Endangered: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

We are at a turning point ... will we stand up for human rights or allow a power-addled administration to perpetrate murder in our name?

Senate Joint Economic Committee

Guardian: At least 50 migrants sent to El Salvador prison entered US legally, report finds

Mistakes are being made. Innocent people (if you believe in “innocent until proven guilty” are being disappeared to hell-holes here and in other countries. Why would we ever send anyone to South Sudan? It is considered an unsafe country due to crime, kidnapping, and ongoing armed conflict. The US government's travel advisory advises against travel to South Sudan due to these reasons … yet we’re sending innocent people there. People with families, friends, and loved ones. Human beings.

If they are so sure these are bad people, why are they afraid of due process? Because it won’t be as dramatic? Or, because they know that too many of the already rounded up would be found innocent?

BBC: Judge warns US deportations to South Sudan may breach court order

Prisons in El Salvador and South Sudan qualify as cruel and unusual punishment … especially when these people have had no legal opportunity to defend themselves against the charges. The current administration claims they don’t have time for due process because there are so many people that they want to deport.

This whole cruel drama came from Trump or his people. Last year, he told Congress not to support the bi-partisan immigration bill because he wanted this big splash; he wanted to be seen as a “big, beautiful savior.”

Almost 250 years ago, when we declared our independence from a king, we decided to create a country where the people had fundamental rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These rights have been recognized and codified for centuries, including in our US Constitution. The current administration is claiming authority for controlling one of these most precious rights: liberty … and its most fundamental form of protection … habeas corpus. That was the basis for an argument between Senator Hassan and Secretary Noem.

Recognizing my own fuzziness around habeas corpus, I looked for clarity and found:

Wikipedia: The phrase gives three examples of the unalienable rights which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect. Like the other principles in the Declaration of Independence, this phrase is not legally binding, but has been widely referenced and seen as an inspiration for the basis of government.

Perplexity.ai: A writ of habeas corpus is a legal order that compels a person in custody (like a prisoner) to be brought before a court so the court can determine the legality of their detention. It's essentially a mechanism to ensure someone's freedom isn't being illegally restricted.

The writ of habeas corpus appears in the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, known as the Suspension Clause. The text reads:

"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.

This clause restricts the federal government's ability to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, allowing suspension only in extraordinary circumstances such as rebellion or invasion when public safety is at risk. The provision is found in the section of the Constitution that limits the powers of Congress, making it a fundamental protection against unlawful detention.

Senator Hassan in her discussion with Secretary Noem, said:

“Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people, if not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason. Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.”

President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus

Secretary Noem brought up President Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War (April 12, 1861 – April 9, 1865). Here’s the rest of the story from History.com:

On May 28, 1861, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of Maryland issues Ex parte Merryman, challenging the authority of President Abraham Lincoln and the U.S. military to suspend the writ of habeas corpus (the legal procedure that prevents the government from holding an individual indefinitely without showing cause) in Maryland.

Early in the war, President Lincoln faced many difficulties due to the fact that Washington was located in slave territory. Although Maryland did not secede, Southern sympathies were widespread. On April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia to give military authorities the necessary power to silence dissenters and rebels. Under this order, commanders could arrest and detain individuals who were deemed threatening to military operations. Those arrested could be held without indictment or arraignment.

On May 25, John Merryman, a vocal secessionist, was arrested in Cockeysville, Maryland. He was held at Ft. McHenry in Baltimore, where he appealed for his release under a writ of habeas corpus. The federal circuit court judge was Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who issued a ruling, Ex parte Merryman, denying the president’s authority to suspend habeas corpus. Taney denounced Lincoln’s interference with civil liberties and argued that only Congress had the power to suspend the writ.

Lincoln did not respond directly to Taney’s edict, but he did address the issue in his message to Congress that July. He justified the suspension through Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Although military officials continued to arrest suspected Southern sympathizers, the incident led to a softening of the policy. Concern that Maryland might still secede from the Union forced a more conciliatory stance from Lincoln and the military. Merryman was remanded to civil authorities in July and allowed to post bail. He was never brought to trial, and the charges of treason against him were dropped two years after the war.

Would you trust this president and this administration to handle any suspension of habeas corpus fairly and justly?