What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.123 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+77Twisted what?
It suspends habeas corpus and gives our president the legal authority to torture.
Read the ***** bill. - teahugger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36Wir müssen die "terrorist" ausrotten
- Zlaya, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36@ digriffic
How can you say that you moron. Did you read the bill?
Yuo can be an enemy combatant, if the president or his staff deems so.
Habeous Corpus is dead in this country, but idiots like you probably don't even understand this.
You idiot. - HotGore, on 10/12/2007, -13/+40Heil Bush!
- schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30"Terroristen"
/grammar nazi
//Grammatik Nazi - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31@mtwolf
I'm tired of you republicans turning a blind eye to what america is becoming. If a president can jail anyone at anytime with no evidence, then it's becoming a dictatorship. End of story. - alanspach, on 10/12/2007, -8/+33I for one welcome our new retarded Overlord.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27I know there are alot of Canada jokes, but its looking really, really good right now.
- SirRudy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Suspending habeas corpus to anyone determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" will be used against American citizens, maybe not even terrorists, but dissenters. This won't survive a challenge at the Supreme Court. That is of course assuming there still will be a Supreme Court when the challenge arises.
- Revolt25, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24he just needs to be stopped... i can't say much more
- Sunwalker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28The Main Stream Media has too much to gain by sucking up to government. Tax Breaks, Monopoly Markets, Anti-Competitive Regulations, Market Consolidation, Technology Suppression... you name it.
I can't watch TV bloviators any more without screaming.
It is true that the coverage of this travesty to the constitution was and is very limited. The entire "Republican Rebel" farce resulting in a fake compromise was totally scripted. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18No! It would not! It'd be wrong no matter who is in the White House.
And here's something that I think too many Bush supporters are forgetting... Unless you honestly think that somehow George Bush will be elected "President for Life," eventually someone else will be sitting in that chair and that person may be a lot less to your liking. And once the administrative branch is given all of this unchecked power it'll be damned near impossible to take it away.
Think about that. - michaelfitz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Heil Mein Fuhrer, Bush!
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20You have put your finger on it. The media isn't "left" or "right," it's "what will keep me in the good graces of bureaucrats and politicians."
TV media is licensed by the FCC, and will not make strong criticisms of government. Most print media are public companies and are heavily regulated. Our supposed "free press" is dickless. - maklershed, on 10/12/2007, -22/+36Buried as inaccurate in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....
- disti, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17If you're from USA, please reply after reading this.
"... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ..."
Do you remember where it's from? Ofcourse you do!
Does it MEAN anything to you?
Do you think Liberty is what now what it ment then?
Whose Happiness is being pursued today?
Just askin'! - habfan29, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13No. Anyone who uses a catalyzing event to circumvent the constitution and other international laws should be taken out of office. No matter what party they belong to when in office.
- MaximusIGN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Saddam torturing people = bad
Bush torturing people = good? - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14>> Let me ask you this: If it was Bill Clinton (or Insert Democrat name here)
>> would it be ok?
it wouldn't, and believe me, the republicans would have put up a huuuuuuuge stink about it... claiming to be a party of morals blablabla... i mean, remember what a big deal they made out of a blowjob? - SonofMaug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10for those of you who want to read the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109DwHLul::
if you have trouble do a search for s.3930
for those who don't:
SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act , and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001. - happyfappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The real article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/30/MNGNKLFO3P1.DTL - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14does this mean private england will be released from jail?
They told us abu ghraib was just some outsourced indiviuals that were acting on their own and not from orders from higher ups
and then all of a sudden we are making what they did legal and annoucing we have done worse to other prisoners?
Over and over again i heard rumsfeld and cheney and others denying any part to abu ghraib.
I guess they were lying to us back then. What is amazing is how easy it is for them to lie. Most public figures will dance arround a question without answering it. But these people dont care they will lie striaght to our face and know most of america will forget their comments 3 months later. - jguy584, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Not bush's supreme court
- sebnukem, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Time to move out from Amerikreich
- brikj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11It does not suspend habeas corpus (which implies a return), it takes that right away, permanently, for people defined as and enemy combatant. All that is needed to be an enemy combatant is the president's opinion that you have provided material support to terrorists. The American Fascist Party is already saying that if you oppose current policy with regard to Iraq you are encouraging the terrorists. Not a big step from there to becoming a enemy combatant by opposing, or simply not supporting the government policy.
- AICWebmaster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15Not bad for a little monkey who is owned by the Saudis in general and the bin Ladens in particular! Zieg heil cocaine cowboy!
- TheWedge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@dbacks:
That was only after a formal declaration of war is declared by Congress. This was never done for Iraq/Afghanistan. Congress gave him authorization to send troops to Iraq (under false pretenses of course), kind of like Clinton in Kosovo, etc. A formal declaration of war must be called in order for the president to have wartime powers . - zboog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@wintermd:
Name one person from any country who's been sent to Gitmo - It isn't a public record!
