Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Graham (R-SC) Constituion is "irresponsible and outrageous"
dailykos.com — In response to today's landmark Supreme Court decision granting habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees, Lindsey Graham has decided he wants to amend the United State Constitution to strip it of any pesky kinds of civil rights protections that have existed since the Magna Carta.
rationalbeats- 2254 diggs
- digg it
- caferrell, on 06/13/2008, -16/+572The Neocon Republicans have no credibility left, whatsoever. None
Rescind habeus corpus to protect us from a few irate Arabs with bomb vests? Are there no men left on the Republican side of the aisle? Are they really that frightened?
Lindsey Graham is a perfect example of the neocon pansy, ready to jail and torture without any legal procedure, ready to send other people's children off to the desert to kill and die, but scared ***** that something might happen to affect his perfect Washington existence.
Pathetic coward- rationalbeats, on 06/13/2008, -5/+158These people like Graham would have been on the side of the Loyalist during the American Revolution.
What spineless cowards.- Gerz1219, on 06/13/2008, -5/+32I'm not sure about that. King George III did a much better job of protecting the writ of habeas corpus than George Bush.
- kemp34, on 06/13/2008, -2/+91They are pussies and chickenhawk cowards plain and simple. Our forefathers would have laughed these clowns out of the country.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/13/2008, -5/+13ORLY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Andre
General George Washington convened a board of senior officers to investigate the matter. The board consisted of Major Generals Nathanael Greene (the presiding officer), Lord Stirling, Arthur St. Clair, Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette, Robert Howe, Steuben, Brigadier Generals Samuel H. Parsons, James Clinton, Henry Knox, John Glover, John Paterson, Edward Hand, Jedediah Huntington, John Stark, and Judge-Advocate-General John Laurance. On September 29, 1780, the board found André guilty of being behind American lines "under a feigned name and in a disguised habit", and that "Major André, Adjutant-General to the British army, ought to be considered as a Spy from the enemy, and that agreeable to the law and usage of nations, it is their opinion, he ought to suffer death."[2] Later, Glover was officer of the day at André's execution. Sir Henry Clinton, the British commander in New York, did all he could to save André, but refused to surrender Arnold (who had escaped to British lines upon learning of Andre's capture) in exchange for André even though he despised Arnold and André was his favorite aide. André appealed to George Washington to be executed by firing squad, but by the rules of war he was to be hanged as a spy at Tappan on October 2, 1780.- kemp34, on 06/13/2008, -1/+24Good and interesting post. Seeing that Graham served in the military and went to Iraq I, I have to tone down the rhetoric of my previous post. I stand firm FOR habeas corpus in all respects however. If you have a real case against someone, providing reasoning in front of a court should be very easy. Suspending habeas corpus is the path towards barbarity and is not conducive to a free society especially when there is not a declared war occurring. If there was an actual declared war, I would be more open to military tactics, but given that we are not in declared war time, there is less leeway for *****.
- JohnReb, on 06/13/2008, -26/+4The war in Iraq is a declared war.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES ...
"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
That is a declaration of war. - chicofaraby, on 06/13/2008, -3/+42"That is a declaration of war."
No it isn't. Declarations of war say "declare war" in them. Point one is moot since Iraq was no threat and you can't defend the USA from a country that never attacked it. Point two is irrelevant because there was no UN resolution asking the USA to attack Iraq.
All in all, the illegal war can't be justified by that pathetic fig leaf. - Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -2/+26JohnReb: No, it isn't. It's an "authorization for use of force".
And besides, Bush didn't truly fulfill his legal obligation in order to get that authorization. (Which is why I'm glad somebody Kucinich is popularizing the issue in his Article VI.) - noahhoward, on 06/13/2008, -14/+2So what is the difference between a use of force and declaration of war in your opinion? What makes Iraq a war and not simply an application of force?
- Pittance, on 06/13/2008, -3/+21Congress has not declared war since World War II. Everything since then has been "conflicts". The president and the congress can use the armed forces all they want, but it isn't a real war until it is declared.
- kemp34, on 06/13/2008, -3/+19@JohnReb: no Constitutional declaration of war, no true "War Time". An authorization of the use of force is a pussy footing way to get around the Constitution to use the military for un-Constitutional aims. This sort of thing is why Bush and Co. hate the Constitution so much, IT PINS THEM DOWN. So they subvert it and we are in a time of "use of force" not a Constitutional "War Time". Given that we are not in Constitutional War Time, I do not consider "War Time Powers" to be legitimate. If you want war time powers, have the Congress actually declare a war, otherwise, it's all a con game. Can't have your cake and eat it too...
- Hangly, on 06/13/2008, -3/+15That declaration of war isn't a declaration and doesn't even have the word "war" in it.
What about this?
December 8, 1941
JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared;
and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan;
and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.
That, my friend, is a declaration of war. - JohnReb, on 06/13/2008, -11/+4@chicofaraby: "No it isn't. Declarations of war say "declare war" in them."
What section of the US Constitution is that rule from? If Congress says the President can use the military against another nation, it has declared war.
"Point one is moot since Iraq was no threat and you can't defend the USA from a country that never attacked it."
Look up the USS Stark. Iraq has attacked the US.
@Terr01: "And besides, Bush didn't truly fulfill his legal obligation in order to get that authorization."
It specifically says "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines" Not that he will be authorized if he does...". So there was no legal obligations placed on him by the declaration.
@noahhoward: "So what is the difference between a use of force and declaration of war in your opinion? What makes Iraq a war and not simply an application of force?"
Fair question. There isn't one. An authorized application of military force by one nation on another is war. What other word would anyone use for it?
@pittance: "The president and the congress can use the armed forces all they want, but it isn't a real war until it is declared."
That was the declaration I posted. Unless you can show me a specific script in the Constitution that must be used to declare war, then anytime the US Congress gives the President permission to use the military against another nation, it has declared war.
@kemp34: It is a declaration of war. What else is the use of military force against another nation? What law specifies a particular text that such declaration must follow? - JohnReb, on 06/13/2008, -7/+1@Hangly
Yup, that's a declaration of war also. So?
Where is there a legal requirement in US law for the words "declare" or "war" to appear in a declaration of war?
If Congress says the President can uise the military against another nation, they have declared war. - TheGuruStud, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9By your logic, everything is war.
I don't think anyone is saying that we aren't at war with Iraq. But the fact remains, it has not been declared. End of ***** story. - JohnReb, on 06/13/2008, -8/+2No, by my logic when Congress tells the President he can attack another nation they have declared war.
How is that difficult to grasp? - DiggDuggDugged, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8JohnReb, you're a tool and don't have any damned clue what you are talking about. There is specific language that a declaration of war is required to use, although there are no hard & firm laws that define said language (I could almost give you half a digg, except that you're such an ignoramus). For your reading pleasure, I'll provide two links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by ...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ ...
The first is the obligatory wiki article about declaration of war in the US, the second is a .pdf report from the British House of Lords that touches on declarations of war in the UK. Skip to page 56 for the pertinent text, or read the entire thing and come away perhaps a bit wiser.
One last point: If war has indeed been declared, where is the national rationing program, where are the restrictions on free speech and public assembly, and where are the detention camps for all the American citizens of Iraqi descent? - JohnReb, on 06/14/2008, -5/+1Let'[s start with your own wiki article, though wiki articles are meaningless as proof of anything. It states:
"For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War;" however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title"
So your own article admits there is no formal requirement for specific words or phrases to actually be used in the text.
Second, an article on UK requirements for a declaration of war is meaningless in terms of requirements for a US declaration of war. We settled whose rules we follow here before 1814. Sorry.
If you believe there is some specific requirement for the text, show me where it is. If it isn't specified somewhere, it simply doesn't exist. There simply is no such think as "specific language...required" for a thing that isn't recorded somewhere as part of the rules that govern that thing.
What has your rant about rationing, censorship and camps got to do with a declaration of war? Are you under some illusion that those things automatically happen when war is declared? Sorry, but those items are completely separate. - DiggDuggDugged, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2See, that's my problem with you, you're far too dismissive of others viewpoints while stubbornly sticking your head in the sand. I can understand being skeptical of a wiki article but at least have the honesty to read the cited material. If you had even read the other link I provided, and gone directly to the page I referenced, you would have noticed that the entire damned section discussed war making powers in the US and how that bears on the UK (our closest ally to you). I would suggest you read the wiki article on declarations of war or even Google "declaration of war" to broaden your horizons but I'm sure you'll fart all over that, too.
My point about sacrificing things that most of us warmly regard is that every time America has gone to war the public has had to sacrifice some things for the common good. I don't agree with many said actions but I do believe that is an important point. If that goes over your head then I'm sorry, you're not the tool I first mistook you for but rather a child who knows no better. - JohnReb, on 06/14/2008, -3/+1Again.
Your wiki article specifically stats there is no specific rule in the US Constitution that requires a particular set of words to declare war.
It's a discussion of the War Powers act from a British point of view, I saw that. What has it got to do with the phrasing of a declaration of war? It mentions declarations of war but only in terms of what powers the President has under one, or absent one. It mentions no required text.
