What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
118 Comments
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -13/+155Apparently, these "activist" judges "think" that by "upholding" the "constitution" and the "Rule of Law," they can "save" the country from someone who not only didn't "pass" the bar, but actually took a seat at it to remain "perpetually drunk."
- ChrisXof, on 10/11/2007, -13/+85We're finally back on the road to Democracy...
- hambend, on 10/11/2007, -3/+49@ChrisXoF
To simply reverse the damage done by this administration is not enough. Even if you manage to wind America back seven years, what's to stop the next lot from trying to do the exact same thing? Cheney, Rumsfeld, and surely Bush himself have made obscene profits from the War on Terror, and simply undoing the instruments of their warmongering does nothing to stop them from retiring on their mountains of blood money.
These people need to be punished. Not because they're evil, or even because they deserve it (although I'd say they do), but to ensure that the next *****-in-chief thinks long and hard before trying to make personal profit at such a massive human costs. If we aren't prepared to step up and make our politicians serve us, then instead they will rule us. - darkbird, on 10/11/2007, -8/+48@ChrisXof
baby steps, baby steps - Stonedonkey, on 10/11/2007, -5/+39The Digg blurb is misleading. The appeals court ruled that US CITIZENS could not be held indefinitely, and there is only one inmate in Guantanamo who fits the bill. The rest of them are still ***** out of luck.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33@stonedonkey: "The Digg blurb is misleading. The appeals court ruled that US CITIZENS could not be held indefinitely"
Huh!? The constitution plainly grants habeas corpus rights to all "PERSONS" under US jurisdiction irrespective of citizenship so long as they are now POWs, captured overseas, etc.
You say it's misleading? You then claim the appeals court rule only for citizens? Did you RTF(Ruling)?
Ruling, Page 29:
"The Constitution guarantees that no “person” shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const., amend. V; see also id. amend. XIV, § 1. The text of the Fifth Amendment affords this guarantee to “person[s],” not merely citizens, and so the constitutional right to freedom from deprivation of liberty without due process of law extends to all lawfully admitted aliens living within the United States."
The ruling doesn't turn one whit on whether the people in question are citizens versus merely legal residents. - ClosedCaption, on 10/11/2007, -32/+61You mean allowing the President act like a up and comming Dictator is the Constitution?
- jux589, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28Interesting because it will never make it to the Supreme Court without going through the lower courts... the issue is now one step closer to the SC.
- DooM, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23Actually it says US 'residents' - he's not a citizen. So this is a bigger step in the right direction than you give it credit for.
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25You know, it's funny. Unrelated is the first guy I've blocked.
Yeah. You can be an intentionally offensive troll or a complete idiot, but flood and ye shall be blocked. - dodus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+25**yawn**
Democracy in action is soooooooooo boring, I wonder what's on the front page of YouTube?
/thcobbs - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20woohoo! go freedom! yeah!
this is about as much fun as watching the RIAA lose "piracy" cases. - crazybugger, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21Why is that Bush administration and Hitler adminisration have so much in common?
- M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Here is the New York Time & Yahoo articles in which this blog references.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-usa-security-combatant.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/enemy_combatant - aliengoods, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10@rightside
I'm sick of ***** rhetoric from people like you. How does giving a person a trial make it easier for the terrorists?
I'm waiting.
That's right, it doesn't. However, holding innocent people for years without a trial can help the terrorists, as I imagine they have one more recruit. Stop sucking the right wing dick and open your eyes. - luther70, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Jim keep in mind that any powers you think are OK for Bush to have will also be OK for President Clinton or President Obama.
- tarynme, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15I think it's safe to assume that Bush said "tl;dr" to the Constitution... no harm, no foul in his eyes.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9stonedonkey is right. There are many secret prisons where the captives sacrificed their right to Habeus Corpus a looooong time ago. He shouldn't be dugg down... That should be even MORE publicized in fact.
- teaBagger, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Bugger... It stalls Bush's plans for WW3 and world domination for at least 3 weeks
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9"see whitec00 below. 2 Clinton appointees are playing politics with our National Security."
Ah, I see. I must have not listened to Rush today. I didn't know that. Boy, was it clever of Clinton to appoint these activist judges who uphold the constitution. And he did it seven years in advance of his leaving office. That's foresight. He must have known that someday, his loyal jurists would be called on to let dangerous terrorists free on the streets.
Oh, wait. No one is actually letting the terrorists free. They're just calling for a fair trial, you know, the rule of law, the Magna Carta, surviving umpteen brutal wars and 700 years of precedent.
