thinkprogress.org — In a 56-43 vote, the Senate today “narrowly rejected” legislation that would have restored habeas corpus rights to military detainees and given them “the right to protest their detention in federal court.” The roll call fell four votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate.
Sep 19, 2007 View in Crawl 4
petera650Sep 20, 2007
If we allow ourselves to dip any lower, in the year 2020, when the Liberated Islamic Republic of Pakistan complements the Quran with its founding father's biography "How I destroyed the United States in 20 years", we will be fighting over our waterlines and cattle fences like we did in 1820.
Closed AccountSep 20, 2007
No. I don't believe in God. I can't rule it out, but I don't believe in it. I don't believe in bigfoot, but I cannot disprove its existence. Being a non-religious person I am not an athiest. I am an agnostic who believes that God probably doesn't exist. And regarding "extremecatholic.com"... ever hear of searching images.google.com for pictures?
wutthefukSep 21, 2007
So let me get this straight? You whiny Ass Liberals are bitching because some Terrorists(Who wants to Lob your head off at any chance he can get!) is Not getting his day in court to have the chance at being set free to do that very thing? ...........and you Nitwits are pissed? Wow! Michael Savage is so right.............LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.
mthrsuperiorSep 21, 2007
Osama 350182346431235United States 0
audiomindSep 21, 2007
Just like the updates to the Insurrection Act of 1807 didn't enable martial law under nearly any circumstances or revoke Posse Comitatus, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 didn't revoke Habeas Corpus. To believe otherwise about either is politically charged fantasy.Note that the linked article is an opinion piece from The Nation, self described as "the flagship of the left", so when it says things about Habeas Corpus such as, "which the Republican Congress revoked", it's not a fact, it's just what the type of article it is explicitly states: an opinion. Further, we don't have a Republican Congress anymore, so I'm not sure how that is even meaningful. I guess I'm supposed to assume that even a Democratic Congress doesn't want to "restore Habeas Corpus"? The fact of the matter is that Habeas Corpus was not suspended in any way, shape, or form. The Military Commissions Act does not apply to US citizens, permanent residents, or persons with a valid legal status within the United States. Only US citizens have a right to Habeas Corpus (Gonzales' ridiculous statements on the issue aside). MCA only applies to "aliens [that is, not US citizens] with no [US] immigration status who are captured and held outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States"; that is, MCA does not apply to US citizens. Therefore, Habeas Corpus was not suspended, and to argue that it was is puzzling to me.The argument that Habeas Corpus needs to apply to literally everyone because otherwise there is no way to "prove" that you are a US citizen to which MCA doesn't apply is something of a curious one. MCA already does not apply to US citizens apprehended on US soil. You do not need a court to affirm what is already known. If you believe the authorities will ignore the fact that someone is a US citizen and detain them anyway, then there are larger fundamental issues than whether or not someone can challenge detention; indeed, if the government really wanted to secretly detain someone without cause or ability to challenge, US citizen or not, they simply wouldn't give them any recourse at all, Habeas Corpus or no, now would they?On this general issue, there is certainly some merit to the argument that things like terrorism should be treated as a civil or criminal matter and not a military and national security issue. However, I do not subscribe to that viewpoint. Our freedoms and rights are things that US citizens and immigrants enjoy. Else, there is no function or purpose for immigration or even borders.Some tend to confuse US citizens and residents with everyone else on the planet, and pretend that the Constitution actually applies to everyone on Earth (which it doesn't), or that it should (which it shouldn't - perhaps in an idealized world, someday, everyone can expect and enjoy such a baseline of freedoms and rights).And to those who will come out of the woodwork saying, "What about Jose Padilla?"That was before MCA, which is what people say "suspended Habeas Corpus". That is, Jose Padilla did have Habeas Corpus rights and yet was still detained. That's part of reason MCA came into existence: to clarify this situation. Such detention of a US citizen apprehended on US soil, regardless of designation, has subsequently been clearly determined to be legally inappropriate, and, as such, does not fall under MCA.On top of all of this, to those that think that administration officials are going to lie and ignore any and all laws anyway, then what difference does any wording of any law really make?
pigfisterSep 23, 2007
just do a little research, the americans think they can kidnap anyone and not have to answer to any justice when they get it wrong: <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_renditi ...</a>
pilot85Sep 24, 2007
What you are doing is taking a crisis - which, mind you, is not even one of the larger ones this country has faced, HISTORICALLY, and trying to say it's a civilization ending event! How? Will they convert us all to Islam? Not likely! Will there be more deaths? Hell yes - but instead of going after them, we push all our resources into a country like Iraq. We declare an open ended war, instead of looking at our own actions which, if you take a look at the HISTORY of our dealings with, well, everyone, has caused a great deal of the enmity (and power) these terrorists now have! And now you think it is fine to just cast off our most precious ideals, the ones this country was founded on, to save your own hide? When Wendell Phillips said "Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty", he wasn't talking just about some bad guys "out there" - he was pointing out that the surest way to bring down a democracy is to do exactly what you advocate - rescind the freedoms we hold so dear. Now it is only faceless "bad men", in secret prisons. Before you know it, it will be American "traitors" (read: dissenters), journalists, outspoken activists, then finally that person your next door neighbor thought looked suspicious (see TIPS). I tell you what, I'll leave you with one more quote, this one from B. Franklin:"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
jemmanJan 5, 2008
You need to learn more on how the senate works before you start writing. The vote you read about was for stopping the filibuster not the bill. If they cannot get the 60 votes necessary to stop the filibuster, then the legislation can not be brought forth to vote on. Next time do some investigation before commenting.