What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The "Bad Boy Way" To Meet Women Online view!
doubleyourdating.com - You don't have to be a bad boy to succeed with the ladies - but here's a lesson ANY GUY can use...
68 Comments
- FOBL, on 10/11/2007, -5/+78The most compelling part of this story, for me, is that the decision came from the 4th circuit. I practiced in the 4th circuit for 10 years, and I know the judges on the Court of Appeals. Politically, they are about a nanometer to the left of the Taliban. Easily the most conservative circuit. For them to issue this decision is mind-bending, and indicates just how overreaching (and unconstitutional) the Enemy Combatant plan is.
This is only a panel decision, so I would not be surprised at all if the court reverses the decision en banc once the administration has a chance to twist some arms. - futureb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+41pre-Bush, that is not a stunning statement, it's an obvious one. of course the gov't cannot snatch a resident of our country off the streets and hold them indefinitely without charge. just shows you how far we've come in only 6 years...
- ChessPieceFace, on 10/11/2007, -5/+43@FOBL From the AP version of the article: "To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution - and the country," the court panel said.
Though, you are probably right that it will be reversed, that is still a stunning statement. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+40Countless Americans have fought for these basic constitutional freedoms. We may as well cancel Memorial Day if we let Bush destroy them.
- SuperCUBE, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28"No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . ."
"In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses IN HIS FAVOR, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." - Corvidae, on 10/11/2007, -0/+221. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?
2. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
3. You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?
5. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
6. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
Those are the rights we gave to Charles Manson, Ted Kazinsky and Timothy McVeigh. They're among the worst examples of humanity, and yet they were deserving of basic human rights. Abusing, deceiving or debasing them won't bring back their victims. And in the case of terrorists, it also helps their cause if we torture and debase them publicly. It pisses off their friends and their families and creates more terrorist recruits. If gives their priests things to point and shout about, rallying calls to the masses. Convinces those that would sit on the fence and pushes the converted over the edge to the point where they will strap on a bomb.
Terrorists deserve nothing more than any other criminal. They are nothing more than another criminal. - obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23He wasn't a citizen, just a resident. The protection of the Constitution still applies though.
- scorchedearth, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20Bush will just ignore it like he has any other law he doesn't agree with.
- 13east, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17How about we lock you up and refuse to grant you your constitutional rights? This is not about allowing terrorist free reign in this country or about having them use up public tax money for their defense, it is about giving someone their basic rights and having them stand trail in a public court so they can be held accountable to any crimes they might have or would've committed. This decision is allowing this guy to go free, but just wants the government to uphold the same rules they were assigned to protect. The constitution was put in place to make sure no one group can gain too much power and go about imposing their will on the general public, of course that is exactly what is happening in this country right now. I really do hope this decision leads to improvement in our judicial system, and restore the basic rights they should never have been taken away (habeas corpus).
- ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21I'm glad someone with power stood up to that horrible abuse of the constitution.
- loggia, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17"Clinton judge Bush left in place was the deciding vote, not quite as conservative as you point out.
Be a little more sane with your assessments..
If you are going to post first be honest."
Actually, the 4th circuit is very conservative. This has nothing to do with what President appointed who.
I have learned how to translate comments from the right like yours.
"Be a little more sane with your assessments." You mean: "You sound like you know what you're talking about."
"If you are going to post first be honest." You mean: "Please don't post first. You are honest." - youser, on 10/11/2007, -8/+20Well I'm happy to see that U.S. citizens are in the clear and can't be kidnapped and incarcerated without charge anymore. Unfortunately, that possibility is still very real for us in the rest of the world. But it's a step in the right direction at least.
- loggia, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Wouldn't you want a lawyer if you were accused of being a terrorist in a foreign country?
Or would you want to be locked away, with no rights, no chance of due process, perhaps never to see your family again or friends again? No way of defending yourself from torture or worse? - Corvidae, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11If you can hold on to the microphone...
When a politician tries that dodge, in this case the response is "So I can quote you on the record as being pro-torture?"
He either has to deny the position, allow it or pray something makes a loud enough noise he can pretend not to have heard you and move on to something else. Any answer he gives, he's going to have to take a stand. The absolute last thing a politician wants to do with any issue. It's really sad and scary when it's an opinion about torture though.
