5 posts tagged “habeas corpus”

Today the rule of law, the checks and balances and the rights reserved in the Bill of Rights were damaged as the FISA act was once again altered and retroactive immunity was authorized for law breaking telecoms. A lot has been written about this. I will not add to that.

Instead, I thought I would point out a pair of quiet revolutions that took  place over the last couple of years that got very little coverage. I do so for two reasons. First it is worth noting that not all of the battles for civil liberties in the last couple of years have been lost, and second, it is important to realize that major changes both for good and ill can happen with virtually no one noticing.

The day after the Military Commissions Act was passed and habeas corpus damaged, a second important protection was virtually wiped away—Posse Comitatus. If the weakening of habeas corpus dredges up images of King John, Runnymede, and the Magna Carta, Posse Comitatus should put us in mind of Julius Caesar and the crossing of the Rubicon. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 basically forbids the use of the US military or the National Guard under federal control within the United States. It keeps the government from using the miltary on its own citizens. It is essentially the modern version of the Roman law that forbade the legions from crossing the Rubicon into Italy proper.

The Insurrection Act of 1807, on the other hand, authorizes the use of the military and the federalized militia to deal with  lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion within the country. The tension between the two acts defines the ways in which the President may legitimately use the military domestically.

The expansion of the Insurrection act came on the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007". Section 1076 of that law rewrote Section 333 of title 10 of the U.S. Code, the Insurrection Act. I wrote a blog posting dealing with the changes a year ago, and also produced a  page showing the changes in detail. To summarize quickly, the circumstances under which the President could use the military within the US was expanded from insurrection and rebellion to include "natural disasters, public health emergencies and terrorism", and most alarmingly of all "other circumstances" and left the determination of whether these circumstance pertained to the President.

In short, under the new law, if the President determined that a situation of domestic violence, conspiracy or "unlawful combination" has hindered or obstructed the execution of the laws, and that this is one of those "other circumstances cited in the law, he may federalize the National Guard and use it and the armed forces. This basically made the power to declare martial law and arbitrary power of the President.

The good news is that the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008" (HR 4986) which was passed and signed by the President in late January completely undid these changes, and the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus have returned to their original balance. The bad news is that it had to be done on the QT. Nearly a year before HR 4986 was passed, Senator Leahy, with the support of Kit Bond, Senator Hagel and 10 Democratic Senators introduces S. 513, a bill that would have done the same thing. It died in committee. Only by burying it in the defense authorization act could they sneak it through.

Civil Libertarians would have celebrated this victory except that it went unheralded, and in fact if you look for news stories about the change which was signed at the end of January, you will find that many are dated at the end of April.

Those of you who paid attention to the Senate debate over the last couple of days on the FISA and telecom immunity legislation will recognize the names of the senators who were willing to stand up for Posse, as sponsors or cosponsors of S 513:

• Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
• Sen. Christopher Bond [R-MO]
• Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
• Sen. Robert Byrd [D-WV]
• Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
• Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
• Sen. Robert Casey [D-PA]
• Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI]
• Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
• Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
• Sen. Blanche Lincoln [D-AR]
• Sen. Ken Salazar [D-CO]
• Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]

I'm afraid I cannot say what nameless aide put the language into HR 4986. Such is the reality of modern stealth legislation.

We must continue to fight the good fight, just as the three or four dozen senators who voted today to support civil liberties did, just as the sponsors of S 513 did, and at times quietly as the author of HR 4986 § 1068.

As ever, don't believe me.
Research for yourself.
Be a free voice.
Cry for Freedom

Just over 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln warned us that "a house divided against itself cannot stand". While the image of national disunion, prophetic as it was, was what captured the national imagination, his actual message was not that the house would fall, not that the Union would crumble, but that

It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it... or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States...

His speech was a call to action, a warning that the Union was on a path that would lead to that which the North felt was inconceivable, the full legalization of slavery. It was a warning of the course the Republic was on, unless direct and strong action was taken to avert it. Sadly his speech was not strong enough to rally him the support needed to attain the Senate, let alone achieve his goal. Rather, it wasn't until the house actually began to fall, that states seceded, that a war was fought, that he achieved his goal and then paid its price.

I can easily imagine the horror he felt as his nation trod relentlessly towards slavery or disunion. I can imagine it because our house, our houses today are divided. The nation is divided, the Republican and Democratic parties are each divided, the proponents of civil liberties are divided. Polarization is rampant, and it endangers what we cherish.

