Garrison Keillor on the suspension of habeas corpus

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Congress' shameful retreat from American values -- Garrison Keillor

October 4, 2006

I would not send my college kid off for a semester abroad if I were you. Last week, we suspended human rights in America, and what goes around comes around. Ixnay habeas corpus.

The U.S. Senate, in all its splendor and majesty, decided that an "enemy combatant" is any non-citizen whom the president says is an enemy combatant, including your Korean greengrocer or your Swedish grandmother or your Czech au pair, and can be arrested and held for as long as authorities wish without any right of appeal to a court of law to examine the matter.

If your college kid were to be arrested in Bangkok or Cairo, suspected of "crimes against the state" and held in prison, you'd assume that an American foreign service officer would be able to speak to your kid and arrange for a lawyer, but this may not be true anymore.

Be forewarned. The Senate also decided it's up to the president to decide whether it's OK to make these enemies stand naked in cold rooms for a couple of days in blinding light and be beaten by interrogators. This is now purely a bureaucratic matter: The plenipotentiary stamps the file "enemy combatants" and throws the poor schnooks into prison and at his leisure he tries them by any sort of kangaroo court he wishes to assemble and they have no right to see the evidence against them, and there is no appeal.

This was passed by 65 senators and will now be signed by President Bush, put into effect, and in due course be thrown out by the courts. It's good that Barry Goldwater is dead because this would have killed him. Go back to the Senate of 1964--Goldwater, Dirksen, Russell, McCarthy, Javits, Morse, Fulbright--and you won't find more than 10 votes for it.

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. Any institution of higher learning that grants honorary degrees to these people forfeits its honor:

Alexander, Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Burr, Carper, Chambliss, Coburn, Cochran, Coleman, Collins, Cornyn, Craig, Crapo, DeMint, DeWine, Dole, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Graham, Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Isakson, Johnson, Kyl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lott, Lugar, Martinez, McCain, McConnell, Menendez, Murkowski, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Pryor, Roberts, Rockefeller, Salazar, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith, Specter, Stabenow, Stevens, Sununu, Talent, Thomas, Thune, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner.

To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott: Mark their names and mark them well. For them, no minstrel raptures swell. High though their titles, proud their name, boundless their wealth as wish can claim, these wretched figures shall go down to the vile dust from whence they sprung, unwept, unhonored and unsung.

Three Republican senators made a show of opposing the bill and after they'd collected all the praise they could get, they quickly folded. Why be a hero when you can be fairly sure that the court will dispose of this piece of garbage.

If, however, the court does not, then our country has taken a step toward totalitarianism. If the government can round up someone and never be required to explain why, then it's no longer the United States as you and I always understood it. Our enemies have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They have made us become like them.

I got some insight last week into who supports torture when I went down to Dallas to speak at Highland Park Methodist Church. It was spooky. I walked in, was met by two burly security men with walkie-talkies, and within 10 minutes was told by three people that this was the Bushes' church and that it would be better if I didn't talk about politics. I was there on a book tour for Homegrown Democrat," but they thought it better if I didn't mention it. So I tried to make light of it: I told the audience, "I don't need to talk politics. I have no need even to be interested in politics--I'm a citizen, I have plenty of money and my grandsons are at least 12 years away from being eligible for military service." And the audience applauded! Those were their sentiments exactly. We've got ours, and who cares?

The Methodists of Dallas can be fairly sure that none of them will be snatched off the streets, flown to Guantanamo Bay, stripped naked, forced to stand for 48 hours in a freezing room with deafening noise. So why should they worry? It's only the Jews who are in danger, and the homosexuals and gypsies. The Christians are doing fine. If you can't trust a Methodist with absolute power to arrest people and not have to say why, then whom can you trust?

----------

Garrison Keillor is a syndicated columnist and host of "A Prairie Home Companion."

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

[I'm Gone 60]

http://216.110.172.115/pulito.htm

When one considers all that occurred during the very turbulent period of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln is usually considered to be a hero. During his presidency, he managed to keep the United States of America together and gave a people held in bondage, American slaves, the freedom they so desperately deserved. Like almost every president who preceded him, Lincoln's actions at the time were somewhat controversial. Some of his most controversial decisions might actually be considered now to be abuses of the Presidential power. During his terms as president, he suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and upheld the Declaration of Independence above the Constitution.

