[Cons] Article 1, Section 9 - Habeus Corpus/Revolution (2 of 4)

I'm starting a new thread in this blog called [Revolution] because we don't live in a democracy.  The conservatives are right...we live in a Republic.  A Roman Republic with corrupt, elite senators that report to royal houses who only throw some bread and circuses to the plebes to keep them from revolting.

I mean, take something as innocent as this article about the army taking Apache helicopters from the national guard for budget reasons.  Well, we definitely need a smaller military,but the question is, do we want our lethal weapons all in the hands of the federal government or shall the state militias retain any actual fire power?  See, the problem with being so psycho about the 2nd amendment that you interpret it only for self defense (it does apply there) you ignore the right of states to defend themselves if the Federal government goes berserk.  Where are the conservatives howling about the defanging of the national guard? I'll tell you where...they're too busy defending a thief in Nevada to care about preserving the actual organization most likely to protect us in a military coup.  Who are the citizen soldiers?  The national guard, that's who.

Whatever.

The constitution does not allow for the dissolution of congress by the president.  Lots of other countries do this.  Its a bad idea.  While legislatures suck, separation of powers are necessary.  Rights are rights, always and forever, so the idea that the Habeus Corpus or Hierarchy of Rights can ever be suspended is ludicrous.  It should NEVER be allowed.

But Tom, what if there's an emergency? I hear you say.

Well first of all, let's understand that emergencies are the first weapon of tyrants.  Hitler used them to take over Germany.  The dictator of Egypt used it there.  George W. Bush used the emergency of 9/11 to get us into a war with Iraq.  (Conservatives STILL will not admit Iraq was awful or still blame cowardly liberals as being 'co guilty'.  Victims all forever.)

If the separation of powers should never be abrogated to keep democracy in place, so too should rights. I argue that there is NEVER an instance where the rights as determined by a people shall be 'suspected' in secret courts.  Now, war is war, and sometimes you have to do extreme things.  But if they are extreme enough to actually be needed, then they are extreme enough that you should face the consequences of them.

Let me say that again because I cannot emphasize it enough.

IF YOU HAVE A SUFFICIENT EMERGENCY TO THROW THE HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS OUT THE WINDOW, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY YOUR ACTIONS IN A COURT OF LAW.

No blanket immunity for cops, for soldiers, for government officials or anyone else.  How do you keep them from being drowned in nuisance conservative style law suits? Very carefully.  Part of the whole reason I think we need to eliminate professional police departments as they currently exist is because cops are never basically held to account unless someone dies or they hack off a limb, and even then there is no guarantee.  Our public servants need enough latitude to do their job, not a blank check to set up Guantanamo Bay.