A bit over 250 years ago Franklin wrote the following

As to the other two acts. The Massachusetts must suffer all the hazards and mischiefs of war, rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by parliament. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

The last quote, which he published in slightly altered form a few years later, is reminiscent of his maxim of 270 years ago to "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

All of this is advice that is extremely timely. All of it came to mind as I read Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann, two staunch and outspoken defenders of our civil liberties and tradition of the rule of law not men, bickering with each other, sparked by Senator Obama's abandonment of his pledge to fight against retroactive immunity and the expansion of presidential power, presumably to increase his chances of being elected. All this while we as a nation take step after inexorable step away from habeas corpus, away from posse comitatus, away from the separation of powers, away from the rule of law towards the rule of men, the ever strengthening unenumerated inherent power of the man who is the decider in unitary executive.

The time has come to put aside the bickering between Obama Democrats and PUMA "Clintonians" and put a stop to the Republican advancement of the authoritarian destruction of our civil liberties. The time has come for civil libertarians such as Greenwald and Olbermann to put aside the bickering between them. The time has come for Obama to refuse to sell liberty to purchase power. The time has come for virtue over greed. The time has come to realize that it is not immigrants, legal or illegal who are stealing our jobs, but corporations and wealthy CEOs that are shipping those jobs overseas. The time has come to realize that Islamic radicals cannot steal our freedom, only we can sell it out of fear and greed.

The time has come for Republicans to stop sacrificing every conservative principle, every liberty in the name of party loyalty. Authoritarian rule by a unified executive that can at a whim nationalize the National Guard, and employ the Armed Forces in the US in "other circumstances", augmenting that with mercenaries who operate outside both American law and that of the nation they are "helping", and law breaking public carriers immunized at the word of the unified executive--these are not conservative values. Crippling national debt is not fiscal conservatism whether it is brought on by a spendthrift congress or a Commander in Chief who refuses to budget or collect taxes for America's longest war.

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that the Constitution valued habeas corpus even before it affirmed the Bill of Rights. And out of party loyalty, and fear of stateless terrorists, Republicans and Conservatives pilloried them for it. What conservative principle is served by fear mongering, of surrendering our most fundamental rights? None! The only reason that Liberals and Conservatives are fighting over this issue is because of what side the other is on.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. PUMA, Greenwald, Olbermann, Get A Grip! Sell not Liberty to purchase power. Obama, stand firm! Do not capitulate on principles for fear of being soft on terrorism. It is not "Strong on Terrorism" to give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety! It certainly isn't soft on terrorism to hold law breakers accountable--even if they were asked to break the law by the president.

We have allowed polarization to divide our country and our parties. We have allowed fear to cause us to sell out our principles and our liberties. Great Republics do not fall to small bands of fanatics. They fall when fear and divisiveness cause the people to surrender their rights and freedoms to the Leader, the Dictator, the Emperor. They fall when they allow their armies, their mercenaries, their spies, their police to be turned on them. They fall when they allow the government to keep a "little list" of people who cannot move freely, when they allow free speech to be confined to zones, when the leader's agents are immune from the law. They fall when the wealthy can buy the law.

Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Lincoln, Eisenhower all have warned us repeatedly against fear, greed, manipulation, the combination of money and military power. People! Stop! Think! Stop hating the enemy. Stop fearing the bogeyman. Dear me. Obama and Clinton differ in the details. Greenwald and Olbermann are on the same side of all the issues. They're calling each other names over who should be blamed for what. It doesn't matter who is blamed! What matters is what we do! Anthony Kennedy is a Conservative for great Ghu's sake.

When did it become a great Conservative value to fear monger!? Scalia says that Americans will die if we follow habeas corpus? The McCain campaign thinks it would be good for Republican political aspirations if after 8 years of the Republican Bush administration a terrorist attack was successful!? Republicans are rooting for Al Qaeda? Huh? The failure of the Republicans to keep us safe means we need more years of them? What?

Stop! Take a breath. Let's take a quick survey: Small government, low taxes, balanced budgets, states rights, free market economics, original intent, strict constructionism. Aren't those conservative values? Where did they go? The Republicans are so afraid of dissent among the ranks that they are willing to sell conservative principles for party unity and loyalty and follow a Republican president wherever he will lead.

The Democrats have so sanctified and so demonized their own leaders that they are willing to follow the Republicans into the same unprincipled "rule by men, not laws" future. The Dems, and the advocates of civil liberties are so focused on casting blame that they will attack their own allies.

Fear and division.

A House divided against itself cannot stand.
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.
We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.

Please, get a grip.

Thank you. I'll be quiet now. We return you to the civil war, already in progress.

