Why did George W. Bush Break the LAW by Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and Declaring WAR under FALSE evidence; then O.K. the release of CIA agents?
Is is not because of Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), or is it because he has broken the law by suspending the writ of habeas corpus and wants a majority on the Supreme Court. A rigged Supreme court, just as it was when his one vote gave him the election against Al Gore. George W. Bush invade Iraq and there was no threat of invasion from another country to grant this President the right to suspend Writ of Habeas Corpus.
A Review of the Argument of President Lincoln and Attorney General Edward Bates on WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS published in 1861 edited by Bruce Campbell Adamson. My statements will be highlighted in RED.
President Lincoln, in his message avows that he has "authorized the Commanding General, in proper cases according to his discretion, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; or, in other words, to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary process and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety." Bush, unlike Lincoln declared war without having a legal right. The Southern states had fired upon the U.S. government at Fort Sumter.
After a very brief discussion of his power to do this, he excuses the not giving a more extended argument, because one from the Attorney General will be presented to Congress. He thus adopts the latter, and makes it his own. It is, no doubt the result of full consultation between them, and also with the Cabinet. The President is, to all intents, as fully responsible for the argument as the Attorney General himself. The matter will be so treated.
The argument endeavors to prove the President's power so to suspend the privilege of the writ, so to order such arrests, and that in so doing he is not controllable by the Judiciary; and perhaps, also its true meaning is, that he is not controllable by Congress either....
He may arrest any one, without justifiable cause, transport him where he pleases, incarcerate him during the continuance of this war of probably hardship, and humiliation, as the President may think proper to inflict. For all this citizen is to have no redress. Against such atrocious, tyrannical outrage the law of his country can afford him no redress....
Each department being confined to "granted and limited" powers, according to this full concession, the obvious first duty of Messrs. Lincoln and Bates was to show a grant of the power of arrest to the President, and how it is limited. An unlimited grant would not fulfill the terms of the concession. An unlimited grant would not fulfill the terms of the concession. But this they do not do, nor pretend to do. They show neither a limited, or unlimited grant of such power; neither can it be done. There is not a word in the Constitution to that effect...
The uniform usage of our governments, both Federal and State, has been in strict conformity with this view. We know that Mr. Lincoln is the first President who ever attempted the exercise of such a power....
It is true, that, after General Wilkinson, under circumstances of supposed State necessity of great urgency, had made arbitrary arrests of suspected accomplices of Burr, President Jefferson approved his act, not by reason of its legality, but in despite its admitted illegality. The Supreme Court condemned the arrests as illegal, notwithstanding the presidential ratification, and Congress persistently refused to indemnify Wilkinson for the damages to which he was made liable, at the suit of the persons arrested....
It is true, also that general Jackson made sundry arbitrary arrests at New Orleans, under his pretended martial law. But had been told in advance by two most distinguished lawyers--Edward Livingstone and Abner L. Duncan--who were his friends, and acted as his aids that he had no power to declare martial law....
Warfare against rebellion may, no doubt, be carried on according to the civilized usages of war among hostile nations, and among the incidents thereto, is the making and detaining of prisoners, to be handed over to the civil authorities for trial and punishment. But the arrests of citizens not engaged in hostilities is a different thing, and must be left to the civil authorities by due process of the law....
The true theory of the whole matter--the constitutional theory--is, that a President, in putting down a rebellion, performs little, if anything, more than the functions of a sheriff at the head of a posse comitatus. The army and navy, when so employed, are, in legal sense, only a larger and more powerful sort of posse. This was the view taken by the Government of Massachusetts during Shay's rebellion, and by Washington during the Pennsylvania insurrection. Washington told his army " they should not consider themselves as judges or executioners of the laws, but as employed to support the proper authorities in the execution of them...." Since 1992 Bruce Adamson has been speaking on radio shows, giving seminars on (George H.W. Bush) the fathers role in the JFK Assassination. If true then George H.W. Bush, the father of the current President should be held accountable for his breaking of the law as a CIA agent and involvement in President Kennedy's assassination. This act in itself is an Open Rebellion..
Let the power of arrest be conceded to the President, still the power in his hands, as in that of any other officer, must, according to theory and uniform practice, be subject to the supervision and control of the judiciary....
It has become the ingrained opinion, the heart-cherished belief of every American, as it is of every enlightened Englishman, that the judiciary are the conservators of his dearest personal rights as a freeman."
