Why does Presidential power to suspend Habeas Corpus remain intact ?

Question

What justifies presidential suspension of habeas Corpus?
Does suspension of Habeas potentially give the executive power to curtail exposure of criminal activity originating in the executive branch?
Does suspension of Habeas Corpus potentially give the executive unprecedented power to stifle public opposition to executive policy?
Is that potential acceptable in light of the principles the United States of America is founded upon?
If such powers which are absolute (and eventually history shows absolute power corrupts absolutely) is it not an imperative of the first order that such powers should be revoked yesterday and such powers should have never been evoked in the first place?
Is the legislative majority failing and failing miserably , almost criminally, in correcting this potentially insidious power?
If so, why so ?
The executive assures the public that this power is only used against "terrorists" and "of course " would never be used for any other reason against American citizens but in the final analysis the ability to fix a problem by simply making an individual disappear is a power we must not allow and by all rational the revocation of suspension of Habeas Corpus should have been the number one priority of the legislature in cleaning our own house before continuing on to promote democracy on foreign soil..
Yet it stands and it stands because our governance allows it to stand and the public fails to demand and demand emphatically that it stand no longer.
In failing to correct this abysmal problem we are giving license to absolute corruption of the principles of democracy and freedom.

Suspension of HB may be in order briefly at some critical junctures in some critical circumstances but that does not appear to be what is happening in this so far, it is being maintained and allowed as a generalized policy and the longer it is maintained as such the greater threat it will pose to public decent against corruption( both Conservative and progressive) of the politic.
Thank you for robust response on this issue and the best answer will be chosen by vote.

Answer 1

I think you hit all of the key points that should scare the crap out of ordinary Americans. this is one of the main reasons why I lost all respect for John McCain after he rolled over on the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
The suspension of HB is a disgrace. The rabid right and its figurehead, GWB, love to use the rhetoric about the "terrorists hate us for our freedom" so he decides to take it away from us.
The suspension is in direct violation of the US constitution which stipulates is suspension ONLY in the following circumstances:
Invasion
or in the case of rebellion.
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 require it."
We have not been invaded last time I checked nor is there a rebellion( unless the majority of the American people being against this war is considered one).
This has just been such a power grab by this administration that he is destroying one of the cornerstones that made this nation great.
To Mr. PhattPhatt, you are the most scariest type of person out there. You would sacrifice all the things that made this country great for the illusion of security and the day that you need those same rights, will wonder where they went to.
A Founding father wrote about people like you and what your resulting blindness will result in:

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

~Benjamin Franklin

Answer 2

You don't have to convince me. Every significant relevance of habeas is covered in your question.

Check out a podcast of a great piece on the radio program "This American Life" - the piece is called "Habeas Schmabeas", which, despite the title, is anything but funny. It is the single best explanation for what habeas does and why we need it, and it's illustrated in the context of today's "War on Terror". (CONS - before you berate it, LISTEN to it... PLEASE.) Right now, as of this writing (6/14/07), it's downloadable as an MP3 for FREE.

[ADDED: SHTT!!!! Can't believe I didn't give the link. Here it is:
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=310
]

In point of fact, the first scenario you mention - suspension of habeas to curtail exposure of criminal activity originating in the executive branch - is the least worrisome. I don't envision how it could really be used in that way - unless it would have been to throw Joe Wilson or even Scooter Libby into some Gitmo limbo (that's a rhetorical point, people).

Still, everything else is addressed in "Habeas Schmabeas". Habeas corpus does not *necessarily* ensure that the Executive cannot stifle opposition - but it's an extraordinary guard against such abuse.

[edit] Mr. PhattPhatt is an example of the most dangerous kind of American, the one who would sell everyone else's rights up the river in exchange for his own security - and then wonder where everyone is to protect him when his own rights are later taken away.

PhattPhatt, it's YOU who, in your focus on the literal, doesn't know habeas. The principal didn't rock western civilization in 1215 and persevere in the annals of statecraft *merely* because it acknowledges that an imprisonment can be unlawful. It's the WHY of habeas that matters.

Answer 3

Suspension of habeas corpus was created as an intrinsic part of martial law, that is, the power to suspend habeas corpus is part of the presidential war powers. Suspension of habeas corpus means that the government can legally grab anyone they wish off the street and indefinitely hold them incommunicado. There was never a thought that a US president would suspend habeas corpus for anything less than absolute necessity: actual invasion or its moral equivalent.