What sacrifices were US citizens asked to make during the Spanish-American War or the Mexican-American War? Both declared. The fact is that the public has been asked for sacrifices during some declared wars but, unlike your claim, it has not happened every time.
You can prove I'm wrong easily enough. Provide a link to the law that shows the required text for a Declaration of War. That would be all it takes.
Either I'm right and there isn't one, or you are and there is.
- Wargalas, on 06/13/2008, -8/+15Thanks for differentiating Neoconservatives from rank and file Republicans. I'm a Republican and I say the Constitution is fine the way it is. I disagree with the ruling, in that I believe that the Constitution only applies to US born and naturalized citizens, but the courts ruled against my opinion, so that's the way it's going to be.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/13/2008, -5/+13ORLY?
- suzywang3000, on 06/13/2008, -78/+6hey retard... hate to break the news to you, but Obama is a neocon.
- DiggasWAttitude, on 06/13/2008, -3/+65hey retard... who the ***** mentioned Obama?
- elamr, on 06/13/2008, -8/+31Socialist, he might be. Extreme left (relativily speaking), you might have an argument, but "Obama is a neocon." NO. Neocons are American Imperialists, they want to do "Operation Iraqi Freedom-style" pre-emptive agaist the "Axis of Evil". In their eyes the world is in black and white, you are either for us, or you are against us. America can do no wrong ever! and if you say that our government has made mistake you are un-American. Listen to talk Hannity, Rush and others you'll hear classic Neocons touting "conservative" values but taking action to promote the Neoconservative movement.
- chicofaraby, on 06/13/2008, -8/+17"Socialist, he might be."
I'm a socialist. Why would I vote for Obama? He hasn't offered to nationalize a single industry. He isn't proposing universal health care. He isn't going to break up the media conglomerates. Why in the hell would I vote for him? - Wargalas, on 06/13/2008, -17/+4@chicofaraby
"I'm a socialist"...
Well that explains a lot of your loopy comments that you have made during our conversations. :) - kayala, on 06/13/2008, -4/+8***** decide already if he's a socialist or a communist. I'm on the edge of my seat.
- elamr, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10Obama has a lot of socialist solutions that may have America looking more like Europe. Socialism is a dirt word amongs so called "conservatives". But the irony is that conservatives and "liberals" have BOTH been moving us toward socialist solution (i.e. education, medicare, medicaid an others supported by Reagan and other conservacrats lifted to god status).
Even though most of my views are Libertarian, I am not entirely opposed to social programs to take care of our elderly, veterans and disabled. Further, if social progams can empower and bring out the best in US citizens, I see NO problem with that. Empowering programs such as government grants will help us as a whole. (guess I disagree with RP on that issue).
"give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever."
ref:
reagan - and medicaid
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=& ...
Reagan - and social schooling
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=r ... - Modizzle, on 06/13/2008, -9/+1I'd vote for him over McCain, but seriously, don't do that. Just..don't do that. Don't go mucking up the definition of what a neocon is just because you happen to like Obama. He IS a neocon. Anybody with basic sense in international politics will tell you this. He is a neocon because he has pledged his unwavering and unquestioning support for Israeli policy and supports unilateral precision strikes on foreign governments like Pakistan.
- chicofaraby, on 06/13/2008, -8/+17"Socialist, he might be."
- woofers07, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7I'd love to hear you say that BillO, or any other d-bag neocon out there. And if you're gonna call someone a retard outright, you might want to make sure you don't sound like a bigger one yourself before you blurt out some completely ignorant statement.
- Yonson, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Ummm... what?
- pprovo1, on 06/13/2008, -1/+67He'll be begging for habeus corpus when he's found linked to a prostitution ring!!! lol
- pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -1/+43you mean gay prostitute, he's a republican.
- altgeeky1, on 06/13/2008, -1/+32Don't you mean teenage boy intern?
- pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -1/+43you mean gay prostitute, he's a republican.
- delmar14, on 06/13/2008, -8/+27There are a few, like Ron Paul, but they're mostly considered crazy by the rest of the party.
- Pake, on 06/13/2008, -10/+7Because Ron Paul's interpretation of the constitution is that there should no checks and balances between federal and state level governments, and that states should essentially be their own countries with their own constitutions (i.e. kiss your Bill of Rights goodbye). The guy has no problem with removing the separation of church and state and people still think he's for the constitution? He's a Texan who wants to see his own state become it's own country.
- Pake, on 06/13/2008, -5/+7PS: He rarely ever submits his own legislation while voting no on everything else and complaining that nothing is done right. Ron Paul needs to get a clue. If you're in a position to change things and instead of pushing legislation to change it, you can't sit there and bitch about everyone else. He has the option, but he'd rather get paid to sit on his ass and vote no.
- daggah, on 06/13/2008, -7/+3Exactly. People just like projecting the freedoms they value onto him, because they think he cares. He's the same as any other conservative Religious Righter, he just has a different strategy to accomplish those goals.
- mlavergn, on 06/13/2008, -5/+7If RP had run on the premise that he would separate Texas to form a new independent country, I would have busted my ass to get him into the White House.
- secrity, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3He is also against gay rights and gay marriage.
- oscenester, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2you don't have to bust your ass. Texas is free to leave the union at any time. It was one of their conditions in accepting becoming a part of the Union. Another was that they be able to fly their flag at the same height as the US flag. Personally, after living here for 3 yrs almost now after growing up in california, this whole f'ing state is ass backwards and should depart. its a disgrace.
- HomerPimpson4, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Hey oscenester I believe that ever since the Civil War it has been illegal for a state to secede.
- oldhick, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6You guys are nuts... At least do a little research before you go nuts talking about things you don't understand.
Lets take some of these points calmly and rationally.
"no checks and balances between federal and state level governments" - that is an outright lie. That is the current situation we live. Lincoln ensured that no State can EVER check the Federal government. A state can't stop the Federal government from doing anything. Ron Paul believes in the view that our founding fathers held which is that an all powerful Federal government will ultimately be a tyrannical one and that the Constitution must be enforced to protect us as citizens. The Constitution LIMITS the authority of government. It explicitly says that any right not granted to the Federal government in the Constitution is thereby the right of the state.
"kiss the bill of rights good bye" - you should have already done that. The government is now illegally searching and seizing without warrants. The government is stifling free speech by making it a felony to discuss such activities if you have specific knowledge of them. Ron Paul is one of a very few who have a perfect record of defending the bill of rights. He has voted against the Patriot Act each time its come up along with many other pieces of legislation that are infringing on your rights. This makes no sense at all to claim Ron Paul is "against the bill of rights". That his life's work.
"has no problem with removing the separation of church and state" - that is just an outright fabrication. He believes the Federal government should be limited from infringing on peoples rights to practice their faith. But he has never introduced any legislation establishing religion.
Ron Paul is NOT against gay rights nor gay marriage. He has repeatedly stated that the Federal government has no right to tell anyone who can or can't get married. The Constitution forbids discrimination and likewise he is opposed to the Federal government doing so.
Its easy to disagree with peoples political views as we are all different. But we owe each other enough respect to at least debate political views honestly without misrepresentation. Its much easier to turn complex issues into one line jokes, but it doesn't really benefit anyone. - Pake, on 06/14/2008, -5/+2We're nuts? We need to do research? You should seriously look at Ron Paul a little more closely and do your own research instead of just spouting off what you're told by other RP supporters.
"Ron Paul is one of a very few who have a perfect record of defending the bill of rights." and "He believes the Federal government should be limited from infringing on peoples rights to practice their faith."
Perfect record? Then please, explain why he voted to allow prayer in school. Explain why he voted against changing the Pledge of Allegiance back to a neutral pledge by removing the words "Under God." The only way to not infringe on others faiths is to remove religious material from anything that represents the United States or is funded by the United States. Considering the voting record he has that I just mentioned, he's missing the target by miles.
"He has repeatedly stated that the Federal government has no right to tell anyone who can or can't get married."
He's voting AGAINST gay marriage, which is EXACTLY the same as telling people who they can and can not marry.
"The Constitution forbids discrimination and likewise he is opposed to the Federal government doing so."
The Constitution originally did not forbid discrimination and considering how Ron Paul always claims to do follow the constitution, if we were voting on allowing minorities to vote, he would be the first one to stand up and say that the Federal government does not have the right to allow who can and can not vote. He would have shot down amendments 13-15 in a heartbeat. - oldhick, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3He didn't vote for prayer in school. He voted to not allow the Federal government to get involved. School decisions should be handled locally or do you like No Child Left Behind?
Maybe he likes the Pledge of Allegiance the way it is...
The Federal government has NOTHING to do with marriage. Do you really want Federal marriage licenses? The decision isn't for or against anything other than retaining States rights.
The Supreme court can rule on the Constitutionality of election laws, gay marriage, and prayer. The Constitution protects the rights and liberty of all Americans. We don't need additional Federal statutes and legislation.
I'm fairly knowledgeable about Ron Paul. I know that he loves personal freedom and all men and women. He has no ill will towards the gay community or any other community. Rather his belief and many others beliefs are that our Constitution was designed to limit the ability of the Federal governments involvement in your daily life.
You seem to prefer the Federal government being involved in your schools and your home and that is fine, but its not fair to paint someone as anti-gay because they believe that government should be closer to the people and their localities. Its a political ideology, not an anti-gay ideology.
