What is Digg?509 Comments
- kg37, on 11/10/2008, -21/+537Yes! Welcome back, human rights!
- DFutureIsNow, on 11/10/2008, -10/+284Wow, America is making a comeback. The US Constitution is making a comeback.
- Evisionary, on 11/10/2008, -13/+237I'm thrilled that Guantanamo Bay is closing! This was truely a black hole in our history. I look forward to all of our constitutional rights being restored!
- TheJimid, on 11/10/2008, -9/+143Well he was a professor of constitutional law people.
- argaen21, on 11/10/2008, -12/+137Its about f-ing time that place closed down. Those people in guantanamo deserve their right to a trial no matter what you ***** republithugs think.
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -16/+118Respect.
I am curious, how about all those “secret CIA prisons” Bush has built all over the place? - wfjohnston, on 11/10/2008, -6/+98"The plan being developed by Obama's team has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties. But it is almost certain to face opposition from Republicans who oppose bringing terrorism suspects to the U.S. and from Democrats who oppose creating a new court system with fewer rights for detainees."
I'm inclined to take the side of the legal experts, especially when it's legal experts from both sides of the aisle. It's absurd to think that we can have the same evidentiary rules as we do in most US court cases. The information is very sensitive. It's also absurd to think that we can deny people the right to a fair defense. - Xihix, on 11/11/2008, -5/+87In other news, the Patriot Act continues to exist.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -6/+68Is that the same Guantanomo Bay prison that Republicans said we should DOUBLE the size of?
- mikelieman, on 11/11/2008, -1/+63How do you know they've done anything unlawful when they haven't had a trial?
- sqrppl, on 11/10/2008, -7/+64A promising first step!
- Eiknujrac, on 11/10/2008, -2/+56No one said it should be applied to other countries.
The Constitution should, however, be applied to anyone who is detained by us. Where in the constitution does it say "Only US citizens, when detained, are allowed these rights..."?
The 5th amendment starts "No person shall..." not "No US citizen shall..."
The 6th amendment says "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial" not "the accused, should he be a US citizen, shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"
Even in the main body, in which resides the only true right given by the un-amended constitution, it claims "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended" not "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless the accused is not a US citizen".
How can you know they are "banner-less terrorists" when you have no idea where they are from, what they are accused of, and under what evidence? Do you really trust your government that much? - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -1/+54Those "secret CIA prisons" have been around for decades.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -3/+51Why are people so ***** afraid of giving terrorists a trial? If they're terrorists, they'll be found guilty, *****.
- Intrepion, on 11/11/2008, -10/+56heterosexual rights, at least
- LinuxLars, on 11/10/2008, -7/+53Thank god. Close this shameful reminder of the lack of a moral and legal compass of the last administration.
G'Obama! - oldhick, on 11/10/2008, -1/+43The US Constitution limits the power of the government and protects our individual liberties. All US citizens, by birth are protected by it and there ARE US citizens being detained in Gitmo.
The problem with a closed system like Gitmo is that we don't know fully, who is being held and why. So while I think many of us would have little sympathy for "banner-less terrorists" and many of us would agree that "banner-less terrorists" need to be punished, we must be certain that they are guilty. The only way we'll know that is if we know who is there and we know why they are there and we try them in a court of law.
Otherwise, they can one day put us in such a place and deny our rights and then who will stop them? - sodade, on 11/11/2008, -3/+41Wake me when we dismantle the ***** CIA. They have been responsible for some of the greatest crimes against humanity that our country has committed.
- SillyDigger, on 11/11/2008, -1/+36The dark side
- wonderchemist, on 11/10/2008, -0/+35If both sides agree, which side was Bush on?
- Niallgriff, on 11/11/2008, -0/+32"Geez obama how about we let the 9/11 bombers off with community service?"
Well for one, they're ***** dead. Happens when you do a suicide attack. Buried for being a ***** moron. - MRoCkEd, on 11/11/2008, -8/+40As a constitutional, libertarian, Ron Paul Republican, I approve this plan.