(Generally I hate having to use leading or entrapping statements. It's just the only option left with most politicians) - kingkilr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12fina--*****-ly
- eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12why would you say that?
- Powder, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11I recently (Saturday) called out my congressman, Paul Gillmor (R), on this. He just tap danced around my question of weather he supported torture. He said he was for the military commissions act, which he did vote yes for. I propose the question that if we continue to torture these people do we not run the risk of becoming exactly what we are fighting against? He then moved on to the next question quickly without giving me a answer on torture. So if anyone on here is in the 5th district (mainly northwest Ohio) don't vote for this ass hat when he comes up again. Just my two cents.
- strafefire, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11FOBL was speaking in hyperbole. How many of YOU have worked in the 4th District court system?
That's right, STFU! - consonance, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8What's surprising to me is that one person agreed with the Bush administration. Don't you think it's scary to know that we were one person away from becoming a police state?
- kingkilr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Pssh, whats that the constitution or something.
/yes that's sarcasm - Corvidae, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Actually we're not allowed to execute prisoners. Foreign or domestic are covered under different treaties or laws.
What would most likely happen to the guy in this case is that he'd be released from military prison...into a federal prison. - FOBL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@ strafefire: Thanks for understanding what I was going for there. Too bad people like rightside are incapable of abstract thought.
The 4th circuit is without question the most conservative in the country. They are the right-wing equivalent to the left-wing 9th circuit.
As I stated above, I have little doubt this decision will be reversed once the court agrees to hear it en banc. What that means is this: the decision was from a 3-judge panel of the 4th circuit Court of Appeals, not the entire court. The court will now vote on whether to revisit the case so that the other judges can deliberate and vote. Once that happens, my best guess is that the decision will be reversed with the same 2 judges voting for the Appellant and the rest voting for the government. - griffin7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8This is a victory for the US Constitution and our democratic way of life. It is a temporary setback for totalitarianism and fascism.
So make up your mind which side you are on. These two ideologies cannot peacefully co-exist. I for one stand firmly and clearly with the constitution and democracy. - FOBL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@KAISER44: You understand that federal judges are appointed for life, no? Bush didn't "leave him in place" any more than he "left Jupiter in the solar system."
You, and islanddog, and any other critic of my statement (which was hyperbole, of course) are free to ask any conservative lawyer friends you may have whether or not the 4th Circuit is known as the most conservative Court of Appeals in the country. Every lawyer who does any appellate work at all knows that the 9th circuit is, on a whole, very liberal, and the 4th circuit, on a whole, is very conservative. They exist at the far ends of the spectrum. - faskill, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Or they can respond with "You can not go on record saying whether I am for or against torture because I have neither stated that I am for or against torture..... Torture can be considered atrocious to some, to others a necessity.... (continue political rant to lead away from question)".
Politicians are in the business of misdirection and diversion. After doing it for many years, they tend to get good at it. - FOBL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@KAISER44: Bah, edit window closed on me. Please digg the previous comment down.
The judge you reference was a recess appointment by Clinton and reconfirmed to the Senate by GWB. He now sits on the court for life. Do you know why Bush renominated him?
He is the first black justice to sit on the 4th circuit. Bush had no choice. Brilliant move by Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_L._Gregory
Please don't cite one judge as a counterpoint to my claim that the 4th circuit is extremely conservative. Like I said, ask any lawyer. - ronaldinho, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Can't detain anyone without charge, even if al-Marri could be guilty. Isn't this country all about "innocent until proven guilty"? If you can't keep terrorists out from potentially entering and bombing the country, then stop being such a dumbass country and trying to be everyone's enemy!
- gert527, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8it is about time.
- littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Gonzo and his Posse of Politically Placed Federal Attorneys will probably get this decision overturned.
- MikeonTV, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Great to know that the buck stops ONLY at US citizens. No matter how much the President wants them locked up for no reason.
- lavoie0ca, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3i don't get that, aren't US military bases considered US soil?
- dschrute, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Why does the Federal Appeals Court hate America?
- gwolf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5That's what a Natzi would do, what are you?
- alarion, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2and remember kiddies, the government can accuse you of being a terrorist and go lock you up (well, prior to this anyhow) w/o a single piece of evidence to support their claim. Flick off the president? ***** you, you're a terrorist. Bad mouth the government - ***** you, you're a terrorist. Walk down the street and shift your eyes - ***** you, you're a terrorist.
