• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Patrice Thomas of Littleton writes:

The very idea of having to “Restore Habeas Corpus” is simply unbelievable. Any Senator who works to defeat this act is not a true Patriot. This is a fundamental safeguard of individual rights and has stood the test of time beyond our own history.
Passing this “Habeas Corpus Restoration Act” is an imperative. We will be watching.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

You're right Patrice, but unfortunately writing or calling your congressperson has proven to be a waste of time. They are not listening.
Only one of two things are going to restore America to the Constitutional Republic we had before this administration...either a mass uprising by We the People, on the order of public prostests held during the vietnam era, or the destruction of our government by a foreign power or powers, like when the world rose up to remove the nazis from power. I am hoping for the former.

Abraham Lincoln suspended HC and America survived him. And Abe made it all the way to Mt. Rushmore too.

If you got nothing to hide, then you got nothing to worry about!

Careful Hank, they might come after slow-witted rednecks next.

Hey Rude,

So Abe was a slow-witted redneck? I din't know that. How did he get to be Pres?

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 clearly states that the act refers to "alien unlawful enemy combatants" as being subject to the act. For you paranoid leftists out there, alien is defined as being a non-citizen of the United States.

Thus, your delusions about "taking away our rights of Habeas Corpus, is pure and simple delusional. No one's rights were taken away because as a CITIZEN, you are protected under the U.S. Constitution. If you are not a CITIZEN, you are an alien. Then, if you are an unlawful enemy combatant, (i.e. an insurgent or terrorist who does not wear a uniform and thus does not have Geneva Protection Rights) you don't have the right to go through the U.S. court system.

If you have any other questions, please read the actual law and not the kookville blogs.

First they came for the slow-witted rednecks, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a dip$h!t...

Hank said "If you got nothing to hide, then you got nothing to worry about! "

Are you confident that there is nothing you have to hide that would be of interest to a government led by Hillary Clinton, and if arrested for it, are you happy that she could keep you indefinitely and without any recourse to a lawyer or trial by your peers?

This situation doesn’t just count for the current administration but for this one and all future ones too.
So if your membership of a right-wing organization becomes “something of interest” to a future administration, a disabled habeas corpus and the current “Homeland Protection” laws would allow them to scrutinize your activities without a warrant, and keep you imprisoned without trial, without any legal representation, without notifying your next of kin, and without any visitation even from the Red Cross. They could also torture you (sorry, “use aggressive interrogation techniques”), and use evidence obtained from you or others under torture, and not even show you that evidence. They could even give you a trial under the enemy-combatants rules (Hillary could simply define you to be one), and you would not even be told that there was a trial, what you were charged with, or what the evidence was.

But you are happy with that since there is no way that Hillary would ever find you “interesting”, not even when you post “interesting” stuff on this blog.

Interesting.

If you got nothing to hide, then you got nothing to worry about!

Posted by Hank
****
I get real tired of that argument, it shows a total lack of comprehension of our legal ideals. It turns "innocent until proven guilty" backwards and inside out. It's not us who have to show we have nothing to hide, it's our governemnt who is supposed to show we've done something wrong before convicting us, and having a "probable cause" before arresting us.

Hank thinks it's up to him to decide whether or not he has something to hide. When the government comes calling, it doesn't ask you whether or not you have anything to hide. It decides that for itself. For example, as Bangalore suggested, there could be a government that decided that Hank's post makes him a serious threat that needs to be "neutralized". That's why we need protection from unreasonable decisions by the government.

As Nat Hentoff once pointed out, this erosion of our habaes corpus rights began with the rush to execute people (under Bill Clinton) and has now gotten to an absurd need to "restore" what has been historically inalienable.

Anyone can be labeled as an 'enemy combatant' by the powers that be, thus, even a citizen could be denied habeas corpus at the whim of the feds. Also, does anyone else think it is odd that Bush is briefing Hillary on how to handle the Iraq war already? He says its just in case she gets elected. Shouldn't that same logic be applied to all those running who are qualified to be commander in chief, like Ron Paul?

thanks for making my point for me Hank

POST A COMMENT

• Sacrifices never put in perspective
• Just leave equipment in Iraq or sell it and get out
• A DIFFERING VIEW: Automatic deductions aren’t a universal policy
• MoveOn.org’s ad
• Grocery stores selling liquor
• Endorsement for Jane Fancher-Westminster City Council
• Hillary Clinton’s health care plan
• Atheism