November 13, 2005
In light of the ratification of the Graham Amendment,
which would overturn last year's Supreme Court ruling which allowed
Guantanemo prisoners the right to question the legality of their
detentions before a court, we can now state legally-truthfully (not
merely warning, nor talking in propaganda so as to get you to move):
U.S.-Made Civil Liberties Are Nearly DEAD! (And the qualifier,
'nearly', holds only till the House too converts the idea into
reality.)
This took place in a vote that
was taken in the United States Senate, on Friday November 11, 2005. The
final tally was reported to have been 49-42; and, five of those Yes
votes came from Democratic Party Senators! They can't even defend the
most basic of human rights. To the utter shame of the Democrats, four
of the No votes were cast by the Republicans. So, if the Democratic
Party had a real platform that truthfully stated that no party member
may betray the civil liberties of the Americans, the No votes could
have easily killed the amendment.
Thank Democrats for giving all they can: Frills, Superfluities!
Is there a single 'Democratic Issue' left that has not been handed over?
You don't really need to go to any radical publications to figure this one out. We recommend the Wikipedia.
Really! Here is a highlight from the free encyclopedia we go to
frequently for basic fact-checking, and as it turns out, that's all you
need to do these days to get an analytical view of what's going on. You
don't believe us? Check it!
Item: in the Wikipedia, under 'habeas corpus', the below passage comes under the subheading, 'Habeas corpus in the United States', and lists the only two instances of habeas corpus
having been suspended in that country. Read in just the right light,
you can see that the real target of the passage of the above-mentioned
law in the US Senate, may have less to do with fighting the fictional
'war on terror', and may have more to do with preparing to fight in
full force the ordinary citizens and the working classes of the United
States. It appears that a civil war is what the rulers are preparing for and not a 'war on terror'.
The Working Peoples of the United States of American: Take The Clue Seriously; And Do So Fast!
Habeas Corpus
(from: Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia)
Suspension during the Civil War and Reconstruction
Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana.
He did so in response to riots, local militia actions and the threat
that the Southern slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union
leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., in the south. He was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis
also suspended the Habeas Corpus and imposed martial law. This was in
part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to
compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.
In 1864,
Lambdin Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal
Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced
to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until
May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. It was decided in the Supreme Court case Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 1866
that the suspension was unconstitutional because civilian courts were
still operating, and the Constitution (according to the Court) provided
for suspension of habeas corpus only if these courts are actually forced closed. This was one of the key Supreme Court Cases of the American Civil War, which dealt primarily with wartime civil liberties and martial law.
In the early 1870's, President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act.
The Civil War and Second World War habeas corpus decisions have attracted renewed interest since September 11, 2001 in light of the second Bush administration’s assertion of presidential authority to designate even U.S. citizens as enemy unlawful combatants and hold them indefinitely, without criminal charges or access to counsel.
Suspension during the War on Terrorism
Illegal combatants imprisoned at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have no apparent right to habeas corpus.
The PATRIOT Act of 2001 gives the President of the United States the power to declare anyone suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism, as an Enemy combatant. As an Enemy combatant that person can be held without charges being filed against him/her. Enemy combatants can be held indefinitely without charges or a court hearing and are not even entitled to legal consult.
Many legal and constitutional scholars would contend that these provisions of the PATRIOT Act are in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights. Specifically, American citizens declared Enemy combatants under the PATRIOT Act may be denied their constitutional rights, as set forth in Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8. One recent example is the Jose Padilla case.