Lincoln and Bates say it is to be found in the clause "The Executive power shall be vested in a President." It does not say free from control, any more than it says the legislative power vested in Congress shall be controlled... The executive power shall be vested, What power ? Not all the executive power of the nation--this they themselves admit was not intended. It meant such as was granted in the Constitution, or which might be created by law....
Lincoln and Bates say : "Our government as a whole, even, is not vested with sovereignty, and does not possess all the powers of the nation. It has no powers but such as are granted by the Constitution. The nation has not chosen to delegate all is powers to this government, in any or all its branches." Lincoln and Bates claim that the President can, at his mere discretion, arrest any man or woman in the nation, and transport him or her to a remote quarter to be kept in secret incarceration during the rebellion, thought it should last many long years. There is no OPEN REBELLION, yet the REPUBLICANS may try to CREATE ONE BY FORCING THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE. This power they claim for him, because, they say, he is the sole, controllable judge of the manner in which he shall exercise his power in putting down the rebellion.... It could never have been the intention to entrust such discretion to any man. It is the "plain, peculiar duty of the President to put down rebellion." Bush does not nor never had an OPEN REBELLION. Bush can not and should not be compared to Lincoln's situation. Honest Abe would never have created a war by lying to the American public like Bush has.
"The insurrection is purely political. Its object is to destroy the political government of this nation, and to establish another political government upon its ruins....As the political chief of the nation, the Constitution charges him with its preservation, protection, and defense. In that character he arrests and holds in custody those whom, in the exercise of his political discretion, he believes to be friends of, and accomplices in, the armed insurrection. Again Bush does not have an armed insurrection. He has no judicial powers. The judicial department has no political powers, and therefore no court or judge can take congizaance of the political acts of the President, or undertake to revise or reverse his political decision....In another part of the argument it is said "All the other officers are required to swear only "to support this constitution," while the President must swear "to preserve, protect, and defend it," which implies the power to perform what he is required in so solemn a manner to undertake. Then follows the broad, compendious injunction to "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed." George W. Bush has failed protecting the citizens of the United States by bankrupting the government in an unnecessary war, he has not provided for the victims of a natural disasters Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
There is no one investigating George W. Bush while he taps phone calls, emails and arrests citizens who are U.S. citizens. Again Bush has declared War in another country and there is no open REBELLION, yet. If the Republicans get their way to deport Mexican-Americans whom by California Law have been in the U.S. using this country OPEN and NOTORIOUS USE are or should be free to exercise their rights as CITIZENS. Different states may have different laws on this issue.
Dictatorship over Congress, and all the office-seeking part of the nation, his five hundred million patronage has already given him; we have yet to see whether his army of five hundred thousand men will give it to him over the balance of the nation. The issue is, at least doubtful. Whilst it remains so, all true men should struggle while they may, to retard, to prevent the rapid march to an unmitigated tyranny. (I think they meant to say five million.
"The insurrection is purely political." What stuff is this ? Is not every rebellion equally political?
According to the theory of our government every right must have a remedy for its enforcement, and every wrong a redress.
So where the President, in the exercise of his discretion, as to the mode of managing the military force in putting down a rebellion, chooses to use part of it in the illegal arrest and imprisonment of a citizen, the courts must give relief. This, too though (as surmised by Lincoln and Bates) the President should sink the dignity of his office so low, as himself personally to become the catch pole and jailor(jailer) ...
He claims that he is responsible for his official conduct to the Court of Impeachment alone;...
They cited a British case Blackstone, 1 Com., 1235, cites the statute 16, Car. 1: "Of great importance to the public is the preservation of personal liberty; for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest magistrate to imprison, arbitrarily, whomever he or his officers thought proper there would soon be an end of all rights and immunities...."
First among these comes that which says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it...The prohibition was not made for the sake of the judiciary, but for that of the citizen.....
"No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law." It has been decided in numberless instances, by Federal and State Courts, that "process of the law" means judicial process....Mr. Lincoln does not pretend that his arbitrary arrests and imprisonments have been or will be made with the exclusive view of bring the arrested to trial, but boldly, frankly avows that it is done for the purpose of rendering the suspected "powerless for mischief until the exigency is past;" that is until the probably long war is over. The Constitution tells Mr. Lincoln plainly, emphatically, that he shall have no power thus to tyrannize over his fellow citizens, that he shall not so imprison them, but he says he will."
When California was faced with an Energy crisis brought on by Enron's over charging the state for electricity, President Bush in his own way, declared War on the State of California by refusing to lend assistance because California had a Democratic Governor. Even the blind can see that this may have been brought on because Enron's chief Kenneth Lay was Bush's largest political supporter in the race for the Presidential context Bush vs. Gore.
