What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law?

Setanta, Gonzala argued your point for a second before he got set straight. "Gonzales dispute spotlights habeas corpus questions
The U.S. attorney general told senators the Constitution doesn't give everyone the right to a defense in court -- it just says that the rightcan't be taken away.
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales provided laugh lines for comedians and fodder for outraged bloggers when he told senators recently that the Constitution does not specifically grant individuals the right to habeas corpus.

The Constitution appears to contradict him on that historic doctrine, which says those taken into custody have the right to plead their innocence before a judge. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended," it says, "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Most constitutional experts agree that phrase clearly guarantees the right of habeas corpus. And Gonzales himself later clarified that he believes Americans do have that right.

But in a clumsy way, Gonzales was making a claim that underpins the Bush administration's view that "enemy combatants," including the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, are not entitled to fight the government in court.

The dispute involves not only the Constitution but also a law that spells out the reach of habeas corpus. The issue, which sparked the exchange between Gonzales and the senators, is the focus of a bill before Congress as well as cases involving "enemy combatants" that appear headed to the Supreme Court.

Many senators, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and its ranking Republican, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., believe the right to habeas corpus should apply broadly and include alleged foreign terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/978054.html

Thank you, blueflame. Your article confirms, for me at least, that my idea of habeas corpus is mostly right.

The Controversy over Curtailing Habeas Corpus Rights: Why It Is a Bad Day For The Constitution Whenever Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Testifies
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jan. 26, 2007

In the history of U.S. Attorney Generals, Alberto Gonzales is constantly reaching for new lows. So dubious is his testimony that he is not afforded the courtesy given most cabinet officers when appearing on Capitol Hill: Congress insists he testify under oath. Even under oath, Gonzales's purported understanding of the Constitution is historically and legally inaccurate, far beyond the bounds of partisan interpretation.

No wonder that with each appearance he makes on Capitol Hill, Gonzales increases his standing as one of the least respected Attorney Generals ever, in the eyes of both Congressional cognoscenti and the legal community. His most recent appearance bordered on the pathetic.

On January 18, Gonzales appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), now the committee's ranking minority member and former chairman, asked him a series of questions. With no wish to be snide, nor less than respectful of the post Gonzales holds, I must confess that watching his testimony makes me deeply uncomfortable. Gonzales does not seem to know when he is making a fool of himself, and I can't tell if he is suffering from empty-suit syndrome or an unhealthy case of hubris.

Whatever the explanation, one thing is clear: Gonzales's latest testimony provided a micro-moment of how the Bush/Cheney Administration does business, and how it plays fast and loose with Americans' fundamental rights.

How President Bush Made a Fool of His Attorney General
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070126.html

Just to make my position clear, I think habeas corpus is a most fundamental element of our constitutional republic/democracy, I also think Bush skirts around the very edges of constitutional legality with enough double speak and bullshit to gag a maggot. However, there are definite limits to just how far he can push without being stepped on harshly (ala R Nixon)

A NYT article from last year:Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.


Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don't blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they'll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won't remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They'll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Speeches like this by people of such stature are not the norm O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave. "Sandra Day O'Connor Warns of Dictatorship" http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/27691

I would open an after curfew club with hookers, drugs and hard liquor and make a freaking fortune.

So far, the evidence that Blueflame and C.I. have presented has referred to foreign nationals, and not to citizens. Whereas the Shrub and Company may well like to suspend habeas corpus for citizens, neither of you have presented evidence that they have, or that they intend to do so. Neither have you shown that Federal courts would be quiescent in the face of such a move. Unfortunately, i find i must agree with Baldimo's Chicken Little remark.

Don't overrate your significance in my life, Blueflame. In the first place, i did not "come here in a snit." I answered the question of the thread, and you went off over it. In the second place, i ignore 90% or more of your ranting threads, so your contention that i habitually respond to you "in a snit" is just so much horse poop.

Once again, you need to get over it. So soon as you provide evidence that the administration has willfully, consistently and successfully denied to citizens their constitutional rights, you will get my attention. Otherwise, this is just another of your hysterical rant threads, and that character to your contributions at this site is the reason that i respond to so few.

I would go to Bi-polar Bear's club and keep my head down.

Set, You don't think Bush's illegal wiretaps (without FISA approval) doesn't affect American citizens?

José Padilla (alleged supporter of terrorism)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from José Padilla (alleged terrorist))

Jose Padilla, shown in a driver's license photo released shortly after his arrest.José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a U.S. citizen accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the normal protection of U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions. On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida jail to face criminal conspiracy charges.

C.I., do you contend that the wiretaps have been used against citizens without reference to allegations of criminal activity? If so, do you have evidence that any such wire taps have been challenged in court? Do you claim that no other administration has illegally performed wire taps, and do you contend therefore that this administration is unique in that respect?