It's those pesky minor details that always getchya. - Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8What's America lost? The ability to treat human beings like cattle?
Wait, no, scratch that. We've lost the ability to treat american citizens like cattle. Don't worry, you. The rest of the world is still fair game for your witch hunt. - nygrissplz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9War with Iran and serious conflict with Russia looms overhead, conservatives cheer.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I have no idea how you managed to turn a Bush-violates-the-Constitution thread into a But-Clinton defense.
Care to fill us in on steps 2 through 15 in your chain of thought? Some GOP talking point we haven't heard repeated ad nauseum (at least not yet). On second thought, maybe we'll just let it lie.
Yes, Poser, this is all Clinton's fault. - SocialPoison, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Wow... only took 8 replies before Godwin's Law won out...
- GuZ2k7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Holy *****, did we actually do something constitutionally-right in this country?!
- hcl40u, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7When in doubt just default to Blame Clinton™.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Why would restoring *everyones* rights benefit liberals only?... Is freedom not bipartisan?
- HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Constitution = Law of the Land.
Any law Congress passes that goes against the Constitution is null and void. - nygrissplz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Communism is not a cause for war.
War with Iran is an example of America's "Global Police" policy. The modern day middle east would not hate us right now if we had not bothered in their affairs long ago. We set ourselves up for this with our stupid imperialistic policy. Granting them democracy...what a load of *****. - HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"The constitution is meant to set guidelines for the Government to work within, not to grant rights to people. If these rights deserve suspension, we really need to see some evidence."
For the sake of our republic, please get yourself a proper Constitutional education.
The Constitution is not a set of "guidelines"; it is strict Law. And none of our Rights are "granted" they are RECOGNIZED. Which means that they can not be stripped without risking a revolution. Please seek to understand the importance of that distinction. - honestjoe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Speaking of spies.
Senator Graham’s revelation of a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for the terrorists within the Saudi government with a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family with their close ties to the Bin Ladens.
Also the Treasury and State Departments have catalogued the Saudi government’s decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
According to U.S. intelligence reports the Saudi government played a direct role in funding 9/11 and Saudi Arabia has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. Also the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report shows Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disney world. Plus U.S. intelligence reports and the U.S. Iraq Study Group report as well as Iraqi intelligence reports said Saudis are funding Sunni Arab insurgents and the money is used to buy weapons, including Strelas, Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. And nearly "ALL" of the shoot downs in Iraq are by Sunni insurgents and Sunni Al-Qaida factions.
So why on earth is the US now funding the Sunni militias in Iraq while at the same time funding and supporting Sunni Al-Qaida terror cells in Iran? Is it not against the law to support and/or fund terrorist no matter if its directly or indirectly? Cant those that are supplying and funding the terrorist be held as enemy-combatants?
What more of a “Double standard” can there be than to declare a war on terror to get those who attacked us on 9/11 only to avoid holding to account those most responsible (the Saudi government) and to not only allow them to continue to support, fund and supply the terrorist whom are doing the most killing of Americans (90%) but now even the US government is supporting Sunni Al-Qaida terror cells in Iran. Which means the Bush administration supports terror!
Who do I call to report an enemy combatant in the White House? - robalesi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Habeas Corpus FTW!!!
- luther70, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I'm not a constitution scholar but can the Congress Authorize somethings that not constitutional? Some how I think that might not be allowed.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I agree with your take on the religion part 100%, that seemed a little weird to me, but all of the rest of the interview is a little saddening. Somebody who has worked their entire life, and then risk everything being taken away to make a point is impressive to me. Ed and his wife are sentenced to 63 months in prison each for tax evasion over one question. His question is "Show me the law that requires me to pay tax?" Well the IRS can not do it. Again, I do not have the gonads to challenge the IRS like he is doing, but after watching this film, it really makes you think. Even past IRS people have quit, because the can not answer that question. Here is the link if you have the time... It is really worth watching!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism - WarpFox, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Because, after visiting your page, all you do is display a ***** ton of ads and ask for donations. You don't have any real content or plan, and i'm pretty sure you probobly aren't registered as a non-profit organization.
Smells like a scam - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4"The constitution is meant to set guidelines for the Government to work within, not to grant rights to people. If these rights deserve suspension, we really need to see some evidence."
I'm confused what you mean here. Doesn't the Bill of Rights state that it is basically listing them for explicit protection, but that the list should not be seen as a lower rather than upper bound for fundamental rights? - Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4And if you happened to be a foreign national with associates who involve themselves in questionably terrorist activities? This is not an unlikely thing conisdering anyone from the Middle East, and, having friends who disagree with me on many subject a philosophical level, I'd say that the likelihood of a terrorist's associates also being terrorists is not high enough to warrant anything more than a quick questioning, if that.
