Inter arma silent leges or habeas corpus?

Equal protection under the law is an assumed right of every American citizen. Recently, that right has been under direct attack form the government due to the suspension of habeas corpus for some people. This is in direct response to the approval of the Military Comissions Act, signed into law this year. This is a significant intrusion into the personal freedoms of American citizens. Mr. Olbermann claims, ‘The president has now succeeded where no one has before’. We will examine this statement. The first attempt to strip citizens of thir basic rights was The Alien and Sedition acts of 1798, sponsored by founding father John Adams. Under the Sedition Act, anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States" could be imprisoned for up to two years. It was also illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything critical of the president or Congress. Obviously a violation of the First Amendment, it was still federal law until repealed in 1801. Sedition as a crime, however, still has modern reprocussions. Habeas Corpus itself was attacked by one of America's "great" Presidents. On April 27, 1861, "Honest Abe" Lincoln ordered Winfield Scott, then head of the nation's military, to arrest anyone between Washington and Philadelphia suspected of subversive acts or speech, and his order specifically authorized suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (additional information here). The Supreme Court struck this down, but was powerless to enfore the ruling in the face of the US Military. Although the President issued a formal retraction the next year, habeas corpus was suspended again in 1863 to counter draft resistance. The Habeas Corpus Act was passed March 3, 1863. The interesting distinction between Lincoln and Bush II is that Lincoln issued his decrees during an actual war (The Civil War). Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, restricting powers of Congress, forbids the suspension of habeas corpus except, "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it." The US Constitution, for all its granted liberties and freedoms, still allows the government and the militia to suspend basic right if it can show that public safety is threatened; specifically, by rebellion or invasion. The Founding Fathers still gave the power structure (Government) the right to protect itself from the populace. To me, the question of this Constitutional loophole is more intriguing than the politicans who are suspending it. Why was this deemed necessary? Do the needs of the State outweigh the rights of the individual? Bakunin, Thoreau, and other great proponents of human rights have written at length on this. To me, the answer is clear. The US congress is trying to re-instate habeas corpus (mostly for political gain, not for any concern over human rights). Only time will tell what historical footnote will be placed upon this era of (lack of) personal freedom.