Sentanta, my hysterical rants endorse the hysterical rants of Leahy, Spector and Bond and others in Congress who feel the need to take back powers given to the Presidency by the last Congress. It isn't what Bushie has yet done with his new powers as much as it is the unconstitutional powers themselves. You can stick with the Gonzalaz position if you want but even he changed his mind.

C.I., do you contend that the wiretaps have been used against citizens without reference to allegations of criminal activity? If so, do you have evidence that any such wire taps have been challenged in court? Do you claim that no other administration has illegally performed wire taps, and do you contend therefore that this administration is unique in that respect?

******************************************

You're playing a game, C.I. Your Wikipedia article on Padilla also contains the following information on the applications for writs of habeas corpus in the Padilla case:



You also left out one important bit of information in the Wikipedia article:



So you have failed to demonstrate that the current administration has willfully, consistently and successfully denied citizens their constitutional rights. You have cited a single case, which has not yet been resolved, and in which the citizen in question has been the subject of more than one application for a writ. You also ignore that Padilla was detained (even if wrongfully) on the basis of a Congressionally approved act, and that he is also now subject to the recent Military Comission Act, also Congressionally approved. Whether or not these acts will stand up to judicial scrutiny is yet to be seen.

You haven't made your case, nor have you answered my call for evidence that this administration willfully, consistently and successfully denies to citizens their constitutional rights. I think they're a bunch of arrogant, venal creeps--but that is not evidence that they have consistently and successfully acted illegally, for however much they may have wanted to do.

It is just incredible to me that you continue not to be sufficiently adroit to look at the page and spell my screen name correctly.

You are attempting to erect a straw man. I can't stick with a position i have never advocated. You can by god stop slandering me just because i've pointed out that your positions are typically hysterical. Claiming without a shred of justice that i endorse any position of that little **** Gonzales is just further evidence of the extent to which you are always willing to react hysterically to someone who disagrees with your paranoid conspiracy theories.

Setanta, sorry. My habit with your name is to spell it as I say it to myself. For some reason I stick some "n"s in there. I do not do it intentionally. As for Gonzalaz yes as far as I can see you've taken a similar argument. As for hysterics you make some strong statements about my posts time and again ignoring the many Americans who say the same thing and in this case many in Congress from both sides of the aisle. There is a reason after all why Congress feels the need to overturn legislation that gives the Presidency more power than the Constitution allows. We are in the midst of a battle and Constitutional crisis. As far as martial law is concerned Gen. Tommy Franks warned us the next terrorist attack could mean martial law. Brezinski just warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the possibility of false flag terrorist attacks. Hysterical.

First on the definition of "civil war."

Civil war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.[1]

Bush's attack was on Constitution
By Gary Hart
Article Last Updated: 02/03/2007 01:32:46 PM MST


The endless Iraq war is decreasingly about Iraq and increasingly about the U.S. Constitution.

President Bush's decision to escalate the war, and to further Americanize it, is based on his flawed and dangerous theory of the "unitary presidency," a theory under which, once war is declared, the president as commander in chief can ignore constitutional checks and balances, disregard the Bill of Rights, suspend accountability and concentrate dictatorial power in his own hands.

History has already judged the invasion and occupation of Iraq as an American disaster of epic proportions. But an even more important judgment remains to be made: What damage has been done to the U.S. Constitution and our form of government in the name of the "war on terrorism" as cover for a neo-conservative agenda in the Middle East?

In rendering this judgment in years to come, constitutional scholars will take into account Congress' appalling suspension of habeas corpus, its approval of torture and rendition and its abdication of its oversight responsibilities. These congressional failures, however, will not be seen as cover or justification for an executive branch run totally amok.

George W. Bush will be held accountable in the court of history for manipulation of intelligence to serve his neo-conservative political agenda; his erosion of national security by the unnecessary exhaustion of our standing and reserve forces; his pathetic failure to respond to natural disasters; his unhinging of the national budget in the service of accumulated wealth; and his almost demented insistence that the U.S. military could put the lid back on a 1,300-year-old Islamic struggle that he himself had ignorantly removed.

In his adopted role as Captain Ahab, Bush will extend the tours of four combat brigades and add another to the Iraqi meat-grinder, all in the name of pacifying the capital city where, even today, F-18 aircraft are bombing neighborhoods to rout out insurgents. Thirty-five years ago in Vietnam, this was called "pacification." "Secure and hold" will fail equally for a simple reason: patience. It requires no MBA from Harvard to know that military occupations, unless they are intended to be permanent, will be defeated by insurgents who wait for the occupiers to leave.

All this will have to be tidied up on the watch of the unfortunate next president, who must assume - on top of many other duties left unfinished - the job of restoring the health, integrity and capability of the armed forces now so eroded by a war they should never have been called upon to wage.

