I've Seen This Somewhere Before

Reading the Daily Kos is a little like watching someone who has a serious mental illness but refuses to take their daily medication. The daily fits of hysteria, anger, seething hatred, interspersed with moments of lucidity, makes for a slightly surreal reading experience. (That is as long as you don't venture into the comment section, which blows so far past surreal that one could only conclude that we, as a civilization, must be doomed.)

I keep reading the thing in the (probably mistaken) belief that it is somehow good for me. It does give me plenty to blog about, although it certainly isn't challenging blogging...they would have to grow the ability to engage in real critical thought for that to be possible. All ideologues of all persuasions, left and right, are by definition idiots. It might be all coherent to themselves, just as the wildly gesticulating homeless person makes sense to himself, but to someone not privy to their private inner world they look and sound like lunatics. However, while I feel sympathy for the mentally ill who may not be able to help themselves, I have to assume that the DK crowd are that way because they want to be. (I could say the same about the Little Green Football crowd, but I don't read it anymore...I simply couldn't stomach it.)

So when I read today's manic drivel, let us just say, I remain unconvinced:

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Which lead Mcjoan (whose legal credentials are unknown, to me at least) to banshee wail:

Alberto Gonzales should not only be impeached for his willfully obtuse interpretations of the Constitution, he should be disbarred.

Of course a non-hysterical reading of this might wonder if the point is being made by Gonzales that the writ of habeas corpus is not a "right" that belongs to individuals as such.

The wikipedia entry reads:

The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a civil, not criminal, proceeding in which a court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody. Typically, habeas corpus proceedings are to determine whether the court which imposed sentence on the defendant had jurisdiction and authority to do so, or whether the defendant's sentence has expired.

This would seem to imply that the "right" is held not by the incarcerated individual, but by one court looking at the proceeding of another court. But of course this is by definition true. What is being talked about is the writ of habeas corpus. And what is a writ?

In law, a writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrative or judicial jurisdiction.

Now, I know the folks at the DK would love to be a law unto themselves, but this is just stupid.