Has Bush signed away the last vestiges of our freedoms?

Question

From the NY Times Oct 17:

“Congress had no justification for suspending the writ of habeas corpus — a core value in American law — in order to avoid judicial review that prevents government abuse,” said one leading critic, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is his party’s senior member on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He called it “a sad day when the rubberstamp Congress undercuts our freedoms.”

So, I guess dictator Bush and his corrupt cronies in Congress--in the name of "The War on Terror"--has found an excuse to suspend our constitutional rights and have ANYONE HELD WITHOUT CHARGES AND WITHOUT EVER HAVING A RIGHT TO A LAWYER AND A DAY IN COURT! This can apply to ANYONE deemed by the government as a threat and GUESS WHAT? If could be anyone like you and me who dare says anything critical of the government because the burden of proof--habeus corpus--and having evidence, witnesses, and all that pertains to having a fair trial has been tossed in the garbage!

habeas corpus
(hay-bee-us core-puss) n. Latin for "you have the body," it is a writ (court order) which directs the law enforcement officials who have custody of a prisoner to appear in court with the prisoner to help the judge determine whether the prisoner is lawfully in prison or jail. The writ is obtained by petition to a judge in the county or district where the prisoner is incarcerated, and the judge sets a hearing on whether there is a legal basis for holding the prisoner. Habeas corpus is a protection against illegal confinement, such as holding a person without charges, when due process obviously has been denied, bail is excessive, parole has been granted, an accused has been improperly surrendered by the bail bondsman or probation has been summarily terminated without cause. Historically called "the great writ," the renowned scholar of the Common Law, William Blackstone, called it the "most celebrated writ in English law."

Answer 1

George Bush's vast new powers of detention and interrogation

Final passage of the torture/detention bill was 65-34. Without necessarily planning in advance to do so, I live-blogged the Senate proceedings here (if you're going to subject yourself to something as unpleasant as watching U.S. Senators "debate" a bill to give the U.S. President the powers of torture and indefinite detention, it's much healthier to have an outlet when doing so).

Twelve Democrats voted in favor, 1 Republican and 1 independent voted against (there may be one or two errors because I compiled the list while listening to the vote):

Democrats in favor (12) - Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.).

Republicans against (1) - Chafee (R.I.).

Jeffords (I) voted against.

I will have much more later, but a couple notes for now:

Jay Rockefeller (who voted for this bill) is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. When he was defending the amendment he introduced to compel the CIA to disclose to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees information about their interrogation activities, he complained that the White House has concealed all information about the interrogation program and that the Intelligence Committee members (including him) therefore know nothing about it. His amendment to compel reports to Congress was defeated with all Republicans (except Chafee) voting against it. He proceeded to vote for the underlying bill anyway, thereby legalizing a program he admits he knows nothing about (and will continue to know nothing about).

During the debate on his amendment, Arlen Specter said that the bill sends us back 900 years because it denies habeas corpus rights and allows the President to detain people indefinitely. He also said the bill violates core Constitutional protections. Then he voted for it.

It's good to see that many Senate Democrats (32 out of 44) voted against this bill, but it's too little, too late. Many of them announced only for the first time today that they are opposing the bill (though, to be fair, many Democrats attributed their opposition to the recent changes made to the bill over the last few days, ones which were made even after the oh-so-noble McCain-Graham-Warner-White House "compromise" was announced).

But it is still difficult to understand the Democrats' strategy here. They failed to try to mount a filibuster because they feared being attacked as coddlers of the terrorists. But now they voted against the bill in large numbers, thereby ensuring those exact accusations will be made anyway -- and made loudly (the White House already started today). Yet they absented themselves the whole time from the debate (until they magically appeared today), spent the last several weeks only tepidly (at most) opposing the President's position, and thus lost the opportunity to defend and advocate the position they took today in any meaningful way. As a result, the Democrats took a position today (opposition to this bill) which they have not really defended until today.

They make this same mistake over and over. Isn't this exactly what happened when they sort-of-supported-but-sort-of-opposed the Iraq war resolution in 2002 because they were afraid of being depicted as soft on terrorism, only to then be successfully depicted as soft on terrorism because they were too afraid to forcefully defend their position? It's true that fewer Democrats voted for the President's policy this time around, but it's equally true that they found their voice only on the last day of the debate -- on the day of the vote -- after disappearing for weeks while they let John McCain "debate" for them.

Nonetheless, it is fair to say, given how lopsided this vote was (both in the House and the Senate), that the Republicans are the party of torture, indefinite and unreviewable detention powers, and limitless presidential power, even over U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. By contrast, Democrats have opposed these tyrannical, un-American and truly dangerous measures. Even if Democrats didn't oppose them as vociferously as they could have and should have, this is still a meaningful and, at this point, critically important contrast.

Answer 2

The Writ of Habeas Corpus means essentialy, "bring the body".
That is, the person who says he/she is being held illegally. I agree
with you. If you remember Nixon, you will know that this is not the
first time an attempt such as Bush has accomplished with this patriot act, that the rights people thought they had,an attempt was
made to take them away. Bush did it. Nixon tried. Nixon came up
with something he called "Preventive Detention"
That act was ment to "prevent" those the government deemed, a
threat of any stripe, to be detained. Without charge, for as long
as they pleased. Without any legal rights. That was one time.
This is another and not the last. We have a problem!!

Answer 3

Personally, I think, that he thinks he is above the law due to being president. Well, in my opinion, NOONE is above the law. He's only doing this crap to make him and his cronies more powerful and not have a legal reason to do what he does. They only care about the greed and corruption that is now present. Let's vote the whores out of office. I really feel he should have been impeached for lying to the government and public. Nixon was, why wasn't Bush?? (Too much money and lobbyists) And YES he has. Where is the public outrage? Are we that complaisant, or dumb?? It is supposed to be: Government Rule By the People for the People. What the heck has happened here?

Answer 4

Only if you are not a U.S. citizen. Section 7 of Bill S.3930 and H.R. 6166, commonly known as the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and passed in both the House and the Senate, only refers to "aliens" not having the right to Habeas Corpus. The actual language of section 7 of said bill is as follows:

SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

Hope this clears the matter up for you.

Answer 5

Well, Bush is one of our worse Presidents, I firmly believe that, but I don`t think Americans have too much to worry about. He`s a racist moron, he`s only after people from the Middle East. He`s trying to finish his daddy`s little witch hunts and he`s actually doing a pretty good job of it. I never voted for him because I don`t like the idea of a Bush in office. What makes me more angry is that those who made the mistake of voting for him once did it again! I don`t think I`d be too surprised if Bush tries to get rid of Congress or something and become in full control of the country. The problem with that is, many Americans would be willing to die for their freedom, myself inculded, so if he tries something like that he`ll end up rotting in a jail for the rest of his life. One of the biggest problems with American politics is that only the spoiled little rich kids who have no idea how to handle money and the totally corrupt can even afford a campaign. If we had middle class people running the country we`d be in good shape. I didn`t grow up in a world where daddy could take care of any mistake I made and neither did any other middle class person. I think thats the biggest thing. If you get a new car when you trash yours and you never have to take responisibility, you`re not suited to run a country.

Answer 6

Of course you quote that from a far left newspaper...

This is a bunch of BS complaining. Dictator? Okay buddy... A suspected terrorist...it means everyday americans should not have to worry about this. You were the people complaining about the illegal wiretapping...now this. I'll give it 2 weeks to stop...

Answer 7

I do not think so, I think a new administration will come in in the near future and undo alot of the Presidents "cutting and Running" from our constitution..The will keep some of his ideas, They will just follow the law when they do them....."If you give up Liberty to have security...You have neither"...Benjamin Franklin

Answer 8

Hehehe... Now BUsh finds similarities with Vietnam!
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2583579

Answer 9

Yes. Here's the PROOF!...
http://www.global-conspiracies.com/fema_concentration_camps.htm
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/9229/FEMA_DEATHCAMPS_AND_THE_RED_AND_BLUE_LIST_UNDER_MARTIAL_LAW
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/ftct.htm
Also, it's NOT a "war on terror" or "fighting for freedoms". It's all about winning THIS secret "prize"!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm