

U.S. Senate considering to suspend habeas corpus - gasull
http://www.elliottwave.com/freeupdates/archives/2010/04/21/What-Police-State-Legislation-Looks-Like.aspx

======
hga
" _The bill's sponsors are surely aware that much of the language is
flagrantly unconstitutional._ "

Garbage, and it's even a power that is clearly given to the Congress in
Article I Section 9:
[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Sta...](http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#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._ "

~~~
ratsbane
That last clause is quite clear, isn't it? "...unless when in Cases of
Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

\- It says "invasion." This doesn't mean just an attack, even if it is a
successful terrorist attack by nineteen people. Wikipedia has a good
definition: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion> Thus, except in cases of
rebellion or invasion, Habeas Corpus may not be suspended. As far as I know
this country has not suffered a rebellion since 1865 and has never been
invaded.

\- The constitution also says "...the public Safety may require it." Thus even
if there were an invasion or rebellion, it's not automatic.

~~~
hga
It's certainly arguable that a _series_ of attacks by foreigners in an auto-
conspiracy (a group of like minded people) that is explicit and public about
its goal of destroying the United States (as a political entity) and enslaving
its population (well, those who don't convert) constitutes an "invasion".

Heck, half of those 19 were reattacking a target that the auto-conspiracy had
failed to destroy earlier (while it woudln't have worked, they were trying to
topple one tower into the other; fortunately the bomb prematured on a ramp).

So I don't count this as "flagrantly unconstitutional".

One frequently mentioned example nowadays of this is the Nazi saboteurs who
landed in the US from submarine and were dealt with as spies, not afforded the
civil liberties of the period.

~~~
hga
Feel free to down vote me, but I'd really like to hear the arguments that this
doesn't constitute an "invasion" in any reasonable construction of the
Constitution.

What if a good part of Manhattan Island and D.C. are reduced to radioactive
slag sometime this decade? Will that count as an "invasion"? Will we _then_
regret treating this issue like a law enforcement problem instead of like a
war?

(Do you think we'll forever be able to avoid the jihadist's being able to
light off a nuke on or above an American city?)

------
dzlobin
Alright, first of all, not it isn't.

The senate has a ton of horrible, nonsensical bills that are introduced, but
they never see the light of day.

This is just linkbait and a two paragraph explanation of some obscure McCain
bill that nobody will care about.

~~~
hga
I wouldn't say it's entirely nonsensical.

The Miranda-izing of the Christmas "Knicker Bomber" resulted in a loss of
intelligence about what is going on in the rather hot area of Yemen, the same
place where Anwar al-Awlaki is thought to be residing, who is an American
citizen _whom the President of the United States has ordered the "targeted
killing" of_ (!!! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-
Awlaki#Current_status>).

Nonsensical, perhaps, in that in practice the Congress can't force the
Executive's hand like this, but perhaps adding a little clarity here might
help in the long run.