- Dweller99, on 11/11/2008, -0/+31That's President-Elect Barack HUSSEIN Obama to you, thank you.
Has a nice ring to it, don't you think? - inactive, on 11/10/2008, -14/+44Good first step, Mr.Obama.
Now, about that bailout... - searcade, on 11/11/2008, -6/+35I just hope he stays alive :(
- infinitus64, on 11/11/2008, -2/+31The only way that you can hold the high ground is to be better than whom you are fighting.
- neflm, on 11/11/2008, -2/+30Yessir, you nailed it in one.
Here's what we'll do; You go hide (Remember to unplug your computer because the Islamofascistcommunistdecepticons can find you through it.) and we'll come get you when it's safe to come out.
Really.
We promise. - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -10/+37The one he voted for?
- seltaeb4, on 11/11/2008, -0/+27And yet simultaneously clueless.
They had no clue that the Soviet Union was about to dissolve back in the early 90s. - walruspanzer, on 11/11/2008, -1/+28There are people who actually buried this comment.
- domnu, on 11/11/2008, -0/+27"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."
It says "all men", not "all citizens". Just because someone is not a citizen of the U.S. does not mean that they don't have right protected under our laws. - Eiknujrac, on 11/11/2008, -1/+27"@Eiknujrac: Did you not read my post where I clearly identified that forcing our system on other people is the reason they take up arms against us?"
Argument fail. You think that people take up arms against us because we try and give them criminal rights? Wow, you must be more naive than I thought.
"So no. The Constitution doesn't apply to terrorists who fight to go to heaven rather than their country."
You just don't get it do you. I know this is hard to comprehend, but try and stay with me here, ok? Our justice system works on the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty. What that means is, the police can't just bust into your house, and throw you in jail because they want to. The problem here is not that I want to protect terrorists, I'm fine with letting them rot. The problem here is detaining people who are not terrorists, simply because the government says they are. The problem is the government has a duty to prove that they are or could be terrorists. Still with me? As soon as you give up that FUNDAMENTAL right of Habeus Corpus, the idea that you actually have to be charged with a crime before you are put in jail, you begin to give up all your rights.
So then you say, the right of Habeus Corpus only applies to US citizens right? We can go, take whoever we want, label them as "enemy combatants" and do whatever we want with them, just because we THINK they COULD be terrorists.
And THAT, my friend, is the police the world attitude. That is one of the so called "reason(s) they take up arms against us" I know you want to believe it is all about a culture war. But if you stop watching Fox News, or listening to Limbaugh maybe you can start to think for yourself.
And finally, the idea that you can fight "terrorism" with only bullets is just horrendous stupid. Every time we kill a terrorist, we create a martyr out of him, and in turn create more extremists to follow in his footsteps. If you think for one second that we can win this war just by throwing them in jail or killing them, you have bigger problems than I thought. Every innocent civilian we kill, and there have been a lot, we create more extremists. Bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere amazed at how many recruits the Iraq war brings in. We did a better job for him than he could have ever done. - pintomp3, on 11/11/2008, -0/+25MYTH: The detainees at Guantanamo are the “worst of the worst."
Fact: Few of the men sent to Guantanamo are the high-ranking al Qaeda or Taliban members the US government alleges them to be. Hundreds were not even involved in the conflict, but rather sold to the US by bounty hunters or turned over by rival clan members trying to settle a vendetta, while high level al Qaeda operatives with the money to buy their freedom got away. According to Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit from 1999 until 2004, no more than 10 percent of those brought to Guantanamo Bay were considered high-value detainees.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/guantanamo/2007/myths ... - relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+26"when they decided to become terrorists."
Under the current system there is no way to prove that. - CVL4317, on 11/11/2008, -0/+24how about if You, sir being caught by some Bush-y personnels and marked as terrorists because someone you stumble upon 2 days ago happened to be a terrorist? Guess what, Guantanamo Bay will be your new and last home.
