Journal orthogonal's Journal: Blackstone, Jefferson, Padilla 6
That venerable historian of Common Law, Blackstone, cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I of England.
Habeas corpus, of course is that foundation of liberty that requires the King -- or later, the state -- to produce a person imprisoned and justify the legality of his imprisonment. Note that it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence -- it's a check on the State's power to imprison without due process of law.
In this country, that same principle is upheld by the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution, which from time to time it seems advisable to quote in full:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Except for Abraham Lincoln's illegal suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, in direct defiance of the Supreme Court, the principle had always applied in this country -- until two years ago.
Then, in 2002, John Ashcroft arrested American citizen Jose Padilla in Chicago, and has since held Mr. Padilla incommunicado, with access to Counsel or Due Process of law, effectively suspending habeas corpus and flouting 700 years of legal tradition as well as our Constitution.
This threatens the very basis of our traditional American liberties -- it sets a precedent that any American can be snatched off the streets by a government that claims absolutist powers to do so without explanation or recourse.
Our country was founded by men who revolted against another George for such monarchical usurpations; if we claim the heritage of those Patriots, our course is clear: we must set ourselves against this George and once again declare with those Founding Fathers that the end, the purpose of government is to secure our unalienable Rights and "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."
Thankfully, we can -- for the moment -- still do that altering through the ballot box. If we are to call ourselves Americans and Patriots, if we are to claim to be the heirs of Washington and Jefferson and Adams, our duty is clear: to vote George W. Bush out of office.
war on drugs (Score:2)
From what I've heard, some of the drug laws have been violating this for some time. Specifically, the laws allow the confiscation of property supposedly related to the drug trade, and they often don't give the property back. Now, it may be that there is some complicated and difficult process you have to go through (probably involving hiring a lawyer) to get it back, but in many cases this doesn't happen and the property is never returned. F
Re:war on drugs (Score:2)
Yeah, probably, and during the Reagan years, the mandatory minimum sentences and the confiscation of "drug money" and all that, the whole war on drugs trip. It is to be noted that Clinton was hardly a saint on these matters either. I had hoped he would be but... well, if only he had inhaled!
Nitpick (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly agree that Ashcroft must go, and that the most certain way to be rid of him is to vote out the current administration.
However, your mention of Adams and Jefferson in the same breath on this subject is darkly amusing. It was Adams that requested, received, and supported the Alien and Sedition acts, which afford
Nice speach, but... (Score:1)
Until two years ago, huh. Didn't I hear something about Kevin mitnick (sp?) being arrested and sent to high security prison for several (5?) years without trial. Then he was only released because he pled guilty (supposedly a decision he made to allow himself to see freedom again). (Someone correct me if you know the details of his case.)
True or not, I doubt this is the first time in recent history that the fifth amendment has been ignored. Yeah, I know, patriot act and all that. Problem is, I don't
Re:Nice speach, but... (Score:2)
Don't think for a minute that it was because of the Shimomura shenannigans.