But it's not Gitmo that worries me, it's the CIA-run prisons that we don't know about scattered around the world for the purposes of uncheckable executive branch power. - Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You forget that a US Citizen can be "accused" of being an enemy combatant at which point he or she is STRIPED of citizenship legally and is now an ALIEN and therfore covered under this law.
This law would be FINE if it were not for them being able to MARK you an alien by stripping you of your citizenship.
THATS HOW - bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I'm sorry I wasn't alive during the earlier ones, and I wasn't legally allowed to move out during the latter. At the moment I'm working on my education, after that, fine. Remember the last time we had major problems? Do you know how we fixed them? Lets see, the civil war, and then there was the revolution before that. We never really fix our problems, we throw out one person and carry on. I really don't know how we haven't thrown out this president.
Plus, I don't see you doing much about it either. Why complain about me? - N3TGL1TCH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Partisan politics suck. Why can't we just stick to debating the issues rather then resort to calling each other damn republicans and democrats, or liberals and conservatives (if your in Canada) as parts of our arguments? Sure there is a spectrum of political thought, left to right, but does any political stance republican or otherwise really describe all of your opinions on all issues?
Sorry everyone, i know this has nothing to do with the article so no hard feelings if digg me down. - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8such broad statements are not productive. not all bush-supporters are idiots, some are just in denial.
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Anyone ever notice how anything that criticizes Bush gets the "may be inaccurate" treatment? I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
- fadking, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Or, it could be that the user base of this site simply isn't in tune with your political opinions. Conflict doesn't precipitate failure; clearly the opposite is true, or else this site wouldn't be as popular as it is.
Suggestion: stay off the political threads if they anger you so much. - jjb123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Too much south park?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9QLBost_xg (skip to 2:00) - omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Remember: eventually, there will be a Democrat President again. And he or she will have all these powers that Bush is granting himself.
Don't like it for an opposing party? Then don't support it for yours. Whether you like it or not, it's still a two-party system. What you give to your party will be given to the opposing party eventually. - zboog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Congress is merely part of the same party of government, so don't tell me that he isn't a dictator just because the congress, controlled by his party, authored a bill. Saddam Hussein's government had various councils as well, but nobody believed that it provided a balance of power. Heck, Iraq even called itself a Republic and had elections... sound familiar?
- ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Bush is a dick. Well technically he's a pussy, but I stand by my original statement.
- fahrenheitlf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5---I kind of doubt you guys actually read the bill yourselves. If you did read the bill... Can you give the the information? (Numbers and such.)---
Here is a link to the bill.
H.R.6166 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.6166.EH: - Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Wow, thats interesting. So you're saying because nobody gave a crap back then, when someone did something wrong, they should not give a crap now?
That does not seem logical to me.
I'd prefer to learn from mistake instead of repeat it, instead of saying "we got it wrong before so that makes it ok to get it wrong again." - Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5THis is correct. However, the next guy / gal elected to that office will have the same powers as bush. And the next one. and the next one.
Hope you believe every president from now on is going to 'avoid abusing the powers granted'. - dw2005, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9 If it was Bill Clinton most of this (possibly including September 11) never would have happened.
- BuckyBit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6polit-disco on digg? the internets gets funnier every day...
I read "Torture-Charta" referring to this bill. I like that name. accurate.
btw: european countries are gathering evidence against cia-agents for prosecution. the same governments that help the cia to kidnap their own citizens (ie germany). I hope that nobody starts to put huts on us-citizens and apply some electrodes to their testicles. OK, it-s better than chopping of heads but not too good neither. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So you don't think an oligopoly or polyarchy is a kind of dictatorship? You could swap any jackass with a bad perm into Kim Jong Il's seat and it would still be a dictatorship.
Dictatorship is a system, not a person. In fact, because she has 30 IQ points on Bush, Hillery would make a much more dangerous dictator. - DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Bush plan for the War On Terrorism
(This page intentionally left blank.) - shad0w, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10So a man who can take any of his citizens and imprison and torture them indefinitely is not a dictator?
Regardless, the supreme court will very quickly rip this bill to shreds. It's unconstitutional without a doubt. - nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Did you know the US Military is sending weapons that burn people with microwaves to Iraq? Somehow I figure that has to be a violation of some rule or another . . .
http://www.digg.com/politics/Is_the_US_Military_Microwaving_People_in_Iraq_Check_Out_the_New_Weapons#c3278225 - nickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I started to see this too. It will be revealed that Bin Laden was his apprentace and he was playing both sides of the "war."
George Lucas was trying to warn us. - Alphabet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6next up, bush jails the entire supreme court for aiding the terrorists. And why stop there? Why not jail the entire congress as well?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is