In Cases of Rebellion or Invasion

Fuck you, Washington. Fuck you very much.

“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.” — Article One, Section 9, U.S. Constitution

So here’s the question. Who’s invading and who’s rebelling? I’d really like an answer as to how we are now enforcing public safety.


  1. Well, I know some kid in Florida got tasered for asking questions to a senator…

    I vote rebellion. Americans have been pissed since the Sith Lord took over.

  2. Interesting to note the only non-Republican (officially non-Republican, anyway) to vote nay on cloture: everyone’s favorite former Democrat In Name Only, now “Independent”, Joe Lieberman. The only good thing about the outcome of Bush v. Gore is the fact that it kept this chucklehead out of the White House.

    If the conservatives want to argue that the presence of terrorism suspects constitutes “rebellion”, that’s fine, just as long as the unconstitutional and anti-democratic acts of the Bush cadre are considered “rebellion”, too. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales et al have wantonly disregarded the concept of representative government in an effort to concentrate power in the executive branch. They’ve commandeered our government. If that’s not rebellion, I don’t know what is. So none of them should enjoy habeas corpus protections either.

  3. Indeed!

    The problem with fighting terrorism is that it will always be there. So, while some might view this as a short-term suspension of rights, others should really look at it as a long-term suspension of rights.

    Everyone has already lost this right, and my job is with the media, and they haven’t said a word about it. It’s all OJ Simpson, man. It’s all OJ.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *