What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
503 Comments
- ParkBeam, on 06/13/2008, -14/+281Said the man who was held as a prisoner of war in Hanoi for 5 and a half years.
- alapoet, on 06/13/2008, -19/+247At least we know where McClone stands on torture and illegal detention. Could he be any more Bush-like?
- skteoievtehr, on 06/14/2008, -7/+200The ruling doesn't state that Cuba is part of the United States! This is a crucially important distinction and one of the major arguments against the existence of Gitmo! Cuba is NOT part of the United States, but Guantanamo Bay is considered US territory. The question is, why should this be? And the argument is, that if Gitmo is considered US territory, then why shouldn't the inmates there be tried fairly, as they would in the United States? Guantanamo Bay and other "black sites" scattered across the globe are so problematic because US regulations don't seem to hold water there. This puts those imprisoned there in a sort of limbo position in which they are technically in the US, but not given the same rights of due process. The new court ruling declares that those tried at Gitmo can appeal court decisions in the United States. This is just plain old fair. The ***** that goes on at Gitmo and other prisons abroad is absolutely disgraceful. Shut them the ***** down. There are enough problems with the prison INDUSTRY, and it is an industry, right here in America. Oversees prisons should be banned. If we are going to imprison someone for a legitimate crime against our nation or its citizens, they should be held in our own country and tried in a goddamn US court. What kind of country are we, anyway? *****.
- tehbored, on 06/14/2008, -14/+176I still don't understand how restoring habeas corpus to detainees will put anyone at risk.
- debunkthelies, on 06/14/2008, -18/+147NO the worst decision was to appoint George W. Bush the 43rd President.
- barfooz, on 06/14/2008, -8/+98You should have heard Laura Ingraham arguing against it on Fox News tonight. It was utterly repugnant and devoid of sense and showed no respect for the Constitution. She actually stated that she believes that the founding fathers would be sickened by the ruling. No, Laura, actually, this is why they wrote the right of habeas corpus into the gaddam document.
These authoritarian thugs and their sycophants that have ramsacked our legal and justice system need to be dragged out into the street and drawn and quartered. I'm disgusted by McCain's stance on this and I'm mad as hell about the whole thing. - grumpyrain, on 06/14/2008, -10/+94No. One of the worst decisions was to try and setup a kangaroo court and suspend habeas corpus. With a couple of strokes of a pen, the US lost its moral high road. It meant that no-one outside the US buys that Abu Grahib was just a bunch of soldiers going off the rails. McCain may have been a POW. He can thank his lucky stars he was not an 'enemy combatant'.
- BishkekBuddy, on 06/14/2008, -2/+83I do know that the grounds of any American Embassy anywhere in the world is considered to be "on American soil" and I have to believe the same holds for the grounds of any American military base. American laws should be upheld on American soil, period. What the Supreme Court did was to uphold this basic tenet - hurray for them.
- thirdcoastborn, on 06/13/2008, -34/+102He would be worst than Bush as President of the U.S.
- eliot2000, on 06/14/2008, -8/+76You know who he should pick as his running mate? John McCain from the 2000 election. That guy would never have put up with BS like this.
- Merb, on 06/14/2008, -14/+72The best part is that when he first heard, he said:
"It obviously concerns me . . . but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward."
It's as if he was briefed by his panel of radical right-wing advisors as soon as he stepped out of the spotlight that if he wanted any chance of staying in this race, he'd better firmly establish himself as a staunch conservative on this issue. The man is a lemming--completely devoid of original thoughts and opinions, which will lead to his certain demise. - hawkeye17, on 06/14/2008, -6/+63Which is the most disgraceful thing about McCains support of Bush. The man only believes in that which will get him elected. Straight talk my ass.
- inactive, on 06/14/2008, -9/+66One word Neocon scum can't stand,
C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N - byronm, on 06/14/2008, -2/+55Amen.
Hell, if the supreme court didn't uphold this it would mean McCain isn't a US Citizen and therefore couldn't run for presidency. I guess its too hard for McCain to put 2+2 together though. - byronm, on 06/14/2008, -1/+53for those digging me down Mccain was borne on a US base so if US bases are no longer US soil then it shouldn't be a double standard. Mccain would have to give up his citizenship for not being borne in the US of A.
- RoxorsPH, on 06/13/2008, -62/+106What a tool. I don't know a single Republican that is excited about voting for this man.
I think that the ruling which now considers Cuba a part of the United States is obviously stupid, it is far from one of the worst decisions ever. - life38, on 06/14/2008, -12/+53Let's see now. First its the liberal judges of a specific state. Then its the judges of another state. Then its the Supreme Court.
