I know this is a truly unforgivably ignorant question, but Google isn't providing me an answer, so sincere apologies in advance.

To restore habeus corpus, wouldn't the Democrats have to enact new legislation to repeal the MCA? If so, won't The Decider just veto it?

(It's times like this when I truly despair of ever having the damage this administration has done repaired. A divided Supreme Court might or might not find the MCA unconstitutional--even though it clearly is--and, there isn't a veto-proof majority in Congress. So much for checks and balances.)

Paul Craig Roberts has been saying for years that there is no justice unless there is a trial. He indicates that any plea bargains at all destroy the idea of justice where the open court and the jury decide guilt or innocence.

If he is correct; we have no justice at all since 98% (or so) of all cases are decided in the "back room" by government officials.

Glenn, how do you see this?

I left the Democratic Party in the mid-1990s. The straw that broke the camel's back was welfare "reform," but a lot of other things led up to it. (FWIW, I consider myself a Green, but since I can't register Green in my state, I'm formally an Independent.)

At least you have your head screwed on straight. Many of us, (about a third of Glenn's readers are way to the right of you), are not happy with the centrist DLC and the insistence on triangulating away from the very large base of the real DNC wing of the party that Hillary does to get centrist indies and moderate Republican swing voters. That is all changing. Green party candidates are often funded by the right and the RNC, you know? The idea is to move the Democratic party back to the left. The center has vanished.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-op.schaller02may02,0,7506945.column

To restore habeus corpus, wouldn't the Democrats have to enact new legislation to repeal the MCA? If so, won't The Decider just veto it?

Yes, he can veto it. It's much harder to repeal a horrendous bill than to stop it from being enacted in the first place. So they need a veto-proof majority.

It would obviously be difficult. Is it impossible ? I don't know. Maybe. But they need to try regardless. Make him veto it.

I was very disappointed in the Democrats when they gave up and let the Republican "rebels" negotiate with the White House. The result was obvious, the "rebels" gave the White House everything it wanted and the Dems got nothing out of the whole thing, except to look weak. I wondered at the time what they were thinking.

Restoring the right of Habeas corpus is much more important than anything else right now. Everything depends on it. Without it, this is no longer the country we believed it to be. There are many bad laws and decisions that need to be reversed, but this is the ultimate. Restoration of habeas corpus, NOW, will send a message to the country and the world that the days of Bush are coming to an end and that we are working to restore our good name. It would also send a message to the country that the Democrats are serious about getting us out of the mess Bush and his followers have gotten us into.

Once again, Mr. Greenwald delivers a hard-hitting jab that brings attention to the core Constitutional challenges created by recent legislation.

This definitely needs to be shared with the wider world. If you have time to write a comment about today's post, you have time to digg it and help get it in front of more people.

I think if the Dems had wanted to make it perfectly clear to the American public that they were against the MCA but that they wern't the least bit soft on terrorism they could have--even in 2006. I think the reason they hid out is because they aren't really against the PA or the MCA. I believe we're delusional if we think a Dem President is going to overturn the PA and the MCA. This isn't a bad republican /good democrat issue. We have become a security state and the dems are just as big a part of it as anyone else.

GG:

Democrats -- who calculated that meaningfully opposing this bill would be too politically costly and would jeopardize their election victory -- bear significant culpability for its enactment. And that means that they now bear principal responsibility for its repeal.

Plus, they're the only ones we've got to do it; as you say, I doubt the Supreme Court will fix this-- at least while I'm still alive. Thanks, Glenn-- this is a perfect, succinct explanation, and I'll be sending it to my representatives (all Democrats). It seems, though, that the Democrats who might get the most energized about this necessary correction would be the ones new to Congress, not yet assimilated and fully cognizant of just why they were elected. Also, they have nothing to feel ashamed of, so no guilt to overcome and thus slow them down.

"Make him veto it."

Yes, absolutely. If nothing else, and he does veto it, then he's on record, for all time and all history and all the world to know, that he fundamentally opposes the very essence of what it means to uphold and participate in a democracy that follows the rule of law and that is predicated on a just recognition of human rights.

Not that he hasn't presented enough evidence already, but it would be another sign post to the world (except True Believers like the shooter242 who aren't going to be convinced anyway) of the man's aspirations to kingship.

Make him veto it.

No kings,

Robert

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

The unconstitutionality of the bill cannot be relied on to make it go away. We have to focus on Congressional action specifically based on the simple justification that it's the right thing to do.

Anyone who suggests that such action is aimed at "granting rights to terrorists" has to be called out as a liar in no uncertain terms. Recent history has already shown that the meaning of the word "terrorist" has been widening to include people who are no such thing. (Anyone killed by US forces or taken into custody automatically becomes a terrorist.)

The danger is quite apparent and becoming more so every day as the war cheerleaders paint themselves into an ever-tightening corner of lies. If it weren't for the current backlash, then it only would have been a matter of time before today's "Green" became tomorrows terrorist. Don't believe it? Ask someone from Greenpeace or PETA.