That this should be a topic of discussion in the first place. This is the USofA were talking about, right, not Chile under Pinochet? If this unconstitutional garbage can only be undone by years of litigation then GW was correct when he pronounced our constituion/bill of rights to be "just a piece of paper". Will we wake up one morning and find that Finegold, Reid, Waxman, Pelosi, et al seem to be missing and that interim republican (bushie) replacements have been appointed? What on earth can stop him/them from doing that? The "rule of law" only works if everyone plays by the rules.

I have applauded your recent focus on the failings of the press. But I completely agree that habeas corpus is the bright line between civilization and tyranny…

That bright line is precisely what the “press” failed to convey to the American people, and this monstrous bill was the result of this failure.

The “press” was also instrumental in failing to counter the climate of fear that the administration wanted to perpetuate in order to circumvent our rule of law.

That climate that turned politicians of both parties into cowards and they failed to stand up and point out the false choices presented to the public by a lawless administration.

The idea disseminated by the Rovian machine that those who didn’t support this bill were supporting the terrorists is simply obscene, and they should have never been in a position to make such an absurd claim in the first place.

This doesn’t excuse the Democrats one bit, but it does explain the necessity of focusing on the dysfunctional media without which this bill wouldn’t have ever passed in the first place.

Well, I called Ike Skelton, the Committee Chairman, from Missouri, at 202-225-2876. He is a freshman and like the other newly elected members should be reminded that they were put into office to address these very issues. I also called another congressman from my state on the committee with the same message. It took two minutes and the people I spoke with at each office were receptive and polite.

Call two members now. If you don't find the experience too painful, call a few more.

Armed Services Committee Democrats

Ike Skelton, Missouri, Chairman, 202-225-2876

John Spratt, South Carolina, 202-225-5501

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas, (202) 225-7742

Gene Taylor, Mississippi, 202 225-5772

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii, (202) 225-2726

Marty Meehan, Massachusetts, (202) 225-3411

Silvestre Reyes, Texas, (202) 225-4831

Vic Snyder, Arkansas, 202-225-2506

Adam Smith, Washington, (202) 225-8901

Loretta Sanchez, California, 202-225-5859

Mike McIntyre, North Carolina, (202) 225-2731

Ellen O. Tauscher, California, (202) 225-1880

Robert A. Brady, Pennsylvania, (202) 225-4731

Robert Andrews, New Jersey, 202-225-6501

Susan A. Davis, California, (202) 225-2040

Rick Larsen, Washington, (202) 225-2605

Jim Cooper, Tennessee, 202-225-4311

Jim Marshall, Georgia, 202-225-4311

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam, (202) 225-1188

Mark Udall, Colorado, (202) 225-2161

Dan Boren, Oklahoma, (202) 225-2701

Brad Ellsworth, Indiana, (202) 225-4636

Nancy Boyda, Kansas, (202) 225-6601

Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania, (202) 225-4276

Hank Johnson, Georgia, (202) 225-1605

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire,(202) 225-5456

Joe Courtney, Connecticut, (202) 225-2076

David Loebsack, Iowa, 202.225.6576

Kirsten Gillibrand, New York, (202) 225-5614

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania, (202) 225-2011

Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona, (202) 225-2542

Elijah Cummings, Maryland, (202) 225-4741

Kendrick Meek, Florida, 202-225-4506

Kathy Castor, Florida, (202)225-3376

the pea is under!

Americans are the easiest marks in the whole world.

There's the "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007", introduced 5 months ago, and the "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007", introduced three months ago. One of these, or something like it, may get put in the Defense Authorization bill, currently wending its way through Congress.

And yes, there were indeed Democrats who spoke out about this at the time (and are still), and even the occasional Republican as well.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17664.htm

They gotcha comin' and goin'. Or click my name.

Even if habeus corpus is restored, wouldn't Bush just issue a signing statement that declared he did not have to comply with it for overriding "national security" issues? They are doing that with wiretaps and who knows what else already.

They really need to conduct some serious offense here, not just the weak minded sweeping up after the elephant.

If, as seems likely, Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton doesn't insert habeas restoration provisos into the Annual Defense Authorisation Bill, are there other upcoming Bills into which such restoration could be attached? Presumably it would have to be a key appropriations/ authorisation Bill that House Republicans are so keen to pass, that Bush wouldn't exercise his veto.

As I understand it, the only other alternative, which Skelton apparently prefers, is to make habeas restoration a piece of stand-alone legislation. Since Bush would almost certainly veto that, what are the chances the Democrats could pick up enough Republican votes to achieve a veto-proof majority? Since I'm guessing they're nowball-in-hellish, what, if anything, are the other options for dismantling the despicable MCA & restoring habeas?

That bright line is precisely what the “press” failed to convey to the American people, and this monstrous bill was the result of this failure.

Precisely. As I've been trying to explain to people who e-mail in order to inquire/complain about my focus on the media (and it's actually a myth that this focus is recent, but leave that aside), a focus on our broken media is not a neglect of other "more important" issues. That is what lay at the core of all of these other issues -- the fact that our government is able to engage in conduct and obscure what it's really doing and the true implications because of the way our press covers and discusses the government.

That is the principal lesson I learned since I started blogging -- that absent either fundamental reform on the part of the media or the development of real alternatives, discussions of these other issues can generate only limited results. I realized that in the context of writing about the NSA scandal -- the enormous gap between what was revealed and what the press conveyed about it.

That is what explains how George Bush -- once he was caught breaking the law as clearly and deliberately as can be -- was able to go on television and not only admit to his lawbreaking, but vow that it would continue. Someone can write all the pretty, eloquent legal posts they want refuting all of the "legal arguments" offered by the DOJ to justify that conduct. Absent a change in how these issues are discussed, that doesn't matter.