Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-18-2006, 05:38 PM
Mickey Brausch Mickey Brausch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,209
Default Re: Habeas Corpus derailed?

[ QUOTE ]

A privilege that can be suspended is hardly something that is guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]A privilege that can be suspended only in case of rebellion or invasion is not guaranteed?

This is highly illogical, as Mr Spock would say.

BTW, I cannot understand what "guaranteed" means in this context. Either something is a right that American citizens have (with whatever restrictions or limitations) under their constitution or it isn't.

Mickey Brausch
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-18-2006, 07:28 PM
vulturesrow vulturesrow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Right
Posts: 7,937
Default Re: Habeas Corpus derailed?

Im not quibbling over semantics with you. Habeas corpus is quite clearly not an unassailable right, which fact one can glean from the writing of the clause in the Constitution. If youd like to discuss whether or not you think foreign terrorism constitutes an invasion, Id be happy to have that conversation, as I have not made up my mind on that personally. But Im done with this particular facet of the habeas corpus discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-18-2006, 08:12 PM
New001 New001 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gogogogo, Madagascar
Posts: 6,914
Default Re: Habeas Corpus derailed?

Mickey, I think vulturesrow is correct here. Calling it a right is a little disingenuous, but the passage you quoted is quite explicit that it can be revoked under those circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-19-2006, 09:18 PM
Mickey Brausch Mickey Brausch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,209
Default Re: Habeas Corpus derailed?

I'm not an expert in constitutiuonal law but an "unassailable right" seems to me like a characterization of a right, rather than an explicit consittutional description. In other words, what is an unassailable right for some, e.g. the right to bear arms, is not so unassailable for others.

Habeas Corpus has a long and bloody histoty behind it. It's a right that was won out from the European monarchs with many a life lost. For some, it's the cornerstone of a free and democratic society, because it constitutes a basic protection for the citizen. Calling it a privilege surely cannot mean that it's like a membership to a private club. And the fact that a right can be revoked (even the freedom of speech can be revoked, e.g. in wartime) does not mean that it is not really a right.

Now, as to whether a terrorist campaign constitutes invasion (when undertaken by foreigners) or rebellion (when by natives), I'd think the latter has a much better logical basis than the former.

Invasion means the attacking and taking over of geographical areas; that's not how (modern) terrorism operates, though. But large-scale terrorism by American citizens can certainly be characterized as a form of rebellion.

Al Qaeda, no. The Weather Underground, yes.

Mickey Brausch
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.