The decision might have been due to the fact that we did not declare war and have been acting as police. In police matters your innocent until proven guilty. - tidu, on 06/14/2008, -3/+43I don't care if it's US territory or not. We're holding prisoners there and ignoring America's values. It's just plain wrong.
- pintomp3, on 06/14/2008, -6/+44and he was captured over there fighting. most of the detainees were in their own country and not "on the battlefield".
Many of them were not picked up on or anywhere near the battlefield. Detainees were taken into custody from 14 different countries, including Gambia, Bosnia, and Thailand. About half were taken into custody in Pakistan – and, as noted above, the thousands of dollars offered by the US to bounty hunters encouraged false arrests. According to US military records, the US has not even accused the majority of them of fighting US or coalition forces.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ... - DD2CC2U, on 06/14/2008, -10/+42McCain hates the constitution. How can he come out against habeas corpus?
- wannapiece, on 06/14/2008, -9/+41I just cannot see how McCain has any supporters, Pro war people make me sick
- grlykool, on 06/14/2008, -15/+45John McCain thinks Amistad was a bad decision too then. Jeez he's an idiot. No matter by Monday he'll deny he ever said this.
- EmmaRussell, on 06/14/2008, -11/+41Like a puppet on a string.
- publiclurker, on 06/14/2008, -0/+302000 McCain wouldn't agree to be in the same room as the 2008 copy.
- mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -2/+30If you're willing to give up the Rule of Law, what foundation does America have left?
Look at it this way... The PRISON GUARDS, TORTURERS, etc have to obey US Law, since they're wearing the Flag and swore an oath, right? - jstohler, on 06/14/2008, -5/+33Correction: The OLD McCain was strongly against torture. The NEW McCain has sold out all his beliefs to appease the GOP base.
- nullcodes, on 06/14/2008, -6/+33First, people's rights come from God (or nature if you are atheist), these rights are inherent in all people. The founding fathers believed it, they are the ones who said that it's self evident that all men are created equal and that their rights are from the creator (second paragraph declaration of independence).
A just government does NOT INFRINGE on the natural rights of mankind. Only if a nation wishes to have an immoral government would it deny the natural rights of a person. But who wants their government to be immoral? I don't know if anyone is with me, but I would rather be killed than survive by harming any innocent human being for my own convenience or survival. It is everyone's moral obligation to at least take minimal steps to ensure that innocent people are not being falsely hurt. It too is inherent -- a social contract with the Creator (or nature if you're atheist) , it is just like the moral obligation of following laws and not cheating people. Why even follow laws if you don't believein moral obligations?
Habeas corpus promotes peace and justice.
If habeas corpus increases the threat level, why would the founding fathers have it in the first place .. for anyone.
I can see how habeas corpus can be temporarily suspended, but people should be tried in due time and within reason. It is immoral to punish people without giving them a chance to defend themselves fairly. That said I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that at least minimal habeas corpus rules must be followed and never suspended, remember this ruling can be overturned.
That same amendment can include a phrase explicitly banning cruelty and torture of all persons including non citizens (some people claim the existing one doesn't cover non citizens -- supreme court in future may agree). - mikelieman, on 06/14/2008, -2/+28Because the RIGHTS aren't limited to Citizens. RIGHTS come from your Creator, and therefore the GOVERNMENT is prohibited from infringing on them.
- fishbeef33, on 06/14/2008, -9/+34Yeah, what an awful decision: upholding habeus corpus. Those damned America-haters in the supreme court, what were they thinking?
You'd think after big mistakes in American history like slavery and the Alien & Sedition Acts, that politicians would be a little bit more careful with our liberties. I guess our congressmen and women are kind of like the kid who sat next to me in social studies class, making paper footballs instead of reading their assignments. - Aethirig, on 06/14/2008, -10/+34***** you, McCain.
- inactive, on 06/14/2008, -11/+35I think I get what he is saying, and it kinda scares me.
He has said he is for closing GitMo, but AGAINST restoring Habeas Corpus.
think about that:
he was held as a POW, so he empathizes with the detainees, but doesn't give a crap about something as abstract as civil rights.
Or even worse, he sees the political benefit of siding with the detainees, but thinks a story about some fancy Latin phrase wont stick, Im hoping we can prove him wrong. - JumpingJack79, on 06/14/2008, -0/+22Actually, McCain used to have his own personality and his own standings on issues, but now that he has to appeal to Bush's supporters, he doesn't even know where he stands. He literally has to MEMORIZE Bush's standings and repeat them, and he sometimes get it "wrong". Here's another example: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mcca ...