The writ of Habeas Corpus protects Americans from being unjustly imprisoned. Without it, law is a sham. The writ creates the gap between freedom and despotism. Its origin dates back to the formation of our country, and the tenet that all men have equality under the law. The writ ensures that no on can be unjustly imprisoned. Any prisoner feeling this right is being abused has the ability to petition to be seen before a judge, who can declare his arrest unlawful and have him released. Yet, during the initial year of the American Civil War, Lincoln used his power and removed that right, first in Baltimore, New York, and eventually the entire union. He authorized military officers to suspend the writ before he made an official proclamation. Joshua Kleinfeld, an author who has researched this issue, wrote that "when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since.

Lincoln contended that he removed the Writ in order to ensure victory and preserve the union. In fact he preserved more power for himself and removed a great deal from the United States legislative and judicial branches. The first proclamation to remove the Writ of Habeas Corpus was made in September of 1862. Not only did this proclamation, which had no scheduled end, remove the writ, it also established Marshall law. It gave full power to close down "hostile, anti war newspapers," and to arrest individuals for protesting the war.

Lincoln removed a great deal of power from the legislative branch with this proclamation. He was not empowered under the Constitution to make such a declaration. In fact, that right belonged to Congress alone. Roger Taney, Supreme Court Chief Justice, contended that Article I of the Constitution declares: "a state of rebellion is the only time when Congress could declare the writ removed." He also believed: "This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive branch.."

The Supreme Court went on to order Lincoln to bring prisoners who had been arrested without reason before the court. He refused on the notion that the writ's suspension gave him that right to do so. Lincoln contended that, "It was not believed that any law was violated". The fact that he got away with suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus gave more power to the presidency during a time of war than ever before. Nearly 100 years later, Franklin D. Roosevelt, would once again abolish the writ in order to imprison Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Lincoln set a precedent which F.D.R later used to justify his own wartime actions.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Wow. Thank you. I was not aware of the details of the precedents. It is a pretty frightening situation fraught with dangerous potential.

[I'm Gone 60]

Wow. Thank you. I was not aware of the details of the precedents. It is a pretty frightening situation fraught with dangerous potential.

The difference is Lincoln and FDR used this against American citizens, but they are thought of as two of the greatest presidents.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Wow. Thank you. I was not aware of the details of the precedents. It is a pretty frightening situation fraught with dangerous potential.

The difference is Lincoln and FDR used this against American citizens, but they are thought of as two of the greatest presidents.

Just because they did it with their own reasons for doing it, doesn't make it right. As much credit as we give our past leaders, we also have to recognize their failings and in the case of suspending habeas corpus, they were DEAD WRONG. History should never give us an excuse to violate our Constitution.

[pedroh 21]

Wow. Thank you. I was not aware of the details of the precedents. It is a pretty frightening situation fraught with dangerous potential.

The difference is Lincoln and FDR used this against American citizens, but they are thought of as two of the greatest presidents.

Just because they did it with their own reasons for doing it, doesn't make it right. As much credit as we give our past leaders, we also have to recognize their failings and in the case of suspending habeas corpus, they were DEAD WRONG. History should never give us an excuse to violate our Constitution.

WTFPWNED

[Marc and Olga 0]

Wow. Thank you. I was not aware of the details of the precedents. It is a pretty frightening situation fraught with dangerous potential.

The difference is Lincoln and FDR used this against American citizens, but they are thought of as two of the greatest presidents.

You don't think our current president MIGHT decide you or I would be "enemy combantants" if we do not view things as he does?

Remember the Patriot Act?

[GaryC 7]

You don't think our current president MIGHT decide you or I would be "enemy combantants" if we do not view things as he does?

Remember the Patriot Act?

Only if you are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. Then you get what you deserve. IMO people like that lawyer that was passing notes from that blind sheik to his buddies deserves a trial for treason.

[mybackpages 0]

Garrison Keillor is a national treasure. Nuff said.