The Constitution of the United States was amended to protect civil rights. That is the correct course of action, not federal law. He is against Federal laws being enacted outside of the Constitution, that is all. He has never said he would opposed to amending the Constitution further and you need to understand the importance of that distinction. We should be actively campaigning for additional amendments to protect homosexual rights if we feel they are inadequately protected right now. I would support this 100% and I believe Ron Paul would as well, he appreciates the Constitutional process.
You make some great points. I am fairly well read on Ron Paul and I think you've somehow missed his fundamental love for and desire to protect all people because you disagree with approach to requiring a Constitutional process as opposed to a legislative one. Thanks! - Pake, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2"He voted to not allow the Federal government to get involved."
Which is a direct violation of the Constitution whereby no government, be it state or federal, is allowed to back any religion.
"School decisions should be handled locally or do you like No Child Left Behind?"
School decisions should be handle federally, or else we will end up with more South Carolina's and Mississipi's in terms of academics. As for NCLB, the concept was good, the problem was its execution. The Teachers Union hate the idea, so instead of giving it a chance, they decided to make sure it failed at all cost.
"Maybe he likes the Pledge of Allegiance the way it is..."
And yet it still violates the Constitution.
"The Supreme court can rule on the Constitutionality of election laws, gay marriage, and prayer. The Constitution protects the rights and liberty of all Americans. We don't need additional Federal statutes and legislation." vs "Ron Paul is NOT against gay rights nor gay marriage. He has repeatedly stated that the Federal government has no right to tell anyone who can or can't get married."
So, which is it? The Supreme Court is a part of the Federal Government, but you can't decided whether or not the Federal government should be involved. Reread your 2nd sentence from the first quote. Read it again. Ok, you got that? Read it again. It's there to protect rights and those rights are being violated. Every time Paul votes against gay marriage, he's denying a large group of people their Constitutional rights.
"The Constitution of the United States was amended to protect civil rights. That is the correct course of action, not federal law."
The Constitution allows for the creation of laws. We don't need a bazillion amendments when we can just create laws that clarify the current ones.
"He has never said he would opposed to amending the Constitution further and you need to understand the importance of that distinction."
His voting record states otherwise. His argument would be that it's unconstitutional to amend the Constitution.
"We should be actively campaigning for additional amendments to protect homosexual rights if we feel they are inadequately protected right now."
We don't need more amendments that are nearly duplicates of others.
"I would support this 100% and I believe Ron Paul would as well, he appreciates the Constitutional process."
Nope, otherwise his ass would be creating legislation, which he RARELY ever does. He only votes no and complains.
"I am fairly well read on Ron Paul and I think you've somehow missed his fundamental love for and desire to protect all people because you disagree with approach to requiring a Constitutional process as opposed to a legislative one."
Then you need to redo your research on him. His approach is to vote no, bitch, and take money from the people instead of attempting to push legislation. The only time he doesn't vote no is when it deals with pushing his religious views down people's throats.
- NoPis10, on 06/13/2008, -6/+7which is ironic since he is probably the sanest man in politics!
Too bad the media likes to affiliate him with psychos and bad mouth him using ridiculous connections.- daggah, on 06/13/2008, -6/+2There is much irony in your statement. Sanest man in politics? If that were true, then we are well and truly screwed.
- daggah, on 06/13/2008, -10/+7Ron Paul, supposed pro-Constitution candidate, thinks the Constitution is "replete with references to God."
I have yet to see a Paulite respond to this. The only way that I can see Ron Paul thinking that the Constitution is "replete with references to God" was if he hasn't actually *read* it, because the Constitution, in fact, doesn't mention God at all, other than the use of "year of our Lord" as a date - a statement that holds no legal significance whatsoever.
I don't really value opinions on Constitutional issues from people who haven't actually read the Constitution, personally.
Obama, on the other hand, taught constitutional law. ;)- rv36116, on 06/13/2008, -11/+7You're ***** kidding me, Obama knows the constitution better than Paul, but he's all for attacking Iran, right?
***** idiot. Go over the cliff with the rest of the brainwashed idiots thinking Obama's our savior.
God I can't stand idiocy and railroad logic. - daggah, on 06/13/2008, -3/+7Yes, Obama knows the Constitution better than Paul, who thinks the Constitution is full of words that are completely absent in it, thus showing that he hasn't even read it. Furthermore, he thinks that it says things that it doesn't...so at that point a retarded chimpanzee's understanding of the Constitution would be better than Paul's.
- Pake, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4rv36116, maybe you should read Article 1, Section 8 where the little piece says: "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
As long as Congress approves, the United States can attack another country. So if Ron Paul says attacking another country is unconstitutional, then he does in fact not know the constitution. Also, you are taking Obama's words out of context in that he says he would attack Iran, only if all other methods of attempting peace fail. So no, he's not all for attacking Iran, he's only for attacking Iran, or any country for that matter, if they pose a serious threat and all attempts to establish peace have failed. - oldhick, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2@Pake, only Congress has the right to declare war. He has never argued that WAR itself is unconstitutional, rather that Congress as unconstitutionally handed that power over to the Executive branch. Congress has NOT declared war.
@Daggah, i like your cynicism. Certainly Ron Paul is religious and that won't appeal to all. He has never hidden that. However, he has NEVER once said that the Constitution mentions God directly. If you cite the article or speech you're referring to and we get some context, I might be able to help address that point a little better.
I certainly would hate to have read his speeches and his books and missed the fact that his knowledge of the constitution is less than that of a Chimps!!! I've made a point of reading Obama's book and I try to keep informed as much as I can.
Please help educate me on Ron Paul's comments that are so clearly idiotic to you. I have missed them somehow and I don't want to be a fool!!!
Thanks! - radix2, on 06/14/2008, -1/+4@oldhick: From the man's own column. Paragraph quoted in full for context.
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.ht ... - oldhick, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2@radix2, if that is the only comment you're basing it on then I understand your frustration, yet would encourage you to look at the context of his comment.
Certainly God is NOT mentioned in the Constitution, but the Deceleration of Independence derives our rights from God. Further, if one gets a little deep into legal history than you'll realize our Constitution and legal framework were tremendously influenced by the concept of Natural Law. Much like the Declaration of Independence, many Natural Law subscribers attribute our rights to a creator at least conceptually.
Ron Paul ascribes to the Natural Law belief as do many of our Supreme Court Justices.
I AGREE 100% that his was a poor choice of words, but in context I understand what he is saying. Many of our founding fathers were religious in one way or another. Even Jefferson was a deist. He's correct that religion wasn't driven out of public life. The bible was used to swear in our elected officials. Religion was very much a part our countries founding. However religious freedom was too.
Bad choice of wording, but to conclude from one sentence that Ron Paul has read our Constitution is a bit presumptuous. He simply has a different interpretation than you might.
Thanks! - radix2, on 06/14/2008, -1/+4@oldhick: Full disclosure. I am not a US citizen, not am I even living in the US so my interest and opinion is little more than academic in this case. I provided the link only because you asked for it and the original poster had not supplied it.
That said one cannot of course derive a full understanding of another's position just from a sentence here and there. However, The DoI states "Nature's God" and "Creator" only once in the Introduction and Preamble. The rest is a list of secular complaints against the monarchy and a resolution. That is hardly replete in references to the Christian God (which as the full context of the column reveals is where Ron Paul is coming from). In the Constitution itself, there is only one reference to the Lord, and that is in dating the document using the typical conventions of the time. Once again, hardly replete with references to God.
His statement that the writings of the Founders also did not address the Separation of Church and State are equally erroneous. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that you use today: "Separation of church and state.".
And lets not forget the Treaty of Tripoli ("Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; (...)").
I agree with your statement that "to conclude from one sentence that Ron Paul has [not] read our Constitution is a bit presumptuous.". But writings such as I have indicated above are not open to interpretation in the way that RP has done. If he can get from the evidence to support his apparent position that there is no wall and that the state should endorse a religion (Christianity and Christmas) so easily then it places his claims to be a Constitutionalist under scrutiny. And it betrays a lack of understanding of what your nation's Government is really based upon. Secularism. To conflate State with public to get his point across may have been unintentional, but it is still a distortion no matter how you look at it. - oldhick, on 06/14/2008, -2/+1@radix... Where did he say the Federal government "that the state should endorse a religion (Christianity at Christmas)?" and how does that conflict with EVERY single elected official taking their oath on the bible???
Allowing a Christmas tree and a star of david is far from the endorsement of religion. In reality its little more than tacit recognition of the populist faith. This is a hugely debatable argument, but endorsement in my opinion would require far more than that and I think its indisputable that the founding fathers would have agreed.
Ron Paul has repeatedly attempt to support people individual liberty and prevent the Federal government from stepping into localities and prohibiting their activities. If that is an "ENDORSEMENT" of religion in your mind, than we certainly have a debate.
My point is that people consistently misrepresent Ron Paul's motives. And being a citizen of the US is of little relevance to me in a good discussion. Thanks for your honesty their, but your nationality is not nearly as important to me as your willingness to have an open dialog. - daggah, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3No, the founding fathers would not have agreed. Thomas Jefferson, for example, said,
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 1:545
What, you thought religious symbols were free?
