Ignorance is no defense
Disgusted by eavesdropping without a warrant, suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and other abuses, but still trying to give Bush and Company the benefit of the doubt? Contribute to his education and perhaps his actions will change. (Hey, I don’t believe it either, but it’s worth a try.)
Join the Center for Constitutional Rights plan to bombard the White House with copies of the Constitution. For a voluntary donation of $2.50 you can add your protest to that of others who believe that the supreme duty of the President of the United States is to uphold, protect and defend it.
The suggested accompanying letter:
Dear President Bush:
Enclosed please find a copy of the U.S. Constitution. I wish you’d make some time in your busy schedule to read it.I would have hoped that you’d be pretty familiar with it already, because you have at least three times in your life taken a solemn oath to uphold, protect and defend it, but all the signs indicate that you either don’t know what’s in it, or you don’t care.
For example, do you recall what the Constitution says about habeas corpus? It’s only 26 words, and they are very clear: “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.”
So, what were you thinking when you signed the Detainee Treatment Act, which does precisely what the Constitution forbids by suspending habeas corpus?
And while you’re at it, why not take a look at Article VI, part of which seems to have escaped your notice: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
If you understand that treaties are the law of the land, where do you get the nonsense you put out on a regular basis about torture? Because, as surely someone in the White House must be aware, the U.S. is a signatory to the international Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The convention against torture makes a clear statement, which (according to the Constitution) is the “Law of the Land:” “For the purposes of this Convention, the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
Just read it, Mr. President. And then uphold, protect and defend it, like you swore you would.
You can donate to the effort here. They take credit cards.
Tagged: Civil liberties > Politics3 Responses to “Ignorance is no defense”
Leave a Reply

As far as I’m concerned, they can eavesdrop on me all they want. I have nothing to hide. I’d bore them to tears. Personally, I don’t mind my privacy being violated, realizing full well that others are being subjected to the same as long as it keeps us alive. I would hate to think that something could have prevented and wasn’t because we all got uppity about the investigation into the same. People who have nothing to hide or be ashamed of shouldn’t mind having a light shone on their activities. I’ll just wave and say, ‘howdy.’
I disagree. When we give up our right to privacy, we’ve lost the core of the Constitution, the thing we’re supposedly fighting to protect. Having nothing to hide is immaterial.
People who have nothing to hide or be ashamed of shouldn’t mind having a light shone on their activities.
I have nothing to hide, from people I trust. Why would I trust the government with more information than it needs? Why would I trust a government that can’t be bothered to distinguish between the great mass of citizens and people suspected of the kind of heinous crimes which would justify violating their right to privacy. Why would I trust a government with a track record of falsehood, incompetence, leaks, selective prosecution and obsessive secrecy?
Yes, there is a risk involved in preserving our rights and procedures. I accept that risk, because nothing is guaranteed anyway, and because the risk of surrendering those rights and procedures is measurably higher than the risks of preserving them.