<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Habeas Corpse</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/imperial_watch/habeas_corpse.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/imperial_watch/habeas_corpse.html</link>
	<description>what is the vertiginous chapati saying to me?</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: the skwib &#187; The Carnival of Satire (#52)</title>
		<link>http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/imperial_watch/habeas_corpse.html#comment-5944</link>
		<dc:creator>the skwib &#187; The Carnival of Satire (#52)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/uncategorized/habeas_corpse#comment-5944</guid>
		<description>[...] Ahistoricality is a master at unearthing satire, and this week proves no exception, with: Habeas Corpse. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ahistoricality is a master at unearthing satire, and this week proves no exception, with: Habeas Corpse. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew R.</title>
		<link>http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/imperial_watch/habeas_corpse.html#comment-5943</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew R.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chapatimystery.com/archives/uncategorized/habeas_corpse#comment-5943</guid>
		<description>Okay, I feel a bit dirty making this comment, but here goes...



The section in the statute doing away with &lt;i&gt;habeas&lt;/i&gt; gives two necessary conditions for the denial of &lt;i&gt;habeas corpus&lt;/i&gt;.  One is that the prisoner be a non-citizen, and the second is that the non citizen be an enemy combatant.



Whatever moral dimension there might be to the statute, there is at least a decent legal argument to be made that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.



And such an approach is sadly, in keeping with an ugly dimension of the Anglo-American tradition--concern with rights for the citizen, but disregard of the foreigner's.  Cf. Ireland, the sub-continent, much of Africa, etc. etc. etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, I feel a bit dirty making this comment, but here goes&#8230;</p>
<p>The section in the statute doing away with <i>habeas</i> gives two necessary conditions for the denial of <i>habeas corpus</i>.  One is that the prisoner be a non-citizen, and the second is that the non citizen be an enemy combatant.</p>
<p>Whatever moral dimension there might be to the statute, there is at least a decent legal argument to be made that the Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.</p>
<p>And such an approach is sadly, in keeping with an ugly dimension of the Anglo-American tradition&#8211;concern with rights for the citizen, but disregard of the foreigner&#8217;s.  Cf. Ireland, the sub-continent, much of Africa, etc. etc. etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
