What is Digg?285 Comments
- alapoet, on 06/13/2008, -5/+120"It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are." ~ The New York Times
- VKMO, on 06/13/2008, -4/+59It's the only correct and Constitutional decision the Court could have made.
The only frightening thing is that the four "conservative" Justices voted against it. - charm803, on 06/14/2008, -6/+45Thanks to the Patriot Act, any ONE OF US could be held with no lawyer and no reason, just because they THINK we are a terrorist.
So while many people may think that terrorists don't deserve rights, which they probably don't, this really applies to the rest of us who could be faced in that situation.
So, yes, justice it is! - dennisrhidalgo, on 06/13/2008, -1/+35That is so true. Though the news should be considered as a relief, it should also warn us of the importance of having sane judges in the supreme court, and how easy is to lose what has been earned with blood and sweat (i.e., a system of law that seeks justice and freedom).
- inactive, on 06/14/2008, -1/+33The Fifth Amendment reads (in part)...
"nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
The fact that these four Supreme Court justices failed to rule against the Bush administration on this clear cut and simple case means these men have no business serving on the USSC. They have put political considerations ahead of the law and the Constitution.
From Article III Sec 1: "... The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour ..."
Blatantly political rulings that fly in the face of the intent and explicit language of the very document they are supposed to uphold is not "good behaviour." It's time to remove these men from their offices. - nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -1/+28And without trials, how do we know the detainees are "terrorists and thugs". Douchebag bigot.
- nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -4/+31As we have pointed out to you time and again. The Constitution does not bestow rights. It limits the government as to what it can and cannot do. Seriously Jimmy, did you sleep through civics class?
- inactive, on 06/13/2008, -16/+40Hopefully with Obama in office..some real changes to how things are done..will come about..the voting system needs to be a major concern..todays technology..there shouldnt be a flaw at all in our voting system..i know this doesnt have to do with the article..but it kinda does..we need some changes that prevent loopholes and cheating..no excuses
- nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -2/+22Honestly, I don't care what you think.
- Alheithinn, on 06/13/2008, -8/+27Congress has spent almost eight years on its knees for Bush, enabling this Administration's rape of our Constitution and Civil Rights and acquiescing in its attack on our system of checks and balances. Bush has proven that he is above the law. It is no surprise that he has overreached himself in the courts. Again and again it is only the Judicial Branch that has stood up to his Imperial Presidency and this country owes the Supreme Court a vote of thanks for remembering, since Congress will not, the basis for our system of government - of the people, by the people, FOR the people.
- vinod1978, on 06/14/2008, -2/+20Rights are based on"personhood", not "citizenship". Citizens have other privileges, but the right to a fair trial is not limited to citizens as plainly stated by our Constitution.
- HappyEngineer, on 06/14/2008, -2/+20"Enemy combatants" were never before an official category. They are either POWs or they are deserving of habeus corpus.
The Geneva conventions apply to POWs. No torture. Bush can't have that, so he makes up a category and then ignores the courts.
Get it right. This is our ***** freedom we're talking about. - nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -0/+17-McCain Liberman - vote for them if you want 4 more years of the same illegal *****.
- Zarokima, on 06/14/2008, -2/+19"nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" --The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution
As I'm sure you -- with all your Constitutional expertise -- know, the constitution applies to all U.S. soil (e.g. Gitmo). So please explain: what about that phrase is so easy to misinterpret? - vw2005, on 06/14/2008, -5/+22Wow .... who was FOR brutality?
John Roberts + Anthony Scalia + Sam Alito + Clarence Thomas.
2 Bush appointments + one crazy old super con..... that only leaves Thomas that may have ACtually made an independent decision. - virtualball, on 06/14/2008, -1/+17As mentioned, the Constitution just limits government, America believes humans are basically born with said rights.
Anyways, this decision doesn't just affect foreigners, remember that Chicago "terrorist plan" that turned out to be a joke? What if those jokers were sent to Guantanamo and were tortured for no reason? Then what? - inactive, on 06/13/2008, -3/+17You really think so?