I would rather the handful of potential terrorists in this country have some basic ***** human rights, than me to have no rights at all. Terrorist attacks are going to happen from time to time - in fact, they seem to be planned quite frequently. Maybe next time people warn the FBI that a big ass attack is about to happen - they will ***** take the advice and investigate.
It's ok tho, if you don't want any rights, I hear China is nice this time of year. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@zarchon
Normally you'd be right... But our side doesn't enforce authority with force. Our side would much prefer to empower the citizenry as the founders envisioned. - lavoie0ca, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3lol
- Corvidae, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And the response is "By refusing to state a stance, one can only assume that you are too ashamed to do so. Making the obvious answer, "You support torture."
Again it's really a question of holding on to the microphone. The only way to force them into a stance is to give them a choice of taking a stance or being given one if they don't answer or sidestep. That's usually where you'll get cut off though and the mic will be taken away from you.
Basically it comes down to having to trick or coerce the person into stating their position. If it isn't done with the utmost of skill and careful wording, then you end up coming off as some crackpot heckler. Making it easy for them to brush you off as security removes you. Or you end up in a shouting match that amounts to nothing other than a shouting match. (Consider the Jon Stewart/McCain interview) McCain didn't control the venue so he couldn't shut up Stewart, and rather than answer the questions he kept falling back to talking points. It was a failed attempt by Stewart to get some answers. The only answer he got was that McCain would refuse to give a straight answer. The mistake was that Stewart didn't make it clear that anything other than an answer should be considered "X" horrible answer. Instead he let McCain keep rewording/repeating his talking point. McCain wasn't even trying to answer, he was reading the answer verbatum from talking points in his head.
Basically my position on anyone holding an elected office is that they have a duty to state their stance on any issue relevant to their position. Not stating a stance is not an option, because it's part of their job to take a stand and do what they think is right (Which is hopefully why people voted for them). So given a sitatution where they refuse or dodge an issue, it must be assumed that they are not in agreement with those who elected them. Also there are no top secret opinions, an opinion is not a policy or an ongoing operation. So there is no defence for sidestepping or refusing to answer, other than cowardice or intentional deception. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@trough
You are a brainwashed zombie. All of my pity upon you. - Nespithe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I don't know what they rebuffed him with but it obviously wasn't arcane brilliance
- Corvidae, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I Should have also mentioned, politicians talking to the public don't really have the 5th amendment on their side. While they can't be convicted for not answering anything. The public, unlike the courts, CAN assume that a refusal to answer equates to guilt.
Again though, it's an opinion, being guilty of an opinion can, at worst, make people consider you a bad person. - Matthew720, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3I wouldn't have expected to see this ruling coming from the 4th district, the 9th perhaps, but not the 4th. It only goes to show how far Bush has gone.
- citizenmatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Thank God. What makes Bush think these terrorists are more dangerous than any threat we've faced in the last two centuries that he can take away the "innocent until proven guilty thing?" He is a scaredy-cat idiot.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You're demolishing your own argument: If the forum was TRULY more important than the article, then littlebylittle would have actually checked the damn "Are you sure it's not a duplicate" page when making a submission, because the forum works better without lots of dupes!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The forum is more important than the article... Don't you realize?
- EggoTrip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm annoyed that one judge actually disagreed.
Remember the Constitution? You know that thing that Bush is suppose to uphold? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Do you work for Digg?... Do you need to police dupes?... Does it make you feel good pointing them out?... Do you feel that you're working for something meaningful?... Tell us how you really feel.
- Zarchon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Who decides what our side does? My side, the constitutional democracy side, does enforce authority with force. President Lincoln used force to stop the South for legally and peacefully suceeding from the union. Ideals are one thing, reality is another. I agree with the court on this one.
The trouble is I also think we should be able to detain known enemies of the state without having to press charges. Unfortunately these two ideologies cannot peacefully co-exist in the real world.
The court made the right decision but it doesn't make me happy. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Because murder is constitutional.
- Zarchon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1@griffin7
Let me get this straight, either I agree with you or I am for totalitarianism and fascism? Seems to me that form of thinking goes right down the very path it professes to lead away from. - eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2That guy's hair kept him out of prison
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is