Republicans on Habeus Corpus

[ChrisV]

This offhand post by Ramesh Ponnuru at The Corner has been making waves in the blogosphere:

[ QUOTE ]
Crane says he was disappointed with Romney's answer to his question the other night. Crane asked if Romney believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review. Romney said he would want to hear the pros and cons from smart lawyers before he made up his mind. Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Serious question: How is it that there is ANYONE in the US willing to vote for people who say they will ignore the writ of habeus corpus "infrequently", or (more contemptible still) say they will need to consult people with working brains before they can issue an opinion on whether habeus corpus is a good idea? Is the US chock full of people completely clueless about the need for the most basic civil liberties? Isn't the protection of the freedom of the individual supposed to be the rock on which your country is founded?

I really don't get it. Is there anyone here willing to defend the idea that habeus corpus is one of those things you can just ignore when you don't feel like respecting it?

[Borodog]

Well, we were all taught to worship this guy:



Who arrested some 13,000 northern civillians and held them in military prisons without trial.

The point being, emphatically no, people do not understand the importance of individual liberties. The majority, raised in government schools to believe that governments can and do solve problems, are more than willing to trade freedom for security, and as a result, get neither.

[ChrisV]

Lincoln was in a tough spot, what he did might have been correct and has certainly turned out well. Anyway I don't want this thread to get hijacked by a debate over what Lincoln should or shouldn't have done, because that instance of suspension of habeas corpus is so completely different to the present day. Lincoln was tackling a civil war. The current government is dealing with nothing but a moderate threat of occasional terrorist attacks and is already well equipped to tackle the problem without ignoring basic civil liberties. Plus, the Republican administration has already shown a propensity for enthusiastically abusing these sorts of powers based on pretty flimsy evidence; see for instance Maher Arar and Jose Padilla.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Lincoln was in a tough spot, what he did might have been correct

[/ QUOTE ]

The ends justify the means?

[ QUOTE ]
and has certainly turned out well.

[/ QUOTE ]

+ results-oriented thinking.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Lincoln was in a tough spot, what he did might have been correct and has certainly turned out well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is very open to debate. Did it turn out well? More than 620,000 American lives were lost (roughly as many as every American casualty in the twentieth century combined). And it wasn't a push-button war either; a casualty in the civil war meant having your entrails ripped out with a rusty bayonet in the battelfield.

Secondly, slavery was struggling to exist economically at that point in time anyway, all over the world. You can only pay a slave enough not to get whipped; employed workers simply give you more bang for the buck. Every other major country in the world ended slavery without rallying half the country to go in and murder the slave owners.

Thirdly, the civil war preceded the industrial revolution, when America exploded with commerce and prosperity and became by far the world's wealthiest nation. Immigrants were flocking from everywhere to come over and work hard for cheap. Seems like some pretty stiff competition for slaves. Not to mention that, with the advent of the cotton thresher and other lovely devices in the early 1900's, all the slaves were about to have their jobs replaced by machines anyway.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
that instance of suspension of habeas corpus is so completely different to the present day. Lincoln was tackling a civil war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a war that he started. His removal of habeus corpus was both less warranted (not that it's ever actually warranted) and worse in magnitude.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Serious question: How is it that there is ANYONE in the US willing to vote for people who say they will ignore the writ of habeus corpus "infrequently", or (more contemptible still) say they will need to consult people with working brains before they can issue an opinion on whether habeus corpus is a good idea? Is the US chock full of people completely clueless about the need for the most basic civil liberties? Isn't the protection of the freedom of the individual supposed to be the rock on which your country is founded?

I really don't get it. Is there anyone here willing to defend the idea that habeus corpus is one of those things you can just ignore when you don't feel like respecting it?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Lincoln was in a tough spot, what he did might have been correct and has certainly turned out well. Anyway I don't want this thread to get hijacked by a debate over what Lincoln should or shouldn't have done, because that instance of suspension of habeas corpus is so completely different to the present day. Lincoln was tackling a civil war.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]

Serious question: How is it that there is ANYONE in the US willing to vote for people who say they will ignore the writ of habeus corpus

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Lincoln was in a tough spot, what he did might have been correct and has certainly turned out well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the US chock full of people completely clueless about the need for the most basic civil liberties?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
because that instance of suspension of habeas corpus is so completely different to the present day.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the protection of the freedom of the individual supposed to be the rock on which your country is founded?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Lincoln was tackling a civil war.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly.

[ChrisV]

Meh, nice thread hijack.

Well, I guess I found out what I came here to ask, which is that nobody here will defend the idea of ignoring habeus corpus.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, nice thread hijack.

Well, I guess I found out what I came here to ask, which is that nobody here will defend the idea of ignoring habeus corpus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not gonna happen around here. I know I sure as hell won't do it.