The populist faith needs no encouragement from government to do its thing. If it did, then its standing is incredibly weak.
Bottom line here. The Constitution (and the DoI for that matter) is not replete with references to God. If Ron Paul has actually read the Constitution he would know this.
- rv36116, on 06/13/2008, -11/+7You're ***** kidding me, Obama knows the constitution better than Paul, but he's all for attacking Iran, right?
- Pake, on 06/13/2008, -10/+7Because Ron Paul's interpretation of the constitution is that there should no checks and balances between federal and state level governments, and that states should essentially be their own countries with their own constitutions (i.e. kiss your Bill of Rights goodbye). The guy has no problem with removing the separation of church and state and people still think he's for the constitution? He's a Texan who wants to see his own state become it's own country.
- rockon4life45, on 06/13/2008, -40/+2I'm from SC and Graham is no republican, he's basically a democrat running as a republican.
He's no neoconservative, he's a democrat- BlacklabelSAR, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3You are really into the "team" thing aren't you? Get Independent and get on the team of We the People.
- poploserdigg, on 06/13/2008, -4/+22if your name was Lindsey, you'd spend your entire life worried about being attacked too.
- wertach, on 06/13/2008, -2/+8He is queer as a $3 bill, not that I have anything against queers. I'm just embarrassed that we have a senator like him here in SC. We are trying to vote him out this year, along with the rest of our incumbants.....
- paradexes, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10Wow Where are the neocon diggers now defending this douche? Oh wait they got dugg down by people with reason.
- 1gunners4, on 06/13/2008, -1/+21Here's what really pissed me off: the Supreme Court basically ruled that, yes, the Bush Administration HAS violated the Constitution and has wrongfully imprisoned individuals for a few years. How is that not grounds for impeachment?! Why are the Dems in Congress so terrified to impeach everyone in an Administration who has violated so many laws?!
- Pake, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6"Why are the Dems in Congress so terrified to impeach everyone in an Administration who has violated so many laws?!"
Because they remember what happened when the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton. The moment it went to trial, they threatened Republicans with exposing their secrets to the media. As a result, the Republicans backed down and Clinton wasn't impeached. If the Democrats were to try to impeach Bush, we'd have a short trial, the Republicans would threaten the Democrats with exposing their secrets, and Bush wouldn't be impeached.- 1gunners4, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12Perjury over adultery is one thing, torture and unlawful imprisonment are completely different beasts.
- Pake, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Doesn't matter what it is, none of the politicians are willing to lose their job.
- decoy18, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Clinton was impeached.
Impeached =/= removed from office. - Pake, on 06/14/2008, -1/+3He was impeached by the House, but was acquitted by the Senate. If he was found guilty by 2/3's majority of the Senate, he could have been removed from office.
- ashfish, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5Rep. Kucinich presented 35 articles of impeachment to the Judiciary committee against Bush for review a few days ago.
- Pake, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6"Why are the Dems in Congress so terrified to impeach everyone in an Administration who has violated so many laws?!"
- pe5t1lence, on 06/13/2008, -4/+14But please remember that Conservatives are not the same as Republicans.
Republicans are the political party. A Conservative believes in small government, that is, government interference in your day to day life is as small as possible.
That is why Paul seems to stick out among his peers, he is a Conservative, while the rest are almost Liberal (only in the big government sense) in their views.
I proudly consider myself a Conservative, but I will punch in the throat you if you dare call me a Republican!- kineticarl, on 06/13/2008, -3/+9I think that's a good distinction to make. But to call the republicans liberal is odd. Just because they don't fit the conservative ideal very well, doesn't automatically make them liberals.
- weezcnr, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Well to be fair to pe5t1lence he did say only in the aspect of big government, which republicans have gone liberal on as they have completely thrown out that whole fiscal conservative thing.
- mithrasinvictus, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Democrats have been far more fiscally responsible than their republican counterparts, though i would call neither of them "liberal" in todays political climate.
- ltethe, on 06/13/2008, -5/+11There _were_ men in the republican aisle.
I think most of us are drinking Obama coolaid, or fled to Ron Paul.
My dad, and his dad are are hardcore republicans, from deep in the heart of rural Wyoming. Red country.
They and a dozen other ancient dudes are in cahoots to caravan to Minnesota and protest McCain.
They're too hardcore to cross party lines, but they're intent on teaching the republican party what it means to be a republican.- mithrasinvictus, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2If you voted for bush twice, reluctantly or not, you're part of the problem.
- loveandrockets, on 06/13/2008, -1/+29What's even scarier is the vote was 5-4.
Four Justices don't agree with Habeus Corpus! That boggles my mind. I was taught about Habeus in Junior High--it is one of the foundations of liberty and freedom. The government can imprison anyone for any reason without it. (As they are doing.)- mlhams, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3That's what happens when criminals like Bush are allowed to pack the judicial system with the junta's own cronies.
- JointVenture, on 06/13/2008, -28/+2Liberal circle jerk.
One can only hope that someone you know or love dies a horrible death at the hands of one of these ***** when they are released.- ashfish, on 06/14/2008, -1/+4It won't matter much as my civil liberties will be so eroded by that time we'll probably be under curfew and not allowed to go to the funeral anyways.
- GhostyBoy, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3John Reb you are ***** up for digging that comment.
Have you been brainwashed by the military or something? Habeas corpus is there to protect our freedom, and I was under the impression that you believe in freedom.
- WNW3, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5This is exactly the brain-dead ***** I have come to expect from Lindsey Graham. He behaves like a pundit, not an elected Senator.
- desertDenizen, on 06/13/2008, -1/+11Send Graham an email at: http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAct ...
Here's mine:
Dear Senator Graham,
Today I read your comments about amending the Constitution to erode the fundamental right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
I am truly saddened and sickened by your traitorous cowardice. I used to be a Republican, but the party has revealed itself to be the biggest threat to this country's freedom. The threat from Al Quaeda is nothing compared to the fear-driven insanity that we have among our own pathetic non-leaders.
I'll be checking D down the line in my own state, for it is all I can do. I know you think you're doing the right thing, but I assure you, history will mark your time in office as part of the stain of shame on a once great nation that stood for PRINCIPLES.
God bless,
[name]
Independent (Former Republican)- humptyz, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5Lindsey is my senator, unfortunately, and I've sent him several emails as of late. Surprisingly, he's actually sent me physical form letters in response to every one of them. That's in contrast to a reply email my other senator, Jim DeMint, sometimes sends me. So I give Graham kudos for at least acknowledging my existence. Too bad I'll be voting his ass out of office come November! Hahahahahahaha.
- eliot2000, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6It might be considerate to provide him with a list of nations he could move to and not be encumbered by our pesky civil rights. It's always someone else until it's you.
- Akairenn, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Oh, by the way - it isn't just him. Anyone remember the nice little comment made by Jeff Sessions?
http://unamericanrevolution.com/policy/betrayal-of ...
I think we are fast approaching the point where there isn't enough tar or feathers in the world to deal with our treasonous legislature. - djk21108, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5I'm sure people were ranting and raving in the Daily Digg when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus as well.
- moonbastic, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1Grant did the same thing.
Since when has HC ever applied to enemy combatants? Wouldn't it be absurd in the past to consider offering due-process to a P.O.W.?
Now, I understand that the situation is much different here, because the nature of the war is different. However, I can't believe how many people don't know what they're talking about in terms of HC and the Constitution.
Geez. Just because you're in this country doesn't mean you don't have the right to vote. Saying that illegal immigrants shouldn't vote isn't the same thing as saying "REPUBLICANZ HATE ELECTORAL PROCESS#($*#($*#(*$"
- moonbastic, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1Grant did the same thing.
- noprtyaff, on 06/14/2008, -3/+1Whatever. Lindsey Graham lost all credibility when it became apparent the he was all for the invasion of the U.S ( rampant immigration policies both legal and illegal )
- thelastczarnian, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2The scary thing is most in Washington pay no attention to the constitution, but worse yet, they're starting to feel safe about openly expressing thier contempt of it. I just hope people who vote for them pay attention when these traitors expose who they are from time to time.
- NaziHatinChimp, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2As a person from SC,
/face palm. - kosser, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2omfg, this is it. we literally are going into another Nazi era. Our freedom is going to be stripped from us and we will be forced at the will of the government. Believe me when i say this is not just Rep and Dem. Please stop being so naive in thinking this, both sides are on the same team. It takes both sides to do all this tyranny we are seeing. Both sides voted to go into iraq. Stop falling into this false Left/Right paradigm. It just simply isn't true.
- OSuX, on 06/14/2008, -1/+0caferrell where is the button I push to give you 2 diggs? +1 for you.
- rationalbeats, on 06/13/2008, -5/+158These people like Graham would have been on the side of the Loyalist during the American Revolution.
- Vellvoot, on 06/13/2008, -11/+266Cowardice isn't quite a strong enough condemnation here.
Certainly the Loyalists didn't support so huge a step backward in human civility. Let's make a more fitting comparison:
"All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
-Hermann Goering- dvicklund, on 06/13/2008, -1/+67It's so nice that the last eight years of life in the United States can be briefly summed up by the words of a Nazi commander.
