<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060820695-post13.html]#13[/url]”>quote</a> Did Lincoln “eliminate the principle of habeas corpus” when he suspended it? If he didn’t, your whole argument here is baseless. Not to mention silly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By your logic, the [many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority](<a href=“American Patriot Network”>http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm</a>) by Lincoln should have been sanguine while in jail because their habeas rights were only “suspended” and not “eliminated”. Did they have more freedom of movement because it was a “suspension” instead of an “elimination”? Did they have the “basic hearing in court” and the ability to “answer those charges” Obama rhetorically asserts in his interview? </p>
<p>Furthermore, Senator Obama was incorrect on his “elimination for the first time in our history of the principle of Habeas Corpus” assertion on another front. [Johnson</a> v. Eisentrager](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager]Johnson”>Johnson v. Eisentrager - Wikipedia) also dealt with habeas rights of non-citizens disproving his rhetoric of:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the Johnson v. Eisentrager Germans held in a U.S. administered prison, their habeas rights were effectively ‘eliminated’ and not just suspended. As a reminder, the Military Commission Act was also dealing with non-U.S. citizens just like the Germans in Johnson v. Eisentrager.</p>