Human Rights Attorney: Defense Bill Will ‘Gut The Constitution’

[Purveyor]

Raha Wala, Advocacy Counsel for Human Rights First, told Countdown host Keith Olbermann on Tuesday night that a controversial provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 would practically destroy habeas corpus — a guaranteed trial for those accused of a crime.

Sections 1031 and 1032 of the bill would authorize the military to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists anywhere in the world without charge or trial.

Obama has threatened to veto the entire bill, which has been considered must-pass legislation for 50 years, because of the provisions. Lawmakers have amended the legislation in hopes of preventing a presidential veto, but the current bill would still allow suspects to be detained indefinitely in military custody.

“We’re calling on everyone to contact the president and tell him that he needs to stand up for his promise and veto this bill,” said Wala.

MORE...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/14/human-rights-attorney-defense-bill-will-gut-the-constitution/

[gratuitous]

1. Not so much a gutting as a mercy killing

For those of us who still care about the Constitution, seeing it battered and abused as it has been since the reckless enactment of the hideously misnamed USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, maybe it's time to just let it go? Sure, elected officials still swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, for without the Constitution the United States doesn't exist, but really, what's left of it?

[FiveGoodMen]

2. "contact the president and tell him that he needs to stand up for his promise and veto this bill"

If the president needs us to tell him that, then he isn't fit to be president.

[FarCenter]

3. A law cannot change the constitution. nt

[hifiguy]

4. It can, functionally speaking, if the SCOTUS

allows it to stand. Given Citizens United and the "Patriot" act, I am convinced this SCOTUS would probably allow concentration camps for thousands of US citizens to be "constitutionally permissible."

Ultimately, someone has to enforce the Constitution, and the SCOTUS has held that role for most of the last 70 years. Nowadays, not so much.

[FarCenter]

6. It was John Marshall who established that the constitution means what the SCOTUS says it means

The longest-serving Chief Justice of the United States, Marshall dominated the Court for over three decades and played a significant role in the development of the American legal system. Most notably, he reinforced the principle that federal courts are obligated to exercise judicial review, by disregarding purported laws if they violate the Constitution.

John Marshall (September 24, 1755 – July 6, 1835)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall

[hifiguy]

8. In theory, this is true.

I read Marbury both as an undergrad and as a law student.

There is nothing to prevent Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas from overturning the case, if they can persuade Kennedy, and literally reading the Constitution out of the Constutution if they so desire. For the Constitution is what the SCOTUS says it is and Marbury is only precedent, which can always be overruled, and not a part of the Constitution itself. And at least 4/9 of the current court seems to loathe everything about the post-1865 Constitution. I would put absolutely nothing past those crooked bastards after Citizens United.

[provis99]

9. yep. A completely unconstitutional, made up power of the Supreme Court.

[MisterP]

5. it's been gutted with Bush and the Awlakis and the attack on Libya--this just brings it into the

legislative arena--the Star Chamber has been operating since like 1947

it's Agamben's paradox of an extremely-legal state of lawlessness

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.