Now, in the aftermath of the terror attacks against the US (starting with the Oklahoma City bombing), America has fallen into the same trap as the people who invented habeas corpus. The writ, like all common law writs, was invented by the English. Habeas is enshrined in Magna Carta. And it went down the tubes during the Troubles. England used to be free country, but people I met from that side of the pond while they visited the States back in the 80s always remarked on what a free country America was; why, they could say just about anything and not get hauled in by a man in blue.

The IRA bombing campaign put an end to that.

So after OKC, we passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This patently unconstitutional act (nonetheless upheld by a Supreme Court most of whose members will fry in hell for being foresworn) eliminated most of the grounds for habeas corpus review of state convictions.

There's a saying that if you put a frog in a pot of cold water over a slow fire, the frog will boil to death rather than jumping out of the pot. So it goes with habeas: nibble, nubble toil and trouble and the next thing you know, America has become a police state. (But we LOVE Rudy, he's Amerika's gauleiter. And he's a very EFFICIENT gauleiter, don't you know.)

Then 9-11. A gift to all the crypto-Nazis in America who have been biding their time waiting for it to happen. (I don't think 9-11 was a government conspiracy any more than I think Pearl Harbor was connived at by the American leadership, but both events were exploited by people who were relieved and frankly overjoyed by the events). Between the Executive Order of November 2001 (arrest and hold indefinitely any aliens we don't like) to the Patriot Act (eavesdrop on the whole US population and throw aliens into hellholes outside the US where they can be tortured and the Courts won't have jurisdiction), it's certainly not safe for non-citizens to walk around in this country. All it takes is a denunciation and a cool story and the visitor you don't like can be gitmo'd and beyond the ability of US Courts to spring them in a New York minute.

For those of you who think you're safe because you're US Citizens, guess again.

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.


When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out

St. Raymond Niemoller

===============================================

Speak out, people. Ignore your rights and they will CONTINUE to go away.

Answer 4

I agree with these sentiments wholeheartedly. These are just some of the reasons why Dubya and his clique of crooks in Washington are so dangerous. Most of the public doesn't seem to realize the dangers posed by their power grabs, and they proceed to merrily go about life as though no risk to their freedoms exists at all. I can tell you by knowing his track record that Dubya is not to be trusted on anything. Anyone who goes to such great lengths to cover his tracks, as he does, has surely got something to hide.

Look forward to the day when Dubya and Company are no longer in Washington. Only then can the thinking public breathe a huge sigh of relief. The rest will simply go on living their lives of complete ignorant bliss and complacency.

Answer 5

The very ultimate courtroom overruled the argument that the form or rights of habeas corpus do no longer word in Rasul v. Bush. Civil rights notwithstanding, could be suspended in time of conflict, and Habeas corpus pertains to criminal lawsuits and to no longer "enemy fighters," who could be detained for the period of "the conflict" See Padilla. Al Mari replaced into no longer an enemy combatant because of the fact he replaced into caught interior the U. S. and in no way actually fought. In Al Mari v. Wright The courtroom held that "because of the fact Congress has no longer empowered the President to undertaking civilian alien terrorists interior of united statesa. to indefinite protection stress detention... we choose no longer, and don't, verify no remember if one among those furnish of authority could violate the form. particularly, we merely carry that the form would not furnish the President performing on my own with this authority". The regulation now provides sufficient alleviation for detainees and till all provisions for judicial evaluate are exhausted, the debate isn't ripe for extremely ultimate courtroom evaluate. yet see Justices Stevens and Kennedy's dissent in Boumedienne. exciting subject, i'm going to could desire to study it greater later.

Answer 6

Habeas Corpus can be suspended with reasonable cause. For example, during WW2, we were at war with Japan, and all Japanese people were taken from the west coast, because of Pearl Harbor. You want to keep the general population safe from any harm, even if it means taking the rights of certain people away

Answer 7

Lincoln was the first. No one questioned him then because it was for a good cause.

Breaking the law for a good cause has become the only law of American politics these days.

I don't like the way things are, that doesn't make it untrue.

Answer 8

who taught you to make lies look true? You know not even what habeas corpus is: seeking relief from unlawful imprisonment.. which is a common petition of criminals who own a liberal judge somewhere.. When you know you can get the evidence suppressed, you us it to get out of jail free! Military and wartime supression of HC is to keep america's wariors on the battle front and not having to spend most of thier time in a court room describing how and why we captured some rotton war criminal..