You admit that most of these guys aren't supposed to be there, but instead of being given a real trial you think they'd rather be martyrs?
Seriously?
If you were wrongly imprisoned and tortured would you rather have a CHANCE at freedom or would you rather be a martyr to "stick it to them"?
That's crazy talk.
Why do some people think the guys imprisoned are insane? - nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -1/+15The Constitution doesn't protect anyones rights. The rights exist by default and the Constitution limits the power of the government. What the hell are they teaching in schools these days? My old civics teacher is rolling over in his grave right now.
- lhbaker, on 06/14/2008, -2/+16Wouldn't it be ironic if somebody ratted you out as a terrorist, and then, after you'd been tortured, you discovered you were in a place where the Constitution couldn't protect you and you would be held there indefinitely, and that not even your family would know where you were? I bet you'd learn to love it then, davidhallsrom.
- nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -2/+16Incorrect. The right to habeas corpus exists by default and only in certain circumstances may the government suspend it, those circumstances do not exist right now.
- charm803, on 06/14/2008, -0/+13No, that's not what I'm getting at, but if you must know, those held at Gitmo haven't had any real evidence against them yet.
I don't know if you are familiar with the Patriot Act. It can affect you out of the blue, all someone has to do is call the FBI and say they "think" you might have links to terrorists, and you can get jailed with no due process.
That's scary. - nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -0/+12and? How does that apply to letting prisoners have access to the legal system? I fear you are very confused, especially since you can't seem to find the reply button.
- appleseed1234, on 06/14/2008, -2/+14"Given people who behead and torture the same rights as US citizens"
People who torture? Great, by your logic the Gitmo interrogators should be detained themselves. Right? - nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -2/+14Letting prisoners who are being held without evidence have legal recourse is fascism? I fail to see what logic led you to that conclusion. Please do elaborate.
- lightinggod, on 06/14/2008, -0/+11Nah, Clarence just looks to see how Scalia votes, and does the same.
- wadge22, on 06/14/2008, -1/+12"Justice 5, Brutality 4" was the New York Times' title for the piece. Paragraph two uses the verb swat. Seems like a pretty good Digg title to me; title and a short quote.
- HappyEngineer, on 06/14/2008, -1/+11Are you referring to the 4 justices who voted to ass-rape the constitution?
- nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -0/+10And that has what to do with fascism? Also, it appears the Supreme Court disagrees with you :)
- GamingFox, on 06/14/2008, -0/+9Remember the Rosenberg trial from history class? In 1951, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were accused of treason against the United States by stealing U.S. nuclear secrets for the Soviet Union.
What was the smoking-gun evidence against the Rosenberg? A microfilm containing the secrets. They discussed the microfilm in secret and proved it to the jury that the Rosenbergs did steal the nuclear secrets. Today, no one know what is in the microfilm and it is still classified today.
The trial wasn't a secret trial. It was a legal trial under legal judge with legal jury and the defendants have lawyers on their side. In the end, the jury of the peers found them guilty of treason and be sentenced to death.
My point is if the government have evidences that are considered to be sensitive to national security, the courts have a way to use them as evidences without causing unnecessary damages to the national security.
Honestly, I think the reason why the current administration is trying so hard to hide their "evidences" is because they believed that national security is the security of the government, not the security of the people. - appleseed1234, on 06/14/2008, -1/+9You connected a vote for denying people freedom to a vote for "Freedom"? Oh the irony.
- dysfunction, on 06/14/2008, -1/+9Right, it's not possible that lightinggod made an assessment of Thomas as an individual, he must be racist, even though there's nothing in his comment that would lead a rational person to automatically assume racism.
- appleseed1234, on 06/14/2008, -1/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
- dysfunction, on 06/14/2008, -2/+10Some of them are US citizens, p0s3r.
- nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -0/+8In order to classify someone as an "enemy combatant" wouldn't you have to PROVE that they were one?
- kufu91, on 06/14/2008, -0/+7because we claim to be civilized. the solution to a bar fight isn't to punch random people in the face; it's to act like a civilized person and diffuse the conflict. similarly, if we are really trying to spread and encourage democracy, whats the harm in acting like a free people. if the people in gitmo are really so terrible it should be a small matter collecting a bit of evidence and if you can't then why the hell do you think they should be locked up in the first place.
- nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -0/+7Many detainees were not captured on the battlefield, they were turned in for reward money. Your ignorance is truly astonishing.
- alapoet, on 06/14/2008, -3/+10Oh, that's quite a reach... It reeks of desperation to find something with which to argue.
- rohan1234, on 06/14/2008, -2/+8If you knew anything about English you would know what the word people means.
- nblsavage, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6You are being disingenuous. There is no justification for keeping people for months on end without charges. Yes they can be captured, given access to counsel and if shown to be a civilian, released. If they are shown to be an enemy combatant then they should be treated as a POW.
- bigp3rm, on 06/14/2008, -3/+9Lets see the lights on these guys in a real court. Any of us could be shipped off to that hell hole and held without a real trial. If they have a case the government shouldn't be scared of anything.
To the guy above (HighlyEducated) maybe they should lock your ass up and torture you. Maybe you are inniocent, maybe not. You want to flip that coin on your life pal? - joewo, on 06/14/2008, -2/+8How do you know someone is a true enemy if they are never given a REAL trial? If I say you are an "Enemy Combatant" and lock you away as being a terrorist then who is to say I am wrong and you are right? Habeus Corpus' removal could leave you in jail forever. Are you are human? The US Constitution protects you. How is that so hard to comprehend or accept?
- vinod1978, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6@p0s3r - No, because he's a puppet of the right wing...and apparently, so are you.
- vinod1978, on 06/14/2008, -2/+8An excerpt from 'In The Wrong Place at the Wrong Time' - http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=19970 ...
Many of Guantanamo's prisoners proclaim they're innocent. What's different about these men, Muslims from China's Uighur minority, is that even American authorities said they were innocent, referring to them as "no longer enemy combatants" or "NLEC." Nevertheless, they remained imprisoned more than a year after their names were cleared -- after the U.S. government determined they did nothing wrong and posed no terrorist threat to America or Americans.
Why were they kept at Guantanamo so long after they were deemed innocent? Simply put, no country -- including the United States -- would accept them. They couldn't go back to China because they believed, as did the American government, that as Uighur Muslims they faced persecution by the Chinese government. With nowhere else to turn, they were taken in by Albania, a country with a Muslim majority.
Even as they struggle to find a place to call home, they are working to move past the ordeal of incarceration.
"We were isolated from the rest of the world," said Abu Bakkir Qassim, speaking through a translator.
Speaking for the group, he told ABC News: "We spent a pointless four-and-a-half years in Guantanamo."
In December 2005, a U.S. federal judge said of the men's detainment, "This indefinite imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay is unlawful."
Michael Sternell, a lawyer who represents three of the men on behalf of law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis and Frankel told ABC News, "These men have suffered more than anyone should ever have to in a lifetime in just the last four-and-a-half years. They were detained simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time." - lightinggod, on 06/14/2008, -4/+10Very good, I see that you were listening to the radio today.Those talking points sure are handy aren't they
- Netwatcher, on 06/14/2008, -3/+9Actually arresting people, locking them in secret prisons and torturing them has lead to far more deaths then what your fabricating @Muyoso.
The attrocities at Abu Grab and Guantanemo only increased the level of violence in region, and diminishing the US in the worlds eyes.
You and your kind have acted as recruiting poster for militant radicals, and the blood of innocents is on your hands. - Spudster, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6Theoretically, yes.
In practice, no. - blapierre, on 06/14/2008, -0/+6The ideas that this country were founded on, embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, state that every human being has inherent rights by virtue of being a human and that one of those rights is the right to question why you are being held, habeas corpus, except in very specific circumstances. It does not matter whether you are a "citizen" or not, it is your right as a human being.
- kufu91, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5well how the hell else are we supposed to figure out if they are innocent or not.
- vinod1978, on 06/14/2008, -1/+6If you are an American and you don't care about personal freedom, then sir, you are not an American at all.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 288 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is