Yay, It's a Holiday

I never understand how something becomes a day (or a month, for that matter -- November is National Pomegranate month. April is Grilled Cheese Month.) Washington's Birthday and Lincoln's Birthday suddenly became Presidents' Day? And who picked the date of Memorial Day?

But I think we should all declare June 12, to be Habeas Corpus Day. And I hope that we celebrate it forever.

Habeas Corpus: Writ requiring person to be brought before judge or into court, esp. to investigate lawfulness of his restraint.

Comments

[Clairvaux]

HuffPost's Pick

You know these are dark days when people get excited about the court supporting Habeas Corpus.

Good Grief --

[outnow]

Afghan bounty hunters received money for all the alleged terrorist that could be rounded up after 9-11. We know that people are desperate for money there and that opium dealers abound. These are not credible informants for the most part. How often do the cops round up somebody to convict for a crime for professional reasons and to get promotions. To satisfy the public's need to feel that "something is being done;" to get the monkey off the backs of law enforcement for not preventing the crime in the first place; and many other reasons are used to justify over-zealous prosecutions. How many convicted criminals are later acquitted by DNA evidence because eye witness testimony was unreliable? How many informants who are paid or receive special treatment are credible?

Once a suspect is tortured, then matters are much worse for a prosecutor. In Germany, there were no records of why people were in work camps. That's why we maintain records. Jails attract sadistic persons who enjoy the torture and like to send a message. This is just another type of terrorism. When the interrogation is privatized, the worst types of people abound. Rather than a ticking time bomb hypothetical, you have the tendency by many of such people to have "solved" the crime of the century. Therefore, lets just go on the record about these detainees as the court suggests. I hear cheaper and more convenient and I hear echoes of WW II camps.

[dahpunkster]

I think we should all picket the gas prices in the streets they will have to do something then,
and maybe eventually it will become a holiday...

[NABNYC]

The Bush regime has come up with all sorts of bizarre stories to justify what it has done, but the truth is finally beginning to come out. They have arbitrarily, without lawful authority, kidnapped, tortured, in some cases murdered people "disappeared" from the streets of other countries; they have put hoods over their heads, flown them in cargo planes to secret blackhole prisons in Europe and subjected them to deadly torture.

They have murdered some because, just like most criminals, the Bush gang is terrified at the thought of having any witnesses left alive to testify against them. Saying there is no court, no judge, no law, no rights, no charges, no attorneys, no trial -- it would have been easier if they had just said we plan to kill them anyway, so why bother.

It's shocking that the Democratic Congress has allowed these psychotic thugs in the Bush regime to carry out torture and murder in our names. Let's stop it now.

[EinChicago]

test

[Mover]

This decision is actually a very bad thing. Why? Two reasons. One: The US Supreme Court has set itself above the US Congress and the Executive Branch. And Two: Because it gives special rights to people who have no business having them.

I suspect this is a result of the Bush Administration's decision to create a new category of enemy combatant, the unlawful enemy combatant. While the description is accurate, it allows for political interpretation, as the US Supreme Court has just done. Of course it is a more accurate description for them, so using it is more ethical.

But, if the Bush administration would have simply called them PWs, there would be no issue. No tying up the court system, no US taxpayer supported lawyers for them, and a lot less controversy. PWs don't get lawyers and judges because soldiers are not considered criminals under international law and can, and always were, held in confinement until the war ended. End of story.

Personally, I don't believe anyone who is not committed to defending this great nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, who have no concern or interest in the survival of this nation, should have any constitutionally protected rights that Americans have earned.

[theconsigliere1]

Sir, I respectfully disagree with your assumptions. Examine your two reasons:

(1) "The US Supreme Court has set itself above the US Congress and the Executive Branch." the Supreme Court's role in our system of government is to say what is or is not constitutional. The SC did not set itself above the other branches; the Framers of the Constitution gave it this power.

(2) "Because it gives special rights to people who have no business having them." This is your opinion and you are entitled to an opinion. However, these are special rights that make sense and should belong to everyone detained under the cloak of our system and our flag.

Indeed, if someone who was not a terrrorist or al Qaeda was mistakenly taken to Guantanamo, shouldn't he be permitted to be let go? Or do you trust blindly the efforts of GWB and his military that every single person taken is a terrorist, with no hearings? Our criminal justice system routinely makes mistakes and convicts innocent people, and those defendants had access to the courts, defense counsel and appeals. Is it too much to ask to give these guys who have been held for six years a simple hearing to see if they are being held without cause?

[outnow]

The decider decides and that's final? Then why not a dictatorship? The reasoning is circular and very political. Being safer does not mean throwing away the Court's role in interpreting the laws passed by congress. Is there a rational basis to prove that torture and indefinite confinement of possibly innocent people makes us more safe? If so, Hitler would have had the "safest" country in the world because he denied rights to everyone. I must respectfully disagree with your analysis. The love it or leave it attitude is not patriotism so much as jingoism. We have a beautiful constitutional system that is the pride of Western Civilization and the creation of the Founders. America is still the best hope. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water because George and his crew say so. Are they making money or making us safer? The NIE says that they are making us less safe. Our nation stands on principles not conveniences. That is the soft power we have in the world. I'd like to see that increase.

