Hebisner

Is he actually saying what I think he is saying? That he wants to amend Article II, Section 9 of the constitution:

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.

Because if he is, could somebody please explain to him that the Great Writ is not some liberal hippie legal plot to aid the overthrow of the Republic? This little diatribe actually shocked me. A lawyer, an AMERICAN laywer, actually wants to amend the freakin Constituion and hamstring Habeas? Look Lindsey, it's not the courts fault your law degree is a worthless scrap, particularly in light of the fact you were the author of the Military Commissions act that was so efficently defenstrated by Justice Kennedy. Please stop sniffing around my Constitution. You and your batshit insane legal playmates are the last people on earth I want writing amendments to the Constitution.

Seriously, what is next with these people? After wiping their ass with the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights, now they want a piece of one of the keystones handed down from before the Revolution, meant to preserve liberty and serve as a bulwark against false imprisonment and tyranny? You don't agree with the Courts decision, fine. Feel free to pout and kick your dog. But, you and your facist justice friend, Nino "who's an originalist?" Scalia can stay the Frak away from my Constitution thanks.

And in the annals of hysterical stupidity, this really takes the cake:

This decision will come at a cost,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. “The Supreme Court just moved us closer to the day when U.S. Marine rifle teams will have to have lawyers read Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield.”

What a shock this comes from Duncan Hunter. No Duncan, it does no such thing. It only moves us closer to the day when we restore the rule of law and justice to this country. I'm not surprised you cannot tell the difference.

I like this one too:

The American people are going to wake up tomorrow and be shocked to hear that a member of Al Qaeda has the same constitutional rights as an American citizen,” said Graham. “[Even] the Nazis never had that right.”

If the President and his minions had used Nuremberg as a model for constructing a legal process for the Gitmo detainees, that would have passed muster. It's not quite the same, but it at least acknowledged that the defendents have rights, and they are entitled to a fair trial, which even the Friggin Nazi's received. As bad as Al Queda is, they cannot possibly hold a candle to the Nazi's?? For Christ's Sakes, they murdered over 10 millions people in industrialized death camps. What the hell is he talking about??

And for the record, if the American people are suprised that, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, that rights are "inalienable", and that they are universal,"endowed by their Creator", then the American people are shockingly ignorant and should grow the fuck up and learn what those words really mean. They do not mean, in any possible way, that military and civilian leaders can arbitrarily suspend or deprive people of their libery without due process, or strip them of their basic humanity and dignity EVER. This isn't rocket science people. It's only rocket science to the semi-closeted nutjobs in the VP's office and their ideological friends like Lindsey Graham who cannot grasp these ideas.

When can I wake up from this nightmare??

And Mr. Franklin? I can only say we are deeply sorry that we allowed these people to fuckup the Republic you tried to pass on to us. We're trying to do better. Thanks.

// posted by Hebisner @ 09:34 — Flame On! | Trackback (0)