- PeppermintPig, on 11/11/2008, -0/+23Mitt 'Double Guantanamo With Government Cheese' Romney
- john2kx, on 11/11/2008, -0/+22mavrick.
- sulthernao, on 11/11/2008, -0/+22CIA is source for half our problems: Ho Chi Minh? Osama Bin Ladan? Saddam Hussein? Check, Check and Check.
- Dbeneath, on 11/11/2008, -0/+22The Guantanamo Bay prison camp is a disgrace that only Bush and his posse would endorse continuing. It would be insane for Obama, who taught constitutional law, not to close it. Call me when he starts talking about lifting the embargo.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -1/+22How is it constitutional for the US government to detain people without trial? It's specifically stated that people, not simply US citizen, detained by the US government are entitled to a fair trial.
- swicken, on 11/11/2008, -1/+22They may be bad people, but they deserve the same due process as the serial killers and rapists, and even the terrorists that are bred closer to home.
Not to mention the wrongly convicted people who reside there with no ability to defend themselves. - ThreeE, on 11/11/2008, -1/+22I oppose Obama on virtually every economic idea he has put forward. All of these differences mean nothing compared to this one issue. Assuming he follows through on this, I am glad he is our President-Elect and I will consider his presidency a success.
- magus_melchior, on 11/10/2008, -0/+20If he can get a handle on the CIA, I'm sure he'll close those as well, since they were a circumvention of investigations over Guantanamo.
- mikelieman, on 11/11/2008, -0/+19It's hard to get things done when treasonous snakes like A'li North is selling weapons to the Iranian Terrorists who are holding US hostages, isn't it?
- grumpyrain, on 11/11/2008, -0/+20> when they decided to become terrorists.
Or when they decided to be a taxi driver in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Or when local freedom fighters wanted to collect the bounty on offer and so were just grabbing any Joe off the street and presenting them as some terrorist.
I too hope the terrorists rot in hell after spending a long and bored life in solitary, the difference between you and me is that I believe in habeas corpus. I believe the US did herself a great disservice under Gonzales, Wu et al. Habeas Corpus is the basis for the concept of personal liberty. It means that one can not be incarcerated without the custodian providing evidence to an independent court as to their justification for that incarceration. In layman's terms, if the police can not show an independent court why you should be in jail, you must be released.
By setting up a kangaroo court, justice to the victims of terror has also been denied and their memory dishonored. You don't protect freedom by inventing terms to avoid the freedoms you are protecting. A classic example is "enemy combatants", a term carefully selected to avoid the (very limited) rights assigned to a "prisoner of war" or "criminal". Worse still, in many cases involving citizens of allied countries, prisoners have been released due to political reasons (eg, to keep David Hicks of the front page of the newspaper after being there for weeks in the run-up to the Australian election last year, not because they necessarily should have been released). We will never know because they were not tried in a court system with any legitimacy, just one set apart to ensure a guilty verdict was the only possibility. - sunburner, on 11/11/2008, -0/+19And our image around the world looks like ***** because of people with that same mentality.
- ZenFu, on 11/11/2008, -1/+20@Vosona. Your ignorance in world regimes astounds me.
Who the hell do you think trained the Mujaheddin and supplied Saddam with weaps back in the 80s-90s? - BuryHuffPost, on 11/10/2008, -1/+20I can't believe, for a fraction of a second, I thought you might actually be posting something relevant.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+18Not torturing enemy POWs actually has worked out well for America for centuries... we invaded both Germany and Japan in WW2, but neither bare us any animosity for it... actually both, except for fringe elements, have seen the error of their wartime ways and still have a good relationship with us. Had we tortured German POWs then left their country a bombed-out shambles there might have been a WW3 for all we know.
Torture is unamerican. No matter what Rush Limbaugh whispers into your ear after lunch every day. - noupsell, on 11/11/2008, -2/+18what happens to the shadow government?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 512 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is