In my last posting, I made a last minute reference to an exchange between Attorney General Gonzales and Arlen Specter during Senate hearings on January 18th wherein Gonzalez denied the existence of a Constitutional right of habeas corpus. At that time, I suggested that Attorney General might be right as suggested in a posting over at the Daily Kos. The whole issue came up after I already posted my first version to Vox, and so I didn't have a lot of time to research and contemplate the issue.

With time to consider it, I believe that at best the Attorney General is mistaken and at worst he was using rhetorical trickery in a deliberate attack on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

To recap, the exchange went as follows. I have added a bit of what led up to the comment. A fuller transcript and video are available at Think Progress.

Specter: Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except for rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees [... text elided]

Gonzales: A couple things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you’re referring to dealt only with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to habeas.

[further exchange elided]

Gonzales: “[...] there is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,”

Specter: “Wait a minute... The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales: “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

The key claim here, of course, is that "there is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution". And of course that's correct, but very misleading. The thing that you have to remember is that—and this is critical—the Constitution does not grant rights to the people. The constitution has no expressed grant of habeas corpus, because it has no grants whatsoever!

Perhaps the most important thing in the whole constitution is its first three words: "We, the People". The US Constitution is a groundbreaking document because unlike previous charters and constitutions, it derives its authority and power from the people, and not a grant from King or other "greater power". What makes it different is that in it the people grant the government certain powers. The most radical and important statement in the whole document is that "We, the People of the United States, ... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This sentence and its wording are important. We not only establish the constitution and the government that it defines, we "ordain" it, which means "To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact", and carries the connotation of "invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders". English law, on the other hand originates with the granting of rights by the King who ruled either by divine right or by right of conquest. We in America, on the other hand, "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights", and that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

So, when Attorney General Gonzalez says. "there is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution" he is telling the absolute truth, but his statement doesn't mean what it sounds like. It doesn't mean that there is no such right and it doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't protect that right. When he says "“The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus", it doesn't mean a thing. The Constitution doesn't grant or assure us the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness either. It doesn't have to. It assumes them.

The key, meaningful claim that he makes in the controversial passage is "It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion". And what that means is that when we, the people, created the government, specifically the legislature, as this is Article I, we ceded Congress the right to suspend habeas corpus only in certain specific circumstances. By mentioning the right (or privilege) and ceding the power to suspend it in certain circumstances we also assured ourselves that it could not be taken away in any other circumstances.

And here is part of the tragedy I wrote of in my first posting. We allow phrases like "Constitutional right" to trick us into thinking that this country is like a monarchy or other authoritarian state wherein rights are granted to the people. That's not the case. We are born with them and we reserve them. In some limited and specific circumstances we cede some of them to the state, but barring the explicit relinquishing of our rights, they are ours by nature or by the grant of our Creator. If we lose our rights because we allow ourselves to be convinced that they were never granted to us then that is truly tragic.

This brings us to the passages I added to the  quotation above, the ones that make me wonder at the Attorney  General's motives. Senator Specter starts out by talking about  the Constitution the way it actually works. He speaks of the explicit provision that habeas may not be suspended. Gonzalez responds by drawing the distinction between the "constitutional right" and "statutory right" to habeas, and says that SCOTUS was dealing only with the "statutory right". Specter then responds that he is wrong that they deal with the "constitutional right", and then after they differ on that, which depends on Specter accepting the usage and concept of a "constitutional right", Gonzalez points out that there is no "express grant" of the "constitutional right". Please note that he was the one who introduced the term "constitutional right to habeas", which he now says the Constitution doesn't grant, and implies doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, why did he even speak about it?

As I was searching the Internet for a transcript that included Specter's question, I came across the following on Jeff Strabone's blog:

Gonzales: I was just simply making an observation that there isn't an expressed grant. My understanding is that in the debate during the framing of the Constitution there was discussion as to whether or not there should be an expressed grant, and a decision was made not to do so. But what you see in the language is a compromise. I think the fact that in 1789, the Judiciary Act, that they passed statutory habeas for the first time, may reflect -- maybe -- I don't want to say a concern, but why pass a statutory right so soon after the Constitution? Perhaps, because it wasn't express grant of habeas.

Up until I read this, I might have believed that the whole bait and switch introduction of the "constitutional right of habeas" for which there was "no express grant" wasn't deliberate trickery, but then he pulls this stunt! First of all, there was no suggestion that there should be an "express grant". The founders knew that the state doesn't grant rights to the people. What was proposed was that the passage should read as follows, based on the Massachusetts and New Hampshire constitutions:

The privileges and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this government in the most expeditious and ample manner: and shall not be suspended by the Legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding ___ months.

