I thought of was when Lincoln did exactly that during the Civil War - by suspending Habeas Corpus AND ignoring the Supreme Court when they ruled it invalid.

You do grasp the import of the "during the Civil War" part of that, don't you?

http://constitutionproject.org/pdf/David_Keene_Testimony_Civil_Liberties_Board.pdf

STATEMENT OF DAVID KEENE
CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION (ACU)

Before the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
December 5, 2006

Let me begin by introducing myself and thanking you for the opportunity to address the Board this afternoon.

I am Chairman of the American Conservative Union or ACU, an attorney, writer and Co-Chair with David Cole of Georgetown University of the Constitution Project’s bipartisan Liberty & Security Initiative.

Many conservatives have been concerned since 9/11 that in reacting to the very real dangers posed by the international terrorist network those within our government charged with safeguarding our security might justify measures that could significantly alter the very nature of the free society they are working to protect.

History teaches us that in times of international crises or danger, Americans are often more than willing to trade a measure of their freedom for increased safety and security and that government has all too often been willing to broker the deal.

From the civil war to World Wars I and II to Vietnam and now the war on terror, conscientious but over zealous government officials have sought as much power as they could get to facilitate their mission and make it easier to protect us. In many cases, they were given or assumed too much power -- or used that which they were given without the care one might reasonably expect from men and women charged not simply with protecting US real estate, but also with safeguarding the way of life that makes our nation unique.

In virtually all cases those granting these powers and those exercising them were acting in good faith. When Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus rights during the American Civil War, when Woodrow Wilson sought the power to quash what he saw as disloyal opposition to this nation’s role in World War I, when Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of Japanese, German and Italian Americans during the Second World War, and when Richard Nixon sought intelligence on those he and his Administration believed to be domestic terrorists, they did so because each believed he was acting responsibly to protect the nation they were elected to defend.

Despite their detractors, none of these men was motivated by a desire to weaken the constitution or undermine the freedoms they were sworn to uphold. On the contrary, each of them acted because he believed the actions he took were essential to the protection of those freedoms and therefore entirely consistent with the oaths he had taken. But that didn’t make them right . . .

- - David Keene

http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=20033

Conservatives Challenge Presidential Power Grab, Demand Reforms to Restore Checks and Balances, Protect Civil Liberties

Conservative Leaders Outline Legislative Package, Unveil Presidential Signing Pledge to Hold Presidential Candidates Accountable

. . . At its launch, the AFA outlined a legislative package that would bind the current and all future occupants of the White House, irrespective of party affiliation, to restore congressional oversight, personal civil liberties, and governmental checks and balances through the following:

• Restore habeas corpus to prevent the illegal imprisonment of American citizens;
• Prohibit torture and extraordinary rendition;
• Prohibit unconstitutional wiretaps, email and mail openings via warrantless searches;
• Protect journalists from prosecution under the Espionage Act for reporting on stories on national significance that do not reveal troop locations;
• Prohibit Presidential Signing Statements that allow the President to sign into law legislation passed by Congress while rejecting line-item aspects of that same law;
• Reform the ability of the federal government to win dismissal of constitutional grievances by private parties by claiming state secrets;
• Reform executive privilege by creating legislative-executive committees to arbitrate disputes.

“We do not favor a crippled Executive,” said Congressman Barr, who will work with his former colleagues to seek passage of the AFA’s legislative package. “Rather, it is our belief that in times of danger, checks and balances will make for a stronger – not weaker – government because the people will more readily accept a muscular Executive if barriers against abuses are strong.  We want to ensure that no man is above the law.”

Keene and Viguerie, two of the most active conservatives in working to build a national grassroots conservative movement during the past decades, noted that one of the key objectives of the AFA would be to create a national grassroots network of support for the effort to return to basic conservative values that cherish individual liberty over excessive governmental power.

- - American Freedom Agenda

Chairman Skelton, if he wants to prove that he is serious about national security, should strengthen that security by putting habeas restoration into his military budget bill, and thereby restoring some measure of legitimacy to the federal government.

It's the conservative thing to do.

Um...no.

It isn't a choice of war or police action. What we have is an "occupation." The war is over. (Remember "mission accomplished"?)

The "accusers" are not going to be in any greater danger by testifying than they would be in Anbar provice, Iraq. I would venture that being available to testify is probably inconsistent with being overseas anyway, so they'll likely be stationed here in the US.

The Supreme Court was actually wrong to attempt invalidation of Lincoln's decree, because there was an actual insurrection at the time.

Now, the suspension of Habeas Corpus is because...we attacked another country without provocation? Wrong.

Because terrorists are an "imminent threat" to the *entire* US? Wrong.

Because Shrubby wants to be king? We have a winner!

You raise some practical difficulties, but allowing the President to declare US Citizens to be "enemy combatants" and revoke their Habeas corpus rights is surely too much.

Also, the threat really just isn't that great to justify any comparisons to Lincoln. The US is not facing an existential threat.

Finally, you compare this to spies in the cold war. Gee, they managed to run the cold war against a dedicated malignant superpower adversary without revoking habeas. Any American could have been a soviet operative back then too, but Freedom was worth more than the expediency of allowing Eisenhower, Kennedy or Nixon to merely lock up suspected commies without trials.