- gsnedders, on 06/14/2008, -2/+23They aren't POWs according to the US government. If they were, they'd be covered by the Geneva Convention (i.e., among other things, they'd have a right to a fair trail), and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
- inactive, on 06/14/2008, -8/+28Heaven forbid that we put right over might in this country for once. What a crazy, old bastard.
- BishkekBuddy, on 06/14/2008, -4/+24So, in voting FOR water boarding he was saying that torture is ok if MILITARY does it to MILITARY? But then why would it be ok to torture "non-combatants?" They are supposedly, by definition, not military!
- nova912, on 06/14/2008, -6/+26If you don't like the constitution you can *heavy southerner voice* 'geeeet out.'
- omgbanana, on 06/14/2008, -5/+24I would have reserved "one of the worst decisions ever" for something like Plessy v Ferguson or Dred Scott v Sanford, buy hey!
This man is beyond a tool. He is obviously of the same caliber as the judges who presided over those cases. - Hamletlere, on 06/14/2008, -1/+20Until you prove they did the crime they are accused of (terrorism), why do you think it is fair to call them terrorists?
Do you think it is impossible for our intelligence services/military to make mistakes, and nab the wrong person? Do you think it is okay to jail possibly innocent foreign nationals for a decade, with no need to present evidence of their guilt? - Spektr4, on 06/14/2008, -8/+27It constantly surprises me how we in the younger generation understand the intent and historical context of the constitution better than old codgers like McCain. Either he is a fool or pandering to his idiot base, and either way he should not be anywhere near the Whitehouse.
- inactive, on 06/14/2008, -1/+18Right Wing nutcases don't understand logic, byronm.
- petraska, on 06/14/2008, -1/+17If they are POW's then they still have rights (at least according to the Geneva convention). I am sure that the alleged actions in regards to the treatment of 'POWs' at Guantanomo break many of these rights.
- kelstock, on 06/14/2008, -12/+28Ah McCain, you've done it again
- Hamletlere, on 06/14/2008, -2/+18Am I allowed to walk up and assault a foreign student attending college here in America, because they have no rights? No. They are accorded the same rights as a citizen while in the United States. They may report crimes against them to the police, and if they commit a crime and are arrested, they can expect a trial, just like a citizen.
And as a note, the people being held in Guantanimo are most certainly NOT prisoners of war. The government has made absolutely sure of that, because POWs DO have rights under the Geneva Convention, and our government did not want them to have those rights. - theaceoffire, on 06/14/2008, -3/+19O.o
"Prisoners of War get rights."
"Not us!"
"You were not fighting us. If you had been shooting and killing us, then you would have rights... now shut up." - inactive, on 06/14/2008, -5/+21I think I saw "Traitor Joe" Lieberman whispering something in his ear.
- inactive, on 06/14/2008, -2/+18You're an idiot. He was a POW.
The stupid term 'enemy combatant' was made up by Bush administration cronies. It did not exist as any kind of legal definition before September 18, 2001. - inactive, on 06/14/2008, -1/+16Because he so desperately wants to be President that he will overturn all his values, everything that he has said or done, or experienced. He is willing to whore himself for power. That's why.
- phorty40, on 06/14/2008, -1/+16Dug for truth!
- MortalynFlux, on 06/14/2008, -0/+14I think this debate is good, because hopefully it will have people take interest in the constitution. However, you should read some of the findings for this case. The judges did not state that GITMO was U.S. Territory. What they did state is that, for all practical purposes, the U.S. has ultimate sovereignty and jurisdiction over the GITMO, its detainees, and any cases tried there. So the U.S. rule of law applies.
For example, if Cuba objects to a particular prisioner being held there, there is nothing Cuba can do. They can't order the release of the prisioner. If a case goes to trial, they can't appeal to a higher Cuban court. So it's not so much about technical claims regarding the legal state of the territory, but about sovereignty and jurisdiction. U.S. has it, Cuba does not. So U.S. law applies, not Cuban law.
As it stands, Cuba does not even cash the checks that the U.S. sends it for the lease of the land, as they do not find the U.S. occupation there legal, since it predates the current government and they argue that the treaty was signed under duress. - theaceoffire, on 06/14/2008, -2/+16Well, I am glad we know who McCain's supporters are.
By the way, this asshat does not represent America (At least, I hope not), so please do not think too badly of us if possible. -
Show 51 - 100 of 519 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is