- publiclurker, on 06/13/2008, -3/+17I wouldn't use the word nice to explain it.
- Vellvoot, on 06/13/2008, -3/+23I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic dvick, but i'm certainly not calling anyone a Nazi. I'm simply equating their strategies. And I don't think that it's much of a stretch.
- thirteenthcor, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Hear Hear! Vellvoot!
Dugg up
Damn Fascists, they stand for everything I hate.
/Anarcho-Capitalist, Egalitarian-Libertarian - dvicklund, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3But of course you're not, that would be silly. However, you must admit that there have been some striking similarities pop up in the last few years. We were misled about the "enemies" of our country, we were misled about spending in Iraq, we were misled about basically everything that had to do with our military. And by lying to the citizens which they were meant to protect and govern, they have lost the trust of the American people as a whole and proven themselves to be nothing more than a pack of lying politicians.
You should never fear your government, your government should always fear you. - Vellvoot, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3Well said, and my thoughts exactly. Which is why there IS and always will be a place for comparison of this sort. Furthermore, it's our duty to protect the liberties we've been given and the moment we become complacent and let the underpinnings of our freedom to erode is the moment we no longer deserve them.
I'm afraid this complacency is already common in today's political culture, we're all so distant from struggles for civil liberties in the rest of the world.
Here's to the study of history, and the commitment of us all to recognize and criticize backsliders.
- thirteenthcor, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Hear Hear! Vellvoot!
- hawkeye17, on 06/14/2008, -0/+8"Tell a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it's true." Goebbels. Another popular quote amongst Republicans apparently. Proof? See the "Obama is a muslim" smear from the Right Wing going on right now.
- Vellvoot, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2American's aren't going to bite, even the densest of voters are highly sensitized to this sort of smear campaign. They'd better serve their purposes by claiming he's an Atheist.
Hawkeye: You think that's a depressing headline, how about the "terrorist fist jab"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZdt_oCZInc
Since Fox has no credibility anyways, why not call it a terrorist secret handshake - buckrogers1965, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
-Bush
- Vellvoot, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2American's aren't going to bite, even the densest of voters are highly sensitized to this sort of smear campaign. They'd better serve their purposes by claiming he's an Atheist.
- mithrasinvictus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8Agreed. He's not a coward, he's a traitor.
- hawkeye17, on 06/14/2008, -1/+7History won't be kind to supporters of Bush on this issue and rightfully so. I'm embarrassed to be an American after the last 8 years of Bush Co. rule. I never thought this garbage would ever happen in my country....silly me.
- evilbob333, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1Of course not. History is written by the victors. And we are hamstringing our selves so much we certainly aren't going to be the victors.
- backgen, on 06/14/2008, -2/+3Goering was an eerily smart man.
- buckrogers1965, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Sort of like Rove...
- dvicklund, on 06/13/2008, -1/+67It's so nice that the last eight years of life in the United States can be briefly summed up by the words of a Nazi commander.
- zephyear, on 06/13/2008, -7/+262fascists upset about non fascist ruling
more at 11- ZenMojo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Maybe we should get him a Mauser and a nice pair of jackboots. That oughtta cheer him up.
- ggfobster, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1While I agree with your overall sentiment of "fascists" meaning evil authoritarians, but the definition of fascist is much different than how you categorize it. A fascist entity is a dictator or ruling class that abolishes government in favor of a corporate takeover of the state.
- Caffeinate, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1No, I think zephyear got the definition right. I'm just thankful that Halliburton will likely be leaving office in January.
- NacaV, on 06/13/2008, -6/+130Next we're going to hear MSM claim how unpatriotic these five judges are.
.- pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -0/+29even from within the supreme court the fear-mongering has started.
"The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" Antonin Scalia, appointed by bush.
http://www.slate.com/id/2193468/- 55mph, on 06/13/2008, -1/+17i guess we know which way Scalia voted. fukin Traitor!
- Hangly, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Does all this war rhetoric ***** resonate with anyone at all?
- CptBuck, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Actually, Antonin Scalia appointed by Reagan.
- thereisnostate, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Mossad Stream Media
- pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -0/+29even from within the supreme court the fear-mongering has started.
- ClosedCaption, on 06/13/2008, -7/+100Everytime I hear the name Lindsey Graham I hear a closet door opening
- kingfish20815, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5You guys ignore the real point here - Grahm is a Fag.
- Brain1, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4 Yeah...the guy likes young Boys...
- buckrogers1965, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2So he's a republican then?
- Brain1, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4 Yeah...the guy likes young Boys...
- Caffeinate, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell are a hair's breadth from falling out of the closet. They are in the same denial parade that Larry Craig was in before his "wide stance" trip to the men's room.
- kingfish20815, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5You guys ignore the real point here - Grahm is a Fag.
- lolupissed, on 06/13/2008, -42/+42Oh? So you want to change the constitution? Well build a ***** time machine *****.
- resipsa, on 06/13/2008, -2/+39You're kidding right?
In case you're not, remember that it has these things called "amendments."- wynja, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6yeah, but 2/3rds of the house and senate have to agree upon ratification of amendments. that or 2/3rds of the state legislators have to agree to it....... not an easy task. but hell we've nothing better to do. we might as well waste more time trying to ratify the constitution and strip out it's most basic components.
- eggsovereasy, on 06/13/2008, -1/+82/3 of both houses or 2/3 of state legislatures have to agree to for a convention to propose amendments. Then 3/4 of the state legislatures (or conventions) have to ratify the amendment.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5 - d0onut, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4I'd rather have a time machine.
- eggsovereasy, on 06/13/2008, -1/+82/3 of both houses or 2/3 of state legislatures have to agree to for a convention to propose amendments. Then 3/4 of the state legislatures (or conventions) have to ratify the amendment.
- Scrappy1850, on 06/13/2008, -7/+2it is a living document. it changes all the time in words (amendments) and interpretation (FoS + RTBA)
- wynja, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6yeah, but 2/3rds of the house and senate have to agree upon ratification of amendments. that or 2/3rds of the state legislators have to agree to it....... not an easy task. but hell we've nothing better to do. we might as well waste more time trying to ratify the constitution and strip out it's most basic components.
- zacharytelschow, on 06/13/2008, -13/+6Since when are non-citizens provided protections by the United States Constitution?
- darkhand, on 06/13/2008, -2/+22Since the words 'All men are created equal' were added to it.
This is not a protection, this is a basic and fundamental function of humanity that happens to be outlined in the constitution. All men deserve a trial for their actions, and in a just society no one has the right to take that away. The Supreme Court upheld that fact with this ruling.- daggah, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Though I agree with the point you are trying to get across, I have to correct you: the words "all men are created equal" are not in the U.S. Constitution. You are thinking of the DoI.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 06/13/2008, -0/+10Please cite where the original document uses the word "Citizens" instead of "The People." The People are defined as anybody within our borders or under our control. This ***** about treating people like ***** because they didn't have an address in the US is astounding. They are human beings. Even the most deplorable piece of vile human ***** deserves a fair hearing. That way, when we put the rope around their neck there is NO chance for mistakes and no possibility of their innocence or humanity being overlooked.
- hinchb, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Look how stupid you are.
- darkhand, on 06/13/2008, -2/+22Since the words 'All men are created equal' were added to it.
- Servebot, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2wow 38 ignorant people dugg you up
- resipsa, on 06/13/2008, -2/+39You're kidding right?
- Chassit, on 06/13/2008, -13/+185***** traitor...
- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -22/+8How so? Because he has an opposing opinion?
I guess freedom of speech is dead. There seems to no longer be a right to disagreement. He's an ass, but he has a right to voice his discontent, no matter how stupid that discontent is.
It's one of those things that makes our country great, you know. Although apparently, some greatly dislike freedom of speech.- TheOtherOne135, on 06/13/2008, -0/+36He has freedom of speech, sure . But when a member of Congress says that the basic rights enshrined in our Constitution are dangerous, we have the same freedom of speech - and we're telling him what we think of his opinion.
- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -9/+2"says that the basic rights enshrined in our Constitution are dangerous"
Why aren't there screams of "treason" or "traitor" coming from the public and directed at Congressmen who want to limit or remove our Second Amendment rights?
"we're telling him what we think of his opinion"
Calling for a charge of treason to be levied strictly based on his opinion is a bit overzealous, don't you think? - NotOptium, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8"Calling for a charge of treason to be levied strictly based on his opinion is a bit overzealous, don't you think?"
But that's not what Chassit did, he just called him a traitor. - Baylow, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2I believe that is what the electoral process is for.
- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -5/+1@NotOptium
"he just called him a traitor."
He accused him of treason, correct.
- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -9/+2"says that the basic rights enshrined in our Constitution are dangerous"
- NotOptium, on 06/13/2008, -1/+24Freedom of speech protects his right to say that Habeus Corpus is outrageous. But it also protects my right to call him a coward, a douchebag, and a traitor.
- pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -3/+15he has every right to hate everything our country was founded on. but his job is to protect the constitution, not violate it.
- Chassit, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10He has even sworn an oath to protect it.
- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -8/+5How is calling for an amendment to the Constitution "violating it"?
- NotOptium, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2While I disagree with much of what PolishLogic said, I don't understand him being buried here, he's got a valid point.
