Where are all the patriots?

You know, the ones who were going to 'save' Terri Schiavo, by preventing the unconstitutional denial of her rights.

According to the constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2

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.

But isn't that just what the senate did today. Suspended Habeas Corpus, at the determination (whim) of the pResident?

Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake:

A later US Supreme Court case, one that is truly seminal in terms of the understanding of the writ of habeas and its application under United States legal precedents — Ex Parte Milligan — states as follows:

The two remaining questions in this case must be answered in the affirmative. The suspension of the privilege of the [71 U.S. 2, 131] writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course; and on the return made to it the court decides whether the party applying is denied the right of proceeding any further with it. (emphasis mine)

Here’s a question: how, exactly, does Huckleberry Graham and John McCain and John Warner and the whole of the Bush Administration think that the writ of habeas corpus, a history of legal precedents in civilian and military courts, and the rule of law can just be thrown out the window for these detainees without the Supreme Court and other courts taking a peek at the constitutionality — or lack thereof — of this proposed mess of a law?

Continue