What is Digg?73 Comments
- dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35I don't think we need an amendment given that habeas corpus is already in the Constitution; all we really need is a Congress with the balls to stand up for the Constitution instead of cowering in the corner like the cowards they are.
The Military Commissions Act is unconstitutional, so clearly the solution is to repeal it instead of trying to create an amendment to say what the Constitution already says, especially since it was already ignored the first time it was written. They could add 50 amendments saying that same thing if they want, but what's the point if they aren't going to defend it from those who defy it? - theNazz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24'Restoring' Habeas Corpus?
Would these people please grow some balls and ***** DEFEND the 'god damned piece of paper' called the CONSTITUTION! - faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20I'm sick of hearing that they're going to do it. Do it already!
- 3adkied, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Am I the only one disturbed by them specifying that they were returning hapeas corpus to legal residents of the US. For the most part, the Constitution applies to everyone (even those here illegally). Those rights, such as voting, that are specific to US citizens say so very clearly. All others give the rights to 'people'. I can't think of any benefit of imprisoning anyone indefinitely with no trial and no charges. There is no mention of citizenship, nationality, or legality in the following:
Article (amendment) 5 of the Bill of Rights
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation. - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13What part of "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it" do you not understand?
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10article 1 section 9 ...who were you replying to?
- GoneSouth, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Too bad they didn't find their balls last year and defeat the military commissions act.
- kethraal, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12@ ooloo:
"Do you need ANY further proof that liberals don't think we are in a war?? Do you need any further proof that liberals can't be trusted with our national security??"
Do we need any more proof that you're an asshat? - darkhand, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11What part of 'All men are created equal' don't you understand?
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Defending the constitution is a weird definition of "hate america," fascist swine.
- orielbean, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties which deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[5] because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".
- mwayne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6"all we really need is a Congress with the balls to stand up for the Constitution instead of cowering in the corner like the cowards they are."
When has this ever happened? If they stood up for the Constitution, 99% of the laws on the books would have to be repealed - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Leahy following the crowd? HA! He was out front on torture, he was out front on warrantless wiretapping, he was out front on PlameGate, he was out front on GonzoGate, etc! VT politicians are LEADING THE WAY for the Democratic party!
- StarlessKnight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Unfortunate Reality Check: Terrorists in America receive the same rights as American Citizens. Less Freedom/Rights for Terrorists = Less Freedom/Rights for everyone. This is a good thing; kinda jives with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" and "all men are created equal" (avoids tiers of citizenry, some having certain rights while others get other rights, or no rights).
By now you've had to have heard about the Security vs. Freedom issue, so I'll forego it here. - 3adkied, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Actually, I'm quite happy they aren't as concerned about killing terrorists as they are about protecting Americans' rights.
- DeadElephantORG, on 10/11/2007, -14/+17What more sign do you need that the worm has turned? It wasn't even a year ago that the Senate voted to TRASH habeas. I know I should be happy, but the pandering of our politicians to the public mood... to the point that they would toss our freedom in the can one day and turn around the next and say "hey, I've got an idea, how 'bout we get ourselves some freedom" - it just makes me want to puke!
FREEDOM
to jail anybody!
http://www.DeadElephant.ORG - liberalsmack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Bush will sign it and then add a signing statement saying the executive branch can ignore it.
- iancrose, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I agree with many of the comments that this shouldn't be necessary, but even if Leahy and Spector are just following the crowd and getting on the recent bandwagon of disagreeing with Bush's policies, I don't care. If the bandwagon also happens to be going the same direction as the right thing to do, I'm all for it. I'm in favor of any additional support for the basic Habeus Corpus rights that most of the developed world has enjoyed for centuries.
- eatsushi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5While it is a nice, H.C. shouldn't have died in the first place. When they "restore" it, watch what they say and compare it to the old Habeas Corpus. Just a suggestion.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Democrats don't think we are fighting a war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin
…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. - mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'd prefer them to void the entire law out right... simply pass another law taking the WHOLE THING back... but they NEVER do something so simple.
- Crusader1145, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what this bill does. If passed this bill will allow ENEMY COMBATANTS, you know those wacky guys trying to kill us while screaming how great god is, access to civilian courts. This has never been done in the history of war. Are our troops now supposed to be like the CSI team and gather up all the evidence, keep it safe, ensure a traceable chain of custody, etc? Lets not forget that these people are not US citizens and have NO Constitutional rights (if they are US citizens then this is not an issue). As unlawful enemy combatants they're not even covered by the Geneva Convention. Fighting the Islamofascists is not cops and robbers, its a war and needs to be pursued as such.
- cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -2/+4that is kind of strange on the flip side of things, thinking that we need amendments to enforce the amendments... hmm.
- Loki, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6digging you down due to your pathetic attempt to drive more traffic to a very ugly website.
- mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"unlawful combatant" doesn't appear in the Constitution!!!
The Constitution covers laws "against" the federal govt... it's not about what rights PEOPLE.. any people.. have, it's about what rights the feds have. The same way our Geneva Convention laws work... they aren't vaild only if other countries "play fair" too.... it's our ethical rules we should uphold no matter how evil the other side is. it's about OUR rules for OURselves... and we shouldn't bend the rules because it's not the "American way" of doing things. - ExCornelius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They can't make that argument, otherwise they'd have to say the law they passed was unconstitutional. Better to not mention the C-word at all, and maintain the notion that such laws are legitimate. Never know when it might come in handy.
- knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"All men are created equal" is a self-evident truth, God given and/or the birthright of consciousness.
Any man who denies another man equality in justice is a criminal without any piece of paper needing to be referenced. - dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Trudat. +1
- theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Omigod, factual citations, the Bush camp's worst enemy...
- theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Engage your goddamned brain or stay out of the conversation.
- Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3So, Specter's a good ol' Republican, right up until he cosponsors legislation to restore constitutional rights, and then becomes a "moonbat"? ooloo, you're a moron.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for idiocy. All people, citizens or otherwise under US jurisdiction have the rights in the fifth amendment which include due process and habeas corpus.
- knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1fascist stooge.
- tropican8, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So you truly believe that those 12 million legal permanent residents of the United States are terrorists? That's quite a claim. Putting that aside, discarding basic civil rights puts us in the same boat as people like Saddam, meaning by Bush logic the U.S should invade itself. On a more serious note, I think you have balls claiming that liberals can't be trusted with our national security when the current administration managed to fail over half of the recommendations made to them by security professionals after 9/11, including such basic things as having more security at locations in greater danger of attack. Additionally, our ports are owned by companies that are known to be directly funding terrorism. Oh, let's not forget to mention the fact that less than 0.01 percent of the cases filed by the DHS have been terrorism related. Or that while looking for terrorists, a needle in a haystack, their answer is wiretapping the American people. That effectively makes the haystack several times larger, whether you think your civil liberties were violated or not. So yeah, the Republicans did a bang-up job. Forgive me if I trust someone else with national security.
- swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Can you explain the logic behind the term "moonbat?"
- theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Time for y'all to learn something that's going to clog sewage systems nation wide with miles and miles of vomit.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/lawnanti.htm
The U.S. Constitution was suspended in 1933 pending the end of a state of national emergency ... which has never ended.
The Constitution is functionally null and void.
War Powers Act ...
The below is excerpted from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_Powers_Act
On November 19, 1973, the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency presented Senate Report 93-549 at the first session of the 93rd Congress. The Introduction to the report, an examination of existing War and Emergency Powers Acts, states:
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971."[1]
"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes."[2] - dracostimpy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1We can as soon as we rid ourselves of the Rep/Dem parties, since neither would ever allow that to happen.
- Crusader1145, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Quite true. Don't they realize that these Islamofascists hate everything they stand for and that they would be the first ones lined up against the wall if they ever came to power? I just don't get it.
- mwayne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1See my reply above - face facts - you don't want the Constitution defended - you want "Your" version of the Living Document" defended as exemplified by the Court since the New Deal
- knomevol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1true, but potentially one might need to spend decades in prison while having to fight MCA in the courts to have it declared unconstitutional.
- vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Alien means NOT AN AMERICAN.
So, to be an Alien Unlawful Comatant you must be-
1. Not an American.
2. Captured in fighting against American Soldiers.
3. Not part of a country's official armed forces.
And a Military tribunal must file evidence that the person in question passes all 3 before they can declare that person such.
Read the law before making statements about it. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Nice cut and paste from Wikipedia. Allow me to add to it from the same Unlawful Combatant page.
Combatants who do not qualify for POW status:
A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court."
The bottom line is that terrorists like those in Iraq and Afghanistan are not protected as civilians, nor are they fighting within the confines of the Laws of War and the Geneva convention. The only rights that they are granted in their current state are the ones above. They have no habeas corpus rights, only that they are treated humanely and eventually have a trial in a "a regularly constituted court." - cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1so how does torture apply to this part of the 5th amendment....
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,... - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That pissed me off. Maybe they figured they'd have a better chance focusing on getting votes for the 2006 elections before turning against it? I dunno.
- theNthDoctor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I almost neglected:
http://www.google.com/search?q=senate+report+93-549
Unfortunately, the Library of Congress doesn't have archives online this far back. I looked. - Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Pfft, as if D&D were the only kind of RP :P
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree, they should be calling the act unconstitutional up and down---then again, they (Democrats) should have also stood against it more firmly.
- Loonacy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I declare you to be an alien unlawful combatant. You say you have proof that you aren't?
Uh oh, not so fast... you don't get a trial, or a hearing. You're going to be imprisoned indefinitely. I'm so sorry.
Abolishing habeas corpus for ANYONE effectively abolishes it for EVERYONE, because you never get the opportunity to prove that you are eligible to have it. - cryptoki, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2so how does torture apply to this part of the 5th amendment then...
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,...
(just asking) - zeldar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The Military Commissions Act (and both so-called P.A.T.R.I.O.T Acts) are knee-jerk reactions to the same fear and paranoia that caused our illustrious Congress to vote to authorize the Iraq war. All of this legislation, including the war authorization need to be repealed, period. Congress should be ashamed for being accomplices to the Bush crime family's efforts to systematically overturn our Constitutional rights in the name of the so-called 'War on Terror'.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is