THE TWO WARS
The nations is now afflicted with two terrible wars going on together. The war against the Union, and a war against the Constitution, are being waged simultaneously....Independence was a great achievement, but the establishment of civil liberty was a greater. Let us not permit the destruction of the ointment for the sake of the vase. "We cannot yield the jewel to retain the casket." The preservation of the Union is worth a high price, an immense price, but it is not above all price. We cannot afford to give the destruction of the Constitution as that price."
While we leave it to President Lincoln, with an army of five hundred thousand men and a powerful navy to resist the war against the Union, every citizen should gird himself for the contest in resisting the other war against the Constitution.....
The "Great Writ" of habeas corpus is available so that a judge may inquire into the legality of any form of loss of personal liberty. Detention, or loss of personal liberty, may occur at all levels of government, and may take various forms: incarceration in some sort of jail or penitentiary pursuant to a court judgment, detention in a police station after an arrest, commitment in a mental institution, service in the armed forces, detention on the basis of quarantine regulations, or restraint by private authority, as in the case of spouses or the custody of minors.
Habeas corpus has certain important characteristics. For one thing, there is no statute of limitations regarding access to it, since the right of personal freedom from illegal restraint never lapses. Neither does one failure to secure the "write forbid later application, which means that the usual doctrine regarding the finality of court judgments (res judicata) does not apply to habeas corpus.
The historical roots of the Great Writ are not clear, but it is usually ascribed to section 39 of Magna Carta (1215). Interesting footnote is that Adamson has traced his family roots on his mother side of the family to Saher De Quincey, a Magna Charta Baron of 1215; who was the first Earl of Winchester 1210; Crusader; died on the way to Jerusalem in 1217. He married Margaret de Beaumont, coheir of Robert, 4th Early of Leicester.
The write orders the person who is responsible for the detention---for example, the warden or jailer, President George W. Bush) to produce the petitioner (that is, the body, or corpus) quickly, in court, so that a judge many decide the lawfulness of the detention. Neither federal nor state habeas corpus statutes attempt to define just what constitutes an unlawful detention; they merely provide for a procedure by which a judge may look into the matter. However, as Justice William J. Brennan pointed out in Fay vs. Noia (1963):
"Although in form the Great Writ is simply a mode of procedure, its history is inextricably intertwined with the growth of fundamental rights of personal liberty. For its function has been to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraints. Its root principle is that in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release. "
Congress in 1867 enacted a habeas corpus statute that authorized the write whenever any person is restrained or deprived of liberty in violation of any federal right, that is, any right guaranteed by the Constitution, acts of Congress, or treaties. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been construed to secure the right to a fair hearing, thus providing a very broad ground for granting the writ. A state prisoner is not eligible to apply to a federal judge for habeas corpus until first exhausting all remedies available under state law.
President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus at the beginning of the Civil War, but Chief Justice Roger B. Taney protested that only Congress may do so (Ex parte Merryman, 1861). Soon afterward, Congress validated the president's suspension. A presidential suspension in Hawaii in 1941, which was performed without statutory authorization, was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in Duncan v. Kahanamoku (1946).
On September 1863: Edward Bates, Abraham Lincoln's attorney general wrote: "At 11a.m. Cabinet Council (by special call) to consider the difficulties arising out of the frequent and increasing issue of writs of Habeas corpus for soldiers and military prisoners. At first there seemed to be a very various opinions. The President was greatly moved--more angry than I ever saw him--declared that it was a formed plan of the democratic copperheads, deliberately acted out to defeat the government and aid the enemy. That no honest man did or could believe that the State Judges have any such power.
Some (Postmaster General, Montgomery Blair--attorney in Dred Scott case) suggested that a case be made, before a Federal judge, so that we might have a legal judgment on our side. Footnote: Bates overruled Dred Scott Case in favor of Dred Scott.
I objected that no judicial officer, had to take a prisoner or soldier, out of the hands of the President, by habeas Corpus and proposed that we act purely upon the defensive--i.e. inform the judge who issued the writ, of the cause of imprisonment, refuse to deliver the body, and retain possession, by force, if need be. And in case of attempt to punish the officer, for contempt, protect him, by force if need be. I resisted the idea, held out by some, of vengeance, or penal justice, by imprisoning the judge who issued the writ."
It was Edward Bates felt that there were only two reasons why the Writ of habeas Corpus should be suspended 1). Open Rebellion as in the Civil War; 2). or in the case of an Open invasion of our country.