Home > Messages from the Ether > Habeas crapus

Habeas crapus

I resisted the urge to allow my head to explode from the insanity of the Military Commissions Act and its implications w/r/t habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions. The urge was immediately countered by the possibility that it wouldn't pass, or that it'd be thrown out from it's first challenge. Although, how many people will be hidden away from the possibility of challenge? Reading and commentary has made me re-think the level-headed, calm approach.

Required reading/watching:

• Congress' shameful retreat from American values (4 Oct 2006) - Garrison Keillor allows his head to xplode. None of the men and women who voted for this bill has any right to speak in public about the rule of law anymore, or to take a high moral view of the Third Reich, or to wax poetic about the American Ideal. Mark their names. Short opinion piece, and he's seething.
• Olbermann: the beginning of the end of America (18 Oct 2006) - Olberman takes us on a history lesson and details the offenses of the Military Commissions Act and builds on Keillor's anger. And then some. Crooks and Liars has a transcript.
• Olbermann: the death of habeus corpus (10 Oct 2006) - Olberman's warning when the Military Commissions Act was first presented in the Senate. Less angry and more aghast and satirical (with a cheeky reminder of the importance of trial by jury taken from faux-redacted excerpts from some sort of colonial Declaration of Independence or something thanks to modern post-9/11 thinking, those rights are now fully alienable...). Still, he emphasizes the basics of what's at risk.
• Why Guantanamo? (5 Oct 2006) - This, and many links provided in the Military Commissions Act article from Wikipedia linked above, comes from JURIST. It tellingly counters a comment I heard on NPR and hear from many conservatives: that they don't think the US Constitution should protect aliens in this country. Usually expressed "why should terrorists have the same rights as US citizens." With beliefs like that, a good deal of the population seems already willing to give up due process and presumed innocence. From JURIST: That purpose [of the Due Process Clause] is not just to protect citizens; if it were, the clause would presumably contain an explicit restriction, as some clauses do. Indeed, the Supreme Court has made clear that it protects non-citizens within the United States.