- Chassit, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8What they said.
Oh and because of his despicable attempt to subvert our freedom. - eviltandem, on 06/13/2008, -0/+10well yeah.
He has the right to say whatever he wants, and we have the right to call him whatever we want based on what he said.
Freedom to say what you want is not the same as freedom to say what you want and not get called out on it. We have every right to call him out on what he says.- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2See my above reply about seeing him tried for treason and hanged. Is that really what you'd like to see the outcome of his statements lead to?
- Caffeinate, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1I don't think Lindsay Graham should be tried for treason, but I don't think he should have a position in government anymore. There are plenty of traitors in Washington, you need look no further than the White House. People like Graham should just resign in shame.
- thecatcantalk, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5*****, yes, traitor, no. A traitor is one who commits treason. Treason is defined by the U.S. Constitution as "levying or conspiring to levy war against the United States". The definition's VERY narrow in order to prevent the charge being misused (as King George III's government had misused it) as a catch-all capital offense...which in practice meant that "anything the King calls treason, is treason, and punished by death".
In other words, a major cause of the American Revolution was the fact that the British Crown claimed the same power over us that "President" Bush has claimed: the power to define "treason" as anyone the President says is an 'enemy combatant', to indefinitely imprison any such person(s) at any time, for any reason, with no oversight, no checks or balances against the executive. Now that's ironic. Also monstrously un-American and illegal as hell. Even the Supreme Court says so.
But, yeah, I couldn't agree more...Justice Scalia's an irresponsible sack of *****, and deserves to lose his job, at the very least. I say let's start a pool to seize his family home under eminent domain, and build a porn shop on the spot, which will contribute more taxes to the government than Scalia's property taxes did. Now that would be cosmic justice. ***** him and the horse he rode in on. - thecatcantalk, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5*oops I meant Lindsey Graham's an irresponsible sack of *****. But Scalia is, too.
- Hangly, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4Freedom of speech?
LOL, you ***** moron.- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2You troll well.
- TheOtherOne135, on 06/13/2008, -0/+36He has freedom of speech, sure . But when a member of Congress says that the basic rights enshrined in our Constitution are dangerous, we have the same freedom of speech - and we're telling him what we think of his opinion.
- lilbugleboy09, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2Logged in to digg this comment before the story. You nailed it.
- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -22/+8How so? Because he has an opposing opinion?
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -2/+78British politicians are also trying to get rid of habeus corpus rights, but oddly enough their Right Wing OPPOSES it! Small-government conservatives opposing the expansion of government power?? That makes no sense!
http://digg.com/political_opinion/An_instructive_c ...- elamr, on 06/13/2008, -1/+29Wish we still had real right wing, small government, fiscal conservatives - Reagan killed all that by running (and winning) on those values and doing NONE of them. Now he is the Neocon-Christ.
- wynja, on 06/13/2008, -1/+11Actually, if you look to the democrats you will see many fiscally conservative individuals hiding from the ass raping GOP.
- kayala, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9Unfortunately, these days you're a right-winger if you hate gays and reproductive rights. Stupid wedge issues decide our elections.
- ZenMojo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4If it weren't for wedge issues, the Republican Party would have died in the 70's. They should be grateful someone found a magic button to push.
- buckrogers1965, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1So they are pushing a gay magic button?
- Caffeinate, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2"Unfortunately, these days you're a right-winger if you hate gays ..." and you are a neo-con if you are a right winger that votes anti-gay while cruising the men's room and the White House pages.
Stupid wedge issues that *they* don't even believe in.
- Zuggy, on 06/13/2008, -0/+15The US government is all about big government on both sides, whether it's big lovey dovey government (democrats) or big brother government (republicans).
- elamr, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6ron paul is right.
- synarchy, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4In the end, they are the same.
- 0Xonox0, on 06/13/2008, -1/+9In America the right is left and the left is RIGHT.
- Frostek, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4That's because our right wing would probably still be considered left of your left wing party...
- Jude007, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Your right wing is akin to our Monster Raving Looney Party
- elamr, on 06/13/2008, -1/+29Wish we still had real right wing, small government, fiscal conservatives - Reagan killed all that by running (and winning) on those values and doing NONE of them. Now he is the Neocon-Christ.
- jaymzdean, on 06/13/2008, -19/+91They have a word for this.
It's called "treason", and it carries severe penalties.- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -13/+12If calling for an amendment to the Constitution is treasonous, then what does that say for every other group of politicians who have attempted to (some even successfully) amend it?
Graham is an idiot, but discussion of Constitutional amendments, and disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision is far from treason.- Hangly, on 06/13/2008, -4/+10It's treasonous to the principles our country was founded on.
Now pack up your troll kit and go back to your cave.- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -5/+2I'm not sure I follow.
So you're saying that calling for an amendment to the Constitution (what he has essentially done here) is treasonous to the principles our country was founded on? Then why are there 27 of them?
You do realize that this isn't the first time habeas corpus has been suspended in our history, right?
You make a ***** pointless comment, yet accuse me of trolling? Good job, *****. - SkittlesUSA, on 06/14/2008, -3/+1I really don't understand how he makes a valid point and is dugg down, but Hangly is dugg up for a pointless idiotic comment.
Not surprising. You should know something about Digg Polish: logic and reality are considered trolling here. - Ne007, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4The man is saying that if somebody wants to take away our rights as people that it goes against what the U.S. stands for.
Waging a war against the U.S. and it's constitutional principles, specifically the freedoms of the people, can be considered treason in my opinion.
- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -5/+2I'm not sure I follow.
- jaymzdean, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6They're not just calling for an amendment to the Constitution.
They've been carrying out treasonous acts for 7 1/2 years and now they want to change the law and grandfather themselves out of the noose.
I don't think so.
- Hangly, on 06/13/2008, -4/+10It's treasonous to the principles our country was founded on.
- redslash, on 06/14/2008, -1/+4From Article III of our amazing Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
RTFC. - Fritzed, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
Try one of these instead: Sick, evil, perverted, disgusting, cowardly, insincere, hypocritical, dishonest, shameful, distasteful...
- PolishLogic, on 06/13/2008, -13/+12If calling for an amendment to the Constitution is treasonous, then what does that say for every other group of politicians who have attempted to (some even successfully) amend it?
- FrankHope, on 06/13/2008, -3/+61Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman PATRICK LEAHY: "Today’s Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush is a stinging rebuke of the Bush administration’s flawed detention policies, and a vindication for those who have also argued from the beginning that it was unwise as well as unconstitutional."
- Wakkyweed, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Or as my mother once said, "After holding these guys for six years, it's time to ***** or get off the pot."
As much as the arch-conservative nutbags may hate it, even a terrorist deserves a fair trial.- samthurston, on 06/14/2008, -0/+5"Accused" terrorist being the operative issue. The government has yet to make a case against them. If I say Lindsey Graham is a terrorist, he's as "automatically guilty" as anyone at gitmo.
- Wakkyweed, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Or as my mother once said, "After holding these guys for six years, it's time to ***** or get off the pot."
- Wiini, on 06/13/2008, -44/+13I don't understand how Digg can go on and on and on about constitutional rights (as though they're for them) and then go on and on about Obama this and Obama that.
I miss Ron. :(- Aadain, on 06/13/2008, -7/+29Because Obama supports the Constitution. Hell, he has TAUGHT Constitutional law before! He actually understands what the Constitution grants to each branch of the Federal government, what is delegated to the States, and what are fundamental rights to all citizens. Where Bush & his followers see an inconvenient piece of paper, Obama actually knows how important it is and why without it would wouldn't have risen to be a great country.
- silentboom, on 06/13/2008, -27/+3If Obama believed in the Constitution he wouldn't be a socialist and globalist.
- silentboom, on 06/13/2008, -26/+2If Obama believed in the Constitution he wouldn't be a socialist and globalist. He would protect our sovereignty.
- NotOptium, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Man, your photo is really freaking me out.
- republicker, on 06/13/2008, -10/+2He also wouldn't talk about limiting the right to bear arms. He would also abolish the income tax. IF he wanted to uphold the constitution. Obama is just an uncle tom who lied/***** his way to the top just like every other son of a bitch in washington. Anyone who trusts a politician is a fool of epic proportions.
- kayala, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Should we have an unlimited right to free speech? Of course not. There are penalties for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, or for directly inciting chaos or causing a crime. These are necessary restrictions on our First Amendment right to free speech, and they in no way mar the amendment itself because not all speech is safe, so to speak. Causing chaos and disorder is not protected under any amendment. By the same token, not just anybody can own a gun. Guns are killing weapons, that is their purpose, and their owners have to understand and respect this fact. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.
- dcmjzero, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8the IRS was made thru a constitutional amendment. therefore, it is in the constitution. and using "uncle tom" really hurts YOUR credibility. also, saying generalization such as "anyone who trust a politician..." is a sure path to failure. that is the equivalent of saying "don't vote", which is obviously a non-solution.
- republicker, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1@kayala
Any law abiding citizen can own a gun for home protection, hunting, or entertainment. Now killing, that is something you can do easily with any object. Did you see the dude in China that killed like 6 people with a knife the other day? Should we ban knifes? Guns are an integral tool in the formation of society, they are here to stay, and millions of gun owners are willing to fight to keep them. The original question was "Does Obama want to uphold the constitution?" The answer is still no.