After about a week, this was changed to:

The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended; unless where in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

The original New England version did not attempt to grant a right. Rather it tried to insure that its implementation be full and timely and that any suspension have a specific time limit.

As to why the Judiciary Act was passed immediately, first off the Constitution ordained that there should be a federal judiciary, but it didn't define the details. The Act determined the number of Supreme Court justices, defined the federal district and circuit courts and defined their jurisdictions, powers and responsibilities. Until it was passed there were no actual courts. Thus it needed to be passed as soon as possible.

As to why it addressed habeas corpus, Chief Justice John Marshall explained that in Ex parte Bollman, the case which established Supreme Court's habeas corpus jurisdiction. First off, he points out that in a country with "courts which are created by written law ... the power to award the writ by any of the courts ... must be given by written law". To this he added the observation that,

It may be worthy of remark, that this act was passed by the first congress of the United States, sitting under a constitution which had declared "that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety might require it."

Acting under the immediate influence of this injunction, they must have felt, with peculiar force, the obligation of providing efficient means by which this great constitutional privilege should receive life and activity; for if the means be not in existence, the privilege itself would be lost, although no law for its suspension should be enacted. Under the impression of this obligation, they give, to all the courts, the power of awarding writs of habeas corpus.

It is hard to believe that the Attorney General is unaware of these facts. You could learn them easily from The Founders Constitution web site or FindLaws' Annotated Constitution, or even the Wikipedia, all using Google. For him to speculate the way he has, consigning the right to the Great Writ to the maybe/perhaps world of dubious rights never expressly granted is reprehensible.

We must not let Orwellian Double Speak and rhetorical trickery deceive us about our most fundamental rights.

Don't believe me. Inform yourself. Protect your freedom. Vote. Write your representatives. Inform your family and friends.

JimB.

One of the key issues that triggered my current focus on political activism, my creating of this blog and my previous post "The Real Tragedy of 21st Century America", is that of habeas corpus, and the Military Commissions Act. This posting will try to explain what this is all about and why it troubles me. But, don't take my word for it. One of the themes of Vox Libertas is the importance of individual involvement. Read what I think, but make sure to get involved, formulate your own views and then work to insure that they get acted upon.

What is Habeas Corpus?

In Latin, "habeas corpus" means more or less "have the body" (or as Dorothy Sayers named her mystery story "Have His Carcass"). A writ of habeas corpus, is a demand by a court that a government agency produce a prisoner and demonstrate that the have proper grounds on which to hold him. It is called "The Great Writ", because it is the process by which Common Law countries insure the second freedom mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence—Liberty—in its most fundamental form: the right not to be imprisoned arbitrarily.

Whereas the rights of free speech, religion, assembly and such are important enough to be in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, habeas corpus is important enough to be mentioned in the first article of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution includes the following:

"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.
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

What these two sentences guarantee us is:

1. the right to require the government to justify detaining or imprisoning us
2. the right  not to be outlawed without a trial
3. freedom from laws passed after the fact

Collectively, they protect us from the whim of those in power, and distinguish a government of laws from a government of men.

Our most recent problems with habeas corpus started after 9/11. In November 2001, President Bush issued a military order "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism". This was the directive that called for the detention and trial by military commissions of aliens that the President determined were dangerous. This order was  controversial because it ignored or circumvented the US federal Courts and civilian law and due process, military Courts Martial and the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions, and denied the  detainees rights such as habeas corpus and speedy trial. In the end, the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional.

The case that brought this order to the Supreme Court is known as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (not to be confused with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which is actually a case setting precedent for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld). Hamden petitioned the Washington DC US District Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which Judge James Robertson heard and decided in Hamden's favor. This decision was reversed by a three judge appeals court, including Judge John Roberts. The next day, the President nominated Roberts to the US Supreme Court, and so when SCOTUS heard the case, he recused himself. The court declared the order unconstitutional after first deciding that it had jurisdiction.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed in direct response to the Supreme Court's ruling.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of these events is the administration's reliance on the military orders of the Commander in Chief in conflict with the Constitution, civil and military laws and courts and international treaties in the name of emergency "war powers" in combination with an unprecedented new form of "war" that has no obvious end conditions and which the administration itself says could last decades or even generations.

The MCA and Habeas Corpus

In response to the Supreme court's decision, the Military Commissions Act was drawn up with much the same purpose as the military order that started this whole chain of events. Among other things, it allows a broader range of harsh interrogation methods that are permitted on, disallows the use of the Geneva Conventions by, and denies the right of habeas corpus to those found to be unlawful enemy combatants.