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6*ahem*
I'm pretty sure we're all tired of hearing our own ***** of a president saying moronic things like that. Do shut up.
(btw, I've been working all day, and my sarcasm filter's off. If you're being funny, I retract my above statement). - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4the thing is, you have to prove they took up arms and were in fact "enemy combatants". the whole point of all of this is this administration is nabbing people left and right and not giving them fair trails to determine guilt. without trails, you can label anyone an "enemy combatant" and hold them indefinitely.
- missali1984, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5This absolutely warms my heart to see.
- jgzman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm confused what you mean here. Doesn't the Bill of Rights state that it is basically listing them for explicit protection, but that the list should not be seen as a lower rather than upper bound for fundamental rights?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill of rights is in fact a lower bound for our civil rights. That is to say, those rights are absolutely inviolate. There may be more rights above and beyond those spelled out. Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - in other words, just because the Constitution doesn't specifically name a right is not a reason to deny that right.
My right to go out at night is not listed anywhere, but it's absence from the Bill of Rights does not mean that it can be denied to me without further legislation. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8This is a start......Bush's past followers are abandoning the ship. Now if anyone can help Ed Brown...He has some balls! Bigger BALLS then I have.......If you have not heard, he is hold up in his house with his wife, and as I understand the Govt is trying to seize everything he has... Here is the latest interview. He is not crazy, he just following the Constitution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjJpQTSh-z0 - anillop, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Keep your pants on people this only applies to U.S. Citizens, and not resident aliens, or anyone else. This is a huge step in the right direction but this is just the decision of a circuit court and it can be appealed.
- ranirastabout, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The constitution's back, and this time it's personal !!!1!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The problem is that the majority of them are just ordinary citizens... How can you justify taking a whole race of people hostage to isolate the violent 2%. It's ridiculous. We have to treat people like human beings. We have to be moral. What else do we have? Let us not be the land of apathy that everyone proclaims us to be.
- Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Actually, he appears to be using religion as a shield against taxation.
Why does that seem a bit scoundrelous to me?
-----
Godwin's law is far too underreaching; the second you invoke 'good (in the religious sense)', 'evil', 'higher law', 'God's Will', or anything else of a supernatural origin, you've lost the argument. - Leviathan777, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Here's a question for those who think detaining foreigners without habeus corpus or Geneva etc is just peachy:
Once they haul your ass to a secret jail somewhere and prevent you from seeing a lawyer or communicating with the outside - what makes you think your citizenship is going to protect you? "I'm a US Citizen!" "Sure, you are, Haji, now shut the ***** up before I turn it down to freezing in there".
So, realisitically, if you are for it, it's because the color of your skin (white) makes you feel secure this couldn't happen to you. Because innocence is no defense - according to the US Army, most of the people in Gitmo haven't actually done anything. - honestjoe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Who do I call to report an enemy combatant?
Senator Graham’s revelation of a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for the terrorists within the Saudi government with a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family with their close ties to the Bin Ladens.
Also the Treasury and State Departments have catalogued the Saudi government’s decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
According to U.S. intelligence reports the Saudi government played a direct role in funding 9/11 and Saudi Arabia has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. Also the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report shows Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disney world. Plus U.S. intelligence reports and the U.S. Iraq Study Group report as well as Iraqi intelligence reports said Saudis are funding Sunni Arab insurgents and the money is used to buy weapons, including Strelas, Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. And nearly "ALL" of the shoot downs in Iraq are by Sunni insurgents and Sunni Al-Qaida factions.
So why on earth is the US now funding the Sunni militias in Iraq while at the same time funding and supporting Sunni Al-Qaida terror cells in Iran? Is it not against the law to support and/or fund terrorist no matter if its directly or indirectly? Cant those that are supplying and funding the terrorist be held as enemy-combatants?
What more of a “Double standard” can there be than to declare a war on terror to get those who attacked us on 9/11 only to avoid holding to account those most responsible (the Saudi government) and to not only allow them to continue to support, fund and supply the terrorist whom are doing the most killing of Americans (90%) but now even the US government is supporting Sunni Al-Qaida terror cells in Iran. Which means Bush supports terror!
Give me the number to "We The People" I want to report a crime. - Malarie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Wow!
Congratulations USA :)
-Canada - dodus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I also don't think "use force" can necessarily be translated to "unconstitutional actions are okay".
-
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is