@dcmjzero
It is necessary to understand what the term "constitutional income" means, its necessary because there are various types of "income", and if you knew jack ***** about the issue we would not disagree. Uncle tom is exactly what it means, nothing more. I don't know how else to sugar coat it for you. I'm not saying don't vote, I'm saying voting doesn't matter, it just gives people something to do to make them believe they are getting what they want when they are ultimately only getting the same ***** with a different colored suit and a different set of lies.
- Hetman, on 06/13/2008, -2/+7He voted to continue the patriot act. That is totally against the constitution. Can you say hypocrite. The same can be said about Bob Barr he voted for the patriot act he is not a liberterian.
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fa ...
- Hetman, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3".This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. " You cannot have both. Illegal wire tapping is illegal wire tapping. It circumvents the 4th amendment. If you voted for or to extend the patriot act you are going against the constitution. The aboved mentioned quote from barkobama.com just points out how much like every other politician he truly is. Hiding behind words, while creating laws that bypass the constitution. I also like how he used the word modestly. Whats that mean, they can only illegally search me, take away my freedoms, and ship me to gitmo if I modestly act like im suspicious?
- thebellmaster1x, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1So, Hetman, the way I understand it, you'd rather he voted no on the original bill and let it pass (as it was going to) unchanged rather than support a version that was heavily stripped of its original powers? What's wrong with you? He had to make a choice between standing on principle (and endangering his constituents' rights) and acting smartly. He made the right one.
- daggah, on 06/13/2008, -5/+8You mean the same Ron Paul who thinks (incorrectly) that the Constitution is replete with references to God?
I don't respect Constitutional opinions from men who haven't actually *READ* the Constitution.- Hangly, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1[citation needed]
- daggah, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
- notanidiot, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1citation given. booyah!
Wow, I just love hearing the far right talk about the far left, and what our frame of mind is. According to Dr Paul, I as a far leftist hate religion because it takes moral authority from the state. Um, noooo....
I hate religion because its a fairy tale that people go to war over. I hate religion because it drives people crazy and makes them think they are better than others, regardless of how ***** they may live their life. I hate religion, because its one more thing that separates us.
- Hangly, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1[citation needed]
- RickHavoc, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Maybe you didn't hear that lawyers for gitmo detainees have endorsed Obama for his efforts to defend habeas corpus. See the link:
http://tinyurl.com/3xcbdw
- Aadain, on 06/13/2008, -7/+29Because Obama supports the Constitution. Hell, he has TAUGHT Constitutional law before! He actually understands what the Constitution grants to each branch of the Federal government, what is delegated to the States, and what are fundamental rights to all citizens. Where Bush & his followers see an inconvenient piece of paper, Obama actually knows how important it is and why without it would wouldn't have risen to be a great country.
- Diderotten, on 06/13/2008, -4/+25To the submitter: If you're going to defend the constitution, at least spell it correctly.
/capitalist spelling Nazi- 1337Einstein, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8Capitalist? You didn't even charge a cent for your spelling fascism!
- Diderotten, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Individual charity rather than forcing everyone else to give corrections ;)
- doyoulikeworms, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4The system works!
- Diderotten, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Individual charity rather than forcing everyone else to give corrections ;)
- 1337Einstein, on 06/13/2008, -0/+8Capitalist? You didn't even charge a cent for your spelling fascism!
- whiterice0, on 06/13/2008, -11/+41"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12.
While our enemies aren't likely to treat captives as we do, and would not hesitate to physically torture, dismember and kill them in medieval ways, we must set the example without expecting anything in return. It's not acceptable that we've held "enemy combatants" for six years without a single court hearing to determine if there was any evidence to support their guilt or innocence.
BTW: That photo looks like Abu Ghraib, not Guantanamo. A very sad, isolated case of some irresponsible soldiers who weren't well lead.- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -5/+24If Abu Ghraib was "a few bad apples," why were the abusive techniques used identical to ones used in other military prisons such as Bagram and, yes, Guantanamo? Why did the Pentagon ignore reports of widespread systematic abuse from FBI interrogators? Why did the Pentagon and White House lawyers bend over backwards to AUTHORIZE illegal interrogation techniques? Why does the President claim the right to violate bans on illegal interrogation techniques via signing statements? Why did the Pentagon use "military analysts" to propagandize the American people about what actually happened at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo? Why were private military contractors taking part in top-secret interrogations of war on terror detainees?
The "a few bad apples" myth was debunked ages ago.- Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9No, there WERE "bad apples" who cause the problem...
... by which of course I mean they took and leaked pictures. - Scrappy1850, on 06/13/2008, -3/+5they used a butt pyramid in bagram and gitmo? identical tactics? really?
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -2/+5Yes.
- Scrappy1850, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2ive never heard of any butt pyramids outside of abu gharib. citation needed
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4"sexually suggestive tactics used by female interrogators" at Gitmo, just like the tactics used by Lynndie England and her "butt pyramid" in the Abu Ghraib photos. My citation is the FBI report on Guantanamo prisoner abuse.
- dsa202, on 06/13/2008, -5/+0Bad apple, I'd say it's a bad orange.
- whiterice0, on 06/13/2008, -8/+3You cannot even begin to compare the abuses at Abu Ghraib with how prisoners are treated at Guantanamo. No one was stripped naked at Guantanamo and photographed while being humiliated. No one sicked guard dogs on prisoners for intimidation purposes. Those prisoners are given Korans to read and allowed to excercise. They're well fed and well clothed. Were there similar interrogation techniques? Yes. Do I disagree with those? Yes. But that's where the similarity ends. If you have evidence of something contrary to that, please do link to it and edify me.
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7The FBI report on detainee abuse at Gitmo is my evidence to the contrary. The FBI reported "sexually degrading tactics" including parading them nude in front of female interrogators, which in case you forgot is exactly what happened at Abu Ghraib. The FBI reported the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners.
Funny how all the techniques you deny happened are SPECIFICALLY CITED in the FBI report... also funny how you're repeating talking points from the Pentagon's TV News propaganda campaign.
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7The FBI report on detainee abuse at Gitmo is my evidence to the contrary. The FBI reported "sexually degrading tactics" including parading them nude in front of female interrogators, which in case you forgot is exactly what happened at Abu Ghraib. The FBI reported the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners.
- Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9No, there WERE "bad apples" who cause the problem...
- EricAnderton, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Matthew 7:12 is easily the most frequently misquoted part of the entire book. Thank you for getting it right. :)
- whiterice0, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6It's a serious responsibility. James 3:1 -- Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
Love James. Christ's brother and pastor over the church at Jeruselum.- Screwy1138, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3James is an awesome book.
If I could live my life by that book and that book alone, I'd be truly happy.
- Screwy1138, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3James is an awesome book.
- whiterice0, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6It's a serious responsibility. James 3:1 -- Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
- juniorb, on 06/13/2008, -4/+9I agreed with you right up until you called Abu Ghraib an isolated incident. You'll never get me to believe that. I know too much about how the world works to believe a silly lie like that.
- karan1003, on 06/13/2008, -5/+1Abu Ghraib was PMC's.
- Vellvoot, on 06/13/2008, -4/+2Although I agree with your point here whiterice, I'll have to admit that citing religious texts in order to defend the constitution won't go to far in a country where that very same constitution guarantees that religion has no place in the argument.
- empiric, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Except that the constitution doesn't. What it does guarantee is that one religious perspective will be not established by government force. This does not imply that one may not, discussing politics, cite whatever informs one's worldview and position. It "has a place in the argument", and the constitution has never said otherwise.
- Vellvoot, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Point taken.
- Vellvoot, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Point taken.
- empiric, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Except that the constitution doesn't. What it does guarantee is that one religious perspective will be not established by government force. This does not imply that one may not, discussing politics, cite whatever informs one's worldview and position. It "has a place in the argument", and the constitution has never said otherwise.
- insanebrain, on 06/13/2008, -8/+1piss off with your ferry tail book
BTW:
"That photo looks like Abu Ghraib, not Guantanamo. A very sad, isolated case of some irresponsible soldiers who weren't well lead."
Sorry, but they were very well lead. Their leader is called Bush.- Cerebron, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7Tell me more about this book about boats with tails.
- sleepbox, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2you really shouldn't cherry pick the Bible for your convenience
- Fritzed, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3I agree, next time quote the whole thing or nothing at all!
Make sure to include the part where Jesus recommends torturing your enemies and depriving them of all human rights.- sleepbox, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2No, go ahead and insert another Richard Dawkins fellating thread and see how every one is such a hero for being an atheist and any one that follows Christianity is a dumb hick...oh, nm, I forgot....hipsters only use Jesus when they need him but otherwise he doesn't exist.
- Vellvoot, on 06/14/2008, -1/+2Sleep, Fritzed, I like where this conversation is going.
It's blatantly simplistic and insulting to cite the bible to prove the existence of human morality.
As if the Jews walked to mount Sinai under the impression that rape, murder and adultery was socially acceptable. (Thanks to Hitch for that point)
- Fritzed, on 06/14/2008, -0/+3I agree, next time quote the whole thing or nothing at all!