Likewise, the price for this folly will live long after Bush departs. Were he sincere in the faith he professes, he would require those who have benefited the most from his tax cuts, those now increasing the size of their gilded yachts, to adopt one of the families of the more than 25,000 American military casualties. Each Bush billionaire can surely afford to care for the widow and orphans of one of the fallen or to provide long-term physical and mental care for one of the wounded in body and mind as a result of his folly.

Surely now, even the most cynical neo-conservative is prepared to declare victory. Iraq is no longer an imminent threat to U.S. national security, not that it ever was. We have rid ourselves of the tyrant Saddam Hussein (though it was never quite clear why he, among several dozen tyrants, deserved our special attention), and we have given the Iraqi people freedom, which they are now using to kill each other.

What we, the most dominant military power in history, cannot do is impose peace on a nation with scores to settle. Needed now is not a surge of military forces. Needed now is a surge of citizen commitment to restore the Constitution of the United States of America.

From CNN.com:

Two groups sue over NSA wiretap program
Complaints: Bush exceeding presidential authority

Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Posted: 9:59 p.m. EST (02:59 GMT)

RELATED
Interactive: Eavesdropping explainer

• Gore: Resist Bush's 'power grab'
• Gonzales defends NSA program
• Specter a skeptic on NSA spying
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS

National Security Agency (NSA)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
George W. Bush
Justice and Rights
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This? NEW YORK (CNN) -- Two lawsuits were filed Tuesday against the National Security Agency over its no-warrant wiretapping program, claiming the domestic eavesdropping is unconstitutional and that President Bush exceeded his authority by authorizing it.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of several journalists, authors, scholars and organizations.

Separately, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of "clients who fit the criteria described by the attorney general for targeting" under the program.

The ACLU's 60-page complaint names the NSA and its director, Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, as defendants, and the New York suit names the NSA, Alexander and "the heads of the other major security agencies." (Watch White House respond to suits -- 1:31)

"President Bush may believe he can authorize spying on Americans without judicial or congressional approval, but this program is illegal, and we intend to put a stop to it," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said.

Responding to the lawsuits, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said, "We believe these cases are without merit and plan to vigorously defend against such charges."

And White House spokesman Scott McClellan said "the frivolous lawsuits ... do nothing to help enhance civil liberties or protect the American people."

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to intercept communications between people inside the United States, including American citizens, and terrorism suspects overseas, without obtaining a warrant.

Bush and other administration officials contend his constitutional powers as commander in chief as well as a congressional resolution passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks provide the legal authority for the no-warrant surveillance. (Watch the attorney general defend the program -- 4:16)

In a written statement, Romero said "surveillance of Americans is a chilling assertion of presidential power that has not been seen since the days of Richard Nixon."

In an interview Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the program, saying that it "has been carefully reviewed by lawyers from throughout the administration" and that "the president does have the legal authorities to authorize this program." (Full story)

But some Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have expressed skepticism about the program. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, plans to hold hearings about it next month. Gonzales is expected to testify. (Full story)

Al Gore, the former vice president and 2000 presidential candidate, said Monday that the use of the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans without court approval shows that Bush "has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently." (Full story)

'Rule of law'
Critics of the program point out that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 covers domestic wiretaps, requiring the government to go to a FISA court to seek a warrant within 72 hours of establishing such a wiretap.

"The prohibition against government eavesdropping on American citizens is well-established and crystal clear," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson, lead counsel in the group's lawsuit.

"President Bush's claim that he is not bound by the law is simply astounding. Our democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president can issue illegal orders that violate constitutional principles."

The ACLU lawsuit asks the court to find that the program violates the Constitution's First and Fourth amendments -- "free speech and associational rights" and "privacy rights" -- as well as the "principle of separation of powers" of the executive and legislative branches of government.

The lawsuit contends the spying program is illegal also because it fails to follow established law.

The other lawsuit seeks to protect the Center for Constitutional Rights' attorneys and their clients.

"Given that the government has accused many of CCR's overseas clients of being associated with al Qaeda or of interest to the 9/11 investigation, there is little question that these attorneys have been subject to the NSA surveillance program," said a statement issued by the group.

"The center filed today's lawsuit in order to protect CCR attorneys' right to represent their clients free of unlawful and unchecked surveillance.

"On this, the day following Martin Luther King Day, we are saddened that the illegal electronic surveillance that once targeted that great American has again become characteristic of our present government," Bill Goodman, CCR legal director, said in the statement.

"As was the case with Dr. King, this illegal activity is cloaked in the guise of national security. In reality, it reflects an attempt by the Bush administration to exercise unchecked power."

Both suits ask the courts to stop the program.


Set, It's unlawful, because the FISA court must approval all wiretaps against US citizens whether they are suspected of terrorist activities or not. That's a guarantee we have under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.