[bgregs]

Please do me a favor and go read the constitution. Then you can tell me how EACH of the three branches of govt have the right and the responsibility to override the other two in case of breaking the rules. The POTUS has the veto, the Congress has the veto override and impeachment, and the SCOTUS has the ability to decided whether a law is constitutional or not!

Once you have done that, come back and try to claim that the court broke the rules by deciding that an unconstitutional law was unconstitutional!

[CellarDoor]

Isn't this kind of like celebrating the fact that you didn't kill somebody with an axe on purpose? Or that you got through life without ending up on death row? Or maybe that you didn't get arrested for purposefully running over old ladies crossing the street?

Today shouldn't be the day that America "got it's soul back"....that won't actually happen until the real anti-Americans are voted out of office and the corrupted 'neo-con' system they brought with them is lambasted and exposed for the coup it actually represents (and these anti-Americans must be punished as well, we will not get our National soul back until those who attempted and almost succeeded to destroy it are punished fully and completely as traitors at best, war criminals at worst). And even then we might not know it right away but I have faith Obama will go a long way towards restoring our national "soul".

But to be happy that something was returned that should have never ever EVER freaking EVER been removed by any society that considers itself above barbarism, is kinda low-balling this whole "Honorable Nation" thing a bit don't you think?

[Chinampas]

Was Habeas Corpus penned for the citizens of the US, or all of the people on the planet? These guys were involved in terroist activities, and they are being held for it. Why give them access to our federal courts? Most of them have been released, and some have returned to fight against the US. I think we should send them back to their other enemies to be tried. It would be cheaper and quicker, but I think they would prefer to take their chances here where everyone is trying to protect them.

[SpoxLogic]

habeas corpus wasn't jsut written for "us" here in the United States.
How long before the "powers-that-be" decide to use the same tactics against non-foreign folks they deem to be terrorist, which could easily me me or you. They do have a list of 8 million names of "suspected" terrorists here in the US in case on a "National emergency".

Please recall that right after 9-11, the Feds were picking up poeple left and right, many of them citizens, and holding them without giving them their rights to habeas corpus.

DOn't let the fact taht these detainees aren't US citizens fools you into thinking the govt is alright in its tactics.

[bgregs]

It doesn't matter that these people are not American citizens. They are being held by American personnel, on American soil, on trial for violating American laws. Therefore they are subject to those same laws, even when those laws HELP the suspected criminals.

And if you think that they aren't subject to American law because they are the enemy, THEN they are subject to the Geneva Conventions, which allow for the holding of POWs until the end of the conflict, but require certain levels of human decency!

So which one is it? You've got to choose one of these!

[hopeless277]

Just because the Supreme Court says so, doesn't mean that Bush does so. After all, a guy who can nullify most of the U.S. constitution on the basis of a MEMO, can damn sure ignore the Supreme Court. What are they gonna do? Call the DOJ? Complain to congress? This ruling means NOTHING. Nothing at all.

[Paul]

A holiday shuld be declared for June 15.

Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede on June 15, 1215.

[theconsigliere1]

Why all the fuss? What is the GOP afraid of? Restoring the right to challenge their detention is not a get out of jail free card. Challenging their detention permits a magistrate to separate the farmers and peasants from any actual threats to our soldiers who were all scooped up from Afghanistan and Iraq in GWB's war on terror. If some deserve to be let go, they will be let go. If some need to be retained for trial, they will be retained. So what's the problem?
It is a sad day when the "strict constructionist" radical right attacks the most fundamental of our criminal laws, the "Great Writ." I would say it makes no sense, but for political hay it makes perfect sense.
What are you afraid of? Please tell me.

[darcy]

You are so right, Amy Ephron!!!

[shades3]

Yes indeed. It will offset "Presidents' Day", which is not a celebration of the current President, but the office of the President. It's not "PRESIDENT'S DAY" a special day for the last eight years for George W. Bush.

But, the restoral of HABEUS CORPUS? That's a thing to celebrate and to remind the citizenry how many people risked it all to have the rights that habeus corpus entails.
In a democracy, the people are charged with constant vigilance, making sure that those who represent them don't abuse the privelege. THIS President has a list of infractions as long as your arm and yet.......­..........­..........­..there he is, still in office.
What the dickens????

[parose10]

Let's not get our hopes up about which way this court leans. To have ruled the other way would have diminished the power of the court. They were just looking out for themselves.

[sufi66]

what does this mean?

[bgregs]

Yeah, and it was only a 5-4 decision, which scares me a bit!

[Checquoline]

Amen to that Amy!