I guess old Abe Lincoln took a "steaming dump on the Constitution" when he suspended the writ of habeus corpus, too? Like it or not, even free societies have routinely come to the conclusion that certain rules can be modified in times of war. If you disagree, hey, that's your right, but there's basically no basis for the idea that this puts us on par with a dictatorship.

It has historical precedent, and hell, it just makes sense. We're fighting an enemy which knows our rules and exploits the living daylights out of them on a regular basis. To suggest that we must uphold them all without even temporary exceptions to protect some of the very people undermining them is to show a profound lack of understanding of the situation, in my opinion.

But, if you get some sort of pathological satisfaction out of (literally) demonizing people who feel differently from you, then rant on.

Read your Constitution. Read it carefully.

"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."

While it does state "invasion of the public safety," that statement is much more broad and contestable than the explicit reference to "rebellion." Which is what the Civil War was. It seems to be referring in its sort of runaround fashion to the actual physical invasion of the country. Because, quite frankly, everything is an invasion of the public safety. Are we going to suspend habeus corpus for electricians who wire houses wrong? No.

Damn, I knew I should have put it all on a trifecta.

I mean, who really thinks that after spending 15 months away from their families, in grueling conditions, people deserve to be home at least as long as they were away?

I have to take away your rights in order for you to keep them?

All I can think of is 'he punishes me because he loves me'

Lincoln's decision was, first, temporary, not open-ended; second, it was undertaken during an open rebellion actually fought upon American soil - and there's a huge fucking difference between the Civil War and a handful of god-crazy yahoos dressed in dirty bedsheets on the far side of the world. Thirdly, it was struck down by his Supreme Court.

Finally, this is not a "time of war" by any reasonable measure. The existence of the United States is not in any way threatened by these bozos - even the most "dangerous" of them. It disgusts me that so many Americans panic over the word "terrorism" without any comprehension of the extent of the actual material threat it poses to our way of life.

Here's a hint. It's none.

Overrreactions like this, which destroy our freedoms to no legitimate purpose, and lead us into unwinnable wars in other hemispheres - these are the only serious threats that "terrorism" poses.

All that habeas corpus allows is a judicial review of cases. If there's a legitimate reason to expect wrongdoing, they go back into prison. If there isn't, then why the fuck are we holding them? It makes no sense whatsoever unless you trust in the absolute infallibility of the executive branch and perversely believe that the judicial branch is incapable of making a correct decision about anything. Neither of these propositions can be held seriously by anyone sane, mature, and in regular contact with the outside world.

If if wasn't for the fact the Bush gets his direction from the giant man who lives in the clouds, I would totally agree with your skepticism.

Oh, right. I forgot about Giant Cloud Man. But - doesn't OBL get his directions from the same source?

This is so confusing.

Not "invasion of the public safety." I wouldn't ordinarily correct you, but it makes a difference. The Constitution very clearly refers to rebellion or invasion as the only legitimate reasons for the writ's suspension.

Now, this law might do an end-run around that, because it could be argued that foreigners aren't protected by our laws even in custody, and American "enemy combatants" are obviously in rebellion, so it's all peachy.

It's bullshit reasoning, of course, but after nearly seven years of these fuckwits in power, you should be used to it. I know I am.

Alright, I'm not going to argue every point made by half a dozen people, but I will respond to a few things:

Right. It's a matter of degree, then. Which means people are free to disagree, but they can't go around waving their hands in the air as if they have some sort of definitive proof that the Constitution is being shredded. It's not; the President just disagrees with you as to the threat level.

No, you have to suspend certain laws temporarily when under attack. There's historical precedence for this. Also, the phrase "your rights" is misleading; it lumps all "rights" together, as if they were of equal importance, and as if they were all subject to suspension. That's not the case.

Well, then clearly all conservatives abuse their wives.

...which he then completely ignored. I can't even imagine the kind of rage people would fly into if Dubya did something comparable. Also, I don't believe anything in the written suspension specified any kind of set timeframe.

It's disturbing when people panic for no reason, but it's just a disturbing when people go to the opposite extreme, and deny the existence of a demonstrable threat, just to avoid being labeled among the hysterics.

This is a time of war. To claim otherwise is to use a wildly outdated definition of the word. That's why there are so many legal arguments: because war itself is mutating. Its customs are being eroded and deformalized as time goes on. To insist that we hold to a rigid definition of war in the face of such fundamental change is equivalent to insisting that we start taking turns shooting at each other, like some sort of turn-based strategy game.

No, it also makes sense if you recognize that strict burdens of proof and due process are an incredible bitch when you're fighting a war; especially one against an army that doesn't wear uniforms and readily hides among civilians. In that sense, there's actual a great similarity between Lincoln's action and this one, as he specifically mentioned the citizenry aiding the rebellion as one of the reasons for the suspension.

Mentally, I threw in that "of" because 1781 punctuation is so awful.

Also, it should be noted that the initial blog entry here fails to mention the Republican rationale for blocking the bill; namely, that it's actually a "backdoor" for removing troops, and stops replacements from rotating into Iraq, even if the generals on the ground determine they are necessary.

It's upsetting to see on either side of the aisle, but it's an inevitable political reality that both parties will sometimes vote down certain measures simply because they know them to be an attempt to push further measures.

You know what sickens me?

When people try to draw favorable comparisons and/or associations between this current crop of hamfisted meatbeasts and Abraham Fucking Lincoln.

How is it bullshit reasoning? The question of whether or not the law should protect people actively and violently seeking to destroy the system which protects them is a huge legal question. If you think you've got that moral quagmire figured out, then you're a better man than I, but I think anyone who pretends to have the answer to it is bullshitting themselves.

Yeah, I've seen that line of rationale before. It is like Godwin's Law, just more full of failure.

and Wookie2, the 'he punishes me because he loves me' wasn't meant to say that conservatives beat their wives. It makes me sad that I actually had to explain that to you.

A) As opposed to the "backdoor" draft that keeps them in after their tours are over? Which is worse?

B) Funny you should mention the "generals on the ground." Of course they'll determine the troops are necessary, because they're simply amplifiers for Bush. Think of Petraeus's surge report - written by the White House. Think of all the retired generals that supported the war while they were "on the ground" but immediately went before congress to testify against it when they resigned. The "generals on the ground" are opinionless fucks whose main job it has become to maintain the war for Bush's sake instead of doing what they feel is right.

No, there was no set timeframe, but limits were clearly set by the war itself, which would eventually be either won or lost.

The "War on Terror" will never have a decisive victory or defeat. Because it's not a real war.

And I should cretainly hope that people would fly into a rage if Dubya pulled that shit. They flew into a rage when Lincoln did, and Lincoln was actually a competent president who was trying to accomplish some legitimate purposes.

Exactly what "demonstrable threat" is there to the existence of the United States? Seriously, I want to know.

I agree that the face of war is changing. War in the traditional sense no longer exists, and hasn't for awhile.

And, excepting the quagmires which your president's fear, greed, and incompetence have led us into, we are not at war. There is certainly no compelling reason to dignify al-Qaeda's actions with such a term.

Again, what threat is there to the existence of the United States?

That's what happens in a war - your country's existence is threatened. That's certainly what happens in case of "rebellion or invasion."

That is not what's happening here, by any conceivable stretch of terminology.

You didn't, actually; I apparently have to explain my sarcasm to you.

I honestly don't know. And since when does defending even one aspect of the administration's policies required me to defend all the others?

Wow. If that's what you think, then I'll have to politely decline discussing the matter with you. Suffice to say, I find it rather convenient to label anyone who disagrees a puppet.