested person be informed with reasonable promptness of the charges and be allowed to seek legal counsel. In many other countries, persons are subjected at times to lengthy periods of imprisonment without being informed of the charges. Habeas corpus protects the arrested person from wrongdoing in the part of the court.
In simpler terms, habeas corpus is a prisoner's legal right to seek release for unconstitutional imprisonment. For example, prison conditions could be so bad as to be "cruel or unusual punishment." Or perhaps the prisoner was illegally denied a lawyer or jailed through improper procedure.
The writ of habeas corpus is the procedure by which a federal court inquires into illegal detention and, potentially, issues an order directing state authorities to release the petitioner. As described by the United States Supreme Court, "its function has been to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraint."
The right of habeas corpus is entitled to Americans or those residing in America (yes even illegal immigrants) that are imprisioned or prosecuted for breaking American laws. Terrorist scum like Khalid Sheik Mohammad are not deserving or entitled to the rights of American courts. He should be prosecuted in a military tribunal. The terrorists hold no respect or allegiance to any country or the laws of humanity - why should they be afforded the rights of the most lennient and generous court system in the world. It's absurd!
2006-10-18 07:30:31 · answer #5 · answered by Republican Mom 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We are now being overtaken by American fascists who have rendered our Bill of Rights impotent. Our torturer-in-chief is the Attorney General, Gonzalez who helped Bush send over 153 human beings to their deaths in Texas with less than 15 minutes review.
The Bill of Rights is the foundation of our government. This new law guts that. If the Supreme Court is packed with any more reactionary ignorant thugs in business suits, we will have no hope of reclaiming our republic from the war criminals who now own it.
Don't look for the Nov. 7 election to help: the fix is in. It's already stolen, as were the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. And the mainstream media is 'bought' so don't look for anything but complicity from them.
2006-10-18 07:00:02 · answer #6 · answered by Alice B 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If the government created the "fear" in the first place, it then has carte blanche to impose whatever restrictions on the public it choses. You will find that if this so called "terrorist" threat dissapears, the laws imposed by the government in the name of public safety, that are no longer relevent, will not be repealed. The damage to liberty will already have been done.
2006-10-18 07:02:53 · answer #7 · answered by dingdong 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Bush created the Bush Doctrine which gives the US the first strike ability.
Does it surprise anyone that he's trying to take away rights for those who are "suspected" of terrorists attacks. I think George has been watching alittle too much Jack Bower on '24'
2006-10-18 06:58:53 · answer #8 · answered by kris_rynshall 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Where inside the U.S. is it in a state of rebellion? How does public safety include taking away your rights to know your charges and your right to a speedy trial.This is a power grab by the bush administration. I have such a low opinion of bush now I not going to capitalize his name.
2006-10-18 07:03:32 · answer #9 · answered by firewomen 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps the leader of the USA, a certain Mr Bush, is in a state of rebellion now that the Supreme Court has told him off. And so he and his mates have thought up this new law.
If the leader of a nation is in rebellion, it could be argued that the whole nation is...
2006-10-18 07:01:07 · answer #10 · answered by Dick V 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