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -5/+24If Abu Ghraib was "a few bad apples," why were the abusive techniques used identical to ones used in other military prisons such as Bagram and, yes, Guantanamo? Why did the Pentagon ignore reports of widespread systematic abuse from FBI interrogators? Why did the Pentagon and White House lawyers bend over backwards to AUTHORIZE illegal interrogation techniques? Why does the President claim the right to violate bans on illegal interrogation techniques via signing statements? Why did the Pentagon use "military analysts" to propagandize the American people about what actually happened at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and Guantanamo? Why were private military contractors taking part in top-secret interrogations of war on terror detainees?
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -17/+6Hold on...So all you people think that all foreigners everywhere should be under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution? Did we inform the rest of the world that we're taking over?
PS: I'm not defending what congressman Graham said, he's obviously a moron.- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -3/+8This article isn't about what "you people" think, its about what the US Supreme Court just decided yesterday.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1No, this article is about Congressman Graham. Hey, it's pretty easy to avoid a discussion by pointing out trite "gotchas".
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7It's about Graham's opinion on the Supreme Court's decision.
The Supreme Court ruled that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay. If you want to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling, I suggest that you read it, and base your question off of its content rather than a straw man position you just made up. - RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -5/+0I'm pretty sure the article "Morally Bankrupt" is a hit piece on Graham and Republicans as a whole. I am curious if you, or the previous posters like the idea of extending the Constitution to aliens on non-US soil, and how this is consistent with previous internments (like the one I mention below)
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Your comment is irrelevant because A) the Supreme Court decision does not extend the Constitution to aliens on non-US soil, B) the White House's suspension of habeus rights was not exclusive to aliens, and C) the example you give was constitutional because the US was under threat of invasion.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0Fine. I'll concede that the Japanese aren't a good comparison, but you'll be hard pressed to find a wartime president, Dem or Rep, who has not held enemy combatants on foreign soil (therefore not extending the rights of the Constitution to them). The fact remains that it's a precedent that will continue into the next administration and beyond.
- Jude007, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1They were all protected by laws.
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7It's about Graham's opinion on the Supreme Court's decision.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1No, this article is about Congressman Graham. Hey, it's pretty easy to avoid a discussion by pointing out trite "gotchas".
- bullhead2007, on 06/13/2008, -3/+17The US constitution dictates limitations to the US Government by citing inalienable rights all people have from birth.
It's not about other countries or foreigners having to follow our laws. It's about our government following our laws. The bill of rights isn't granting rights, it is recognizing rights all people have and limits the government from denying them.- zacharytelschow, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1I believe the text you are referring to is here:
"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."
Unfortunately, that text is found in the Declaration of Independence and is not law. D'oh. In addition, enemy combatants are not US citizens and therefore are not provided protections under the Constituation.- bullhead2007, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4It is in the Declaration of independence, and further explained in the Bill of Rights, which is the constitution.
You do not need to be a citizen to be protected. Say someone from the UK came here and committed a crime. Do they go to Guantanamo Bay? No they are protected, because the Constitution, more specifically the bill of rights, states that "no person.. shall have his life, liberty, or property taken without due process of law". - dcmjzero, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2that is a very scary viewpoint. i guess i can just start killing non-citizens because they are not protected, right? sorry for the extreme example, but it serves a purpose: all people have basic rights laid out in the constitution. if a mexican commits a crime, we still give them a fair trial. BECAUSE THEY ARE HUMANS. and as humans, they are subject to our laws where ever we have jurisdiction.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0You are correct in your example but it doesn't fit the situation. Say your an Atlanta City cop in London and you see someone steal, do you have a right to arrest? If so, do you have to read him his miranda rights? Obviously not. The rules change when you are not on US soil. This ruling just changed the definition of US Soil to include Cuba and lots of other places (looks like we'll need a bigger flag).
- Jude007, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Guantanamo is a US enclave, US law extends to it. Just as US law is in effect in the grounds of the US embassy in London, if you particular cop caught someone committing a violation on US embassy grounds, he could arrest him.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/14/2008, -1/+0Embassies and military bases are not the same thing. The land of an embassy is considered the actual country of the embassy, an area under US military control is not.
At least until now.
- bullhead2007, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4It is in the Declaration of independence, and further explained in the Bill of Rights, which is the constitution.
- zacharytelschow, on 06/13/2008, -3/+1I believe the text you are referring to is here:
- chicofaraby, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10"you people think that all foreigners everywhere should be under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution?"
No, dumbass, we know that the US government is bound by the Constitution even when dealing with foreign people.
Moron.- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0Umm, no. Not even close. The Constitution lays out the rights of the People who fall into the jurisdiction of the US. The US government has no LEGAL obligation to extend the rights of the constitution to foreigners on foreign soil. It's not there.
Now, the moral argument is something else entirely.- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The Supreme Court says you are wrong. Sorry.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Nope. Did you read it at all? They basically rejected the arguement that Gitmo is not US Soil. The US government STILL has no LEGAL obligation to extend the rights of the constitution to foreigners on foreign soil.
- chicofaraby, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4"The Constitution lays out the rights of the People who fall into the jurisdiction of the US."
You are simply wrong. The US Constitution is about limits on the government. All humans have the same rights. This ruling limited the governments ability to infringe on those rights.
The word "citizen" doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights. - dcmjzero, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2the government is bound to follow the constitution, period. because the constitution created the government. it IS the government. so yes, they do have a legal obligation.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0"The word "citizen" doesn't appear in the Bill of Rights."
Stop putting words into my mouth. I didn't say anything about citizens. The US Constitution only applies in the US, what is considered it's jurisdiction. This ruling just extended the United States to include Cuba.
This is why in movies, people are always trying to get "across the border." Because the US and it's laws and Constitution have no power outside of the US. - chicofaraby, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4"The US Constitution only applies in the US"
You are making ***** up.
The Constitution limits the US government regardless of the location. The US government can't establish a religion anywhere. They can't restrict the freedom of assembly anywhere. They can't remove habeas corpus anywhere. ALL humans EVERYWHERE have the same rights. Their location is immaterial. It doesn't matter who they are or where they are, the US government cannot "remove" their inalienable rights without due process of law. - RoxorsPH, on 06/14/2008, -2/+0Are you serious? All humans everywhere have the same rights? Did you know in Canada a journalist is being arrested for printing material that is offensive to Muslims? Because in Canada it is illegal according to their hate speech laws. In the US it is perfectly legal. Point is, in Canada they don't have "the first amendment" because they have THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION. I know you think the world revolves around us, but it doesn't.
Dog fighting...still legal in Mexico
Smoking Dope....still legal in Amsterdam
Prostitution....still legal in Germany
Try to wrap your brain around the FACT that the US Constitution only applies to the US. We don't rule the world....
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0Umm, no. Not even close. The Constitution lays out the rights of the People who fall into the jurisdiction of the US. The US government has no LEGAL obligation to extend the rights of the constitution to foreigners on foreign soil. It's not there.
- Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -0/+10"So all you people think that all foreigners everywhere should be under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution?"
Are you aware of how silly that sounds?
Consider the word "everywhere" versus the word "jurisdiction". They're *NOT* everywhere. They're in our prisons and military bases.
It's not about whether they're under our jurisdiction "everywhere". What matters is that once we arrest, capture, or kidnap them, *THEN* they are under US jurisdiction and WE have to follow OUR laws. - TheOtherOne135, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6I think that foreigners held by the American military (created and controlled by the US government, therefore the US Constitution) on what is American soil in all but the most technical sense should be protected by the Constitution, yes.
I don't think that the military should be able to take anyone (whether a U.S. citizen or not) from point A, and decide whether or not the person has basic human or Constitutional or civil rights based purely on whether the military takes the person to Point B or point C.- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0Ok. We aren't talking about "basic human rights." We are talking about habeas corpus and miranda and such. US should abide by the Geneva Convention obviously, but I think it's a dangerous precedent to set for us to extend Constitutional privilege to aliens on foreign soil.
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5The Supreme Court thinks its a dangerous precedent to allow the Executive branch of government to decide where Constitutional rights apply, and where they don't. Sorry, but you're (legally) on the losing side of this argument.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -1/+0The Executive Branch assumed that it could not "decide" that Cuba is part of the US. We're talking about sovereign nations. The Supreme Court felt otherwise. Apparently the sun doesn't set on the great United States.
- locojones, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4"We aren't talking about "basic human rights." We are talking about habeas corpus "
The right to habeas corpus is a basic human right dating back from the 12th century. To try to distinguish the two is simply ridiculous. - RoxorsPH, on 06/14/2008, -1/+0It is not a basic human to have a hearing in a United States Court.
- buckrogers1965, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Habeas Corpus is a basic human right, it's just that sometimes assholes violate pe
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -2/+0Ok. We aren't talking about "basic human rights." We are talking about habeas corpus and miranda and such. US should abide by the Geneva Convention obviously, but I think it's a dangerous precedent to set for us to extend Constitutional privilege to aliens on foreign soil.
- swrostmore, on 06/13/2008, -3/+8This article isn't about what "you people" think, its about what the US Supreme Court just decided yesterday.