Several legislators, lawyers and other critics have suggested that while the MCA only explicitly denies habeas corpus to non-citizens, there is a catch 22 involved: If the government picks you up for being an unlawful enemy combatant or materially supporting a terrorist organization, and denies that you are a citizen, how do you challenge their jurisdiction and prove your citizenship? The normal mechanism would, of course, be a writ of habeas corpus, but you don't have access to that, given that they claim you are an alien unlawful enemy combatant.

Michael Dorf, a Professor of Law at Columbia provides a rather dispassionate criticism  of the MCA in FindLaw's on-line journal Writ. Keith Olbermann, in turn, made an impassioned indictment of it and the President as a Special Commentary on his show Countdown. Other criticisms can be found in the Wikipedia article on the MCA. The Wikipedia provides a good definition and history of habeas corpus, and FindLaw has the full text of the MCA.

After the election, with the Democrats taking control of the legislature, a number of Senators began to move to restore habeas corpus. Senator Dodd, later joined by Senator Leahy, introduced the "The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act" (S.4060) on November 16, 2006, and Senators Specter and Leahy introduced the "Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2006" (S.4081) a few days later. [As with any US legislation the full text, in various versions can be found on the Library of Congress's Thomas Web page. Clicking on the bill's numbers above will take you there.]

"Creating New Rights for Terrorists"?

One of the arguments that you often hear in defense of the MCA is that it doesn't violate anyone's rights because foreign enemies never had habeas corpus rights. This, as it turns out, is not actually true. During the War of 1812, in the case of United States v. Thomas Williams. Chief Justice Marshall ordered the release of an alien enemy, Thomas Williams, on a writ of habeas corpus. Williams had been held under the Alien Enemies Act, which is the only one of the Alien and Sedition Acts that has never been repealed. Thus, it is quite clear that enemy aliens during a time of declared war do have the right of habeas corpus, and so dismissing the possibility that detainees, whose unlawful combatant status has not yet been determined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, also have the right is just not warranted.

Remember, questions of the constitutionality of a law or ruling cannot actually be answered unless the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue. Up until they have, it is only a matter of opinion. But, in this case we do have the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall on what is clearly a highly related matter.

It is particularly difficult to credit the claim that the bills to restore habeas corpus that have been submitted since the MCA was passed are creating new rights for terrorists. Here is the pertinent language from Senator Dodd's bill:

"SEC. 9. RESTORATION OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR INDIVIDUALS DETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES.    
(a) Restoration.--Subsection (e) of section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by section 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366), is repealed."

It's hard to see how repealing the change made by the MCA involves creation of a new right and not the restoration it claims to be.

[Update:
A "Constitutional Guarantee" of Habeas Corpus?

An exchange between Attorney General Gonzales and Arlen Specter during Senate hearings on January 18th is beginning to cause quite a controversy. As reported, the exchange went as follows:

Gonzales: “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,”

Specter: “Wait a minute... The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales: “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

As it turns out, the Attorney General may be correct. (See, for instance the posting defending his claim in the liberal Daily Kos blog.) If he is, then it is even more important that the Great Writ be restored by the legislature, and regardless of whether he is right or wrong, it must be chilling to see the Attorney General questioning the right of habeas corpus, and subordinating it to the President's emergency war powers, especially in the context of an indefinite, and perhaps perpetual "War on Terror".

More than ever, it is critical that We, the People, become the voice of liberty, and insist that our legislators defend the Constitution and our rights, or replace them with someone who will.]

JimB.

Whether you read it as "The Voice of Freedom" or "Cry Freedom" (which makes me want to call out "Cry 'Freedom!' and let slip the Rule of Law!"), Vox Libertas is my new blog dedicated to the issue of protecting our Republic and the freedom and principles upon which it is based.

The road to this blog started back in September when the Military Commissions Act was passed, restricting the right of habeas corpus on the same day that I found out my job was one of the many being "downsized". As I reflected on the two events, I realized that I was far more concerned about habeas corpus than my own career, which made me rethink a lot of things about my life, politics, activism and the state of our Republic. Since then, I've been doing a lot of reading, researching and networking, all with eye towards doing something about rolling back some of the damage that has been done to our country and its principles.

For the last couple of months, I've only been writing here for my friends and family. Now, I intend to start writing publicly and more regularly. I hope that you will join me here, commenting and contributing. Even more, I hope you'll take some sort of action. Register to vote, if you haven't. Get your friends and family to register. Support candidates. Write your senators and representatives. Attend public hearings and town meetings. Study history, our Constitution and the daily news. Talk with friends and family.

JimB.