What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
167 Comments
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -7/+176Brandondork,
At least give credit where credit is due: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
You copied wikipedia verbatim. - Brandondork, on 10/12/2007, -27/+175Habea Corpus is Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. But habeas corpus has a much broader meaning in common law today. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a prisoner be brought before the court for determination of whether that person is serving a lawful sentence and/or whether he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
Habeas corpus can also mean that the imprisoning authority of an alleged murderer 'should have the body' to prove that there has indeed been a murder at all, but this usage is rare
Basically, this is a really bad thing that has happened - Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -11/+105Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
- Benjamin Franklin - cwac5, on 10/12/2007, -3/+59Are you really so caught up in our entertainment culture that you can no longer tell the difference between a show and your own life? This effects you and the hundreds of millions of people you share a country with. Not a movie character, you. Wake up.
- phobos182, on 10/12/2007, -1/+54"The writ of habeas corpus is only legally denied from any unlawful military combatant according to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by President Bush on October 17."
Therein lies the problem. You cannot deny habeas corpus to anyone without denying it to everyone. In this example being "I will only deny habeas corpus to unlawful military combatant's". If you are jailed by the government they can declare you an unlawful military combatant for their own reasons. You have no right to contest your imprisonment with this law in effect. You could be charged and tried in a military tribunal without a word ever spoken in your defense.
Judged and sentenced without the slightest regard to your right to prove your innocence. - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -13/+60Did anyone notice the the submitted date on YouTube was back on October 16? How is this recent news?
That aside, I don't care how MSNBC is looked at for this, but I am glad that someone in the public image has the gall to speak out against Bush. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46"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."
Rebellion? Nope.
Invasion? Nope. Well, no one is invading us, anyway.
Public Safety? Probably not. - RockMyMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+49I think I saw that video awhile ago, but it is important enough to be on the front of Digg more then once.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+40It's largely due to idiots like "xlar54" that this kind of thing is allowed to happen.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+41Our government is being invaded by insane right wingers who want to destroy our freedom, so I guess they can use their own invasion of the government to repeal our rights.
Fun stuff. - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36DoctaStooge 23
"Did anyone notice the the submitted date on YouTube was back on October 16? How is this recent news?"
It's recent news until it's changed. We forget about this we might as well call ourselves a Dictatorship because that's what it is. - Brandondork, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31For example:
A more recent use of the habeas petition is with cases involving DNA evidence. If new technology can prove a person did not commit a rape, he may file a habeas petition and allege his detention was based on a misapplication of the facts. At the evidentiary hearing, that person's attorney will present exculpatory DNA evidence, and the judge will order his release. In its most basic form, the writ of habeas corpus serves as the final chance a prisoner has to challenge his conviction, and it will be granted based on only constitutional issues. - VeryAngryJim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Ok, I'll go run for president, brb.
- cwac5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25@Noctem
That was an attack, not an invasion. Either way, being scared is no reason to throw your personal liberties in a trash can. You are being taken advantage of by people who tell you they are making you safer, but really just want more power. - marcushe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Olberman is so ridicuously smart.
He so totally ownes O'Reily.
O'Riely's response to that would be: "You're a nut. - You obviously hate your country." - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Was the law repealed? No. Then we still have to talk about this.
- argonplatypus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Olbermann_On_Habeas_Corpus
http://www.digg.com/politics/One_Nation_Under_Bush
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Keith_Olbermann_on_the_loss_of_Habeus_Corpus
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Most_Compelling_TV_Comment_Since_Murrow
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Keith_Olberman_on_habeas_corpus
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/America_is_No_Longer_Free
http://www.digg.com/politics/Olbermann_Video_Habeas_Corpus_1789_2006
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Olbermann_The_Day_Habeas_Corpus_Died (almost 1400 digs, submitted 69 days ago)
http://www.digg.com/world_news/VIideo_Olbermann_on_the_death_of_Habeas_Corpus
http://www.digg.com/politics/VIDEO_Habeas_Corpus_1215_2006_RIP - lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Since when is 12 people an invasion?
***** if thats true, the US is regularly invaded by foreign kids traveling for school.
*****! They're invading! Kill 'em all! - VeryAngryJim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22The audio from that clip appeared in the Keith Olbermann podcast over on iTunes. After hearing it once I selected "Do not auto-delete" from the podcast menu. Now every single day when I listen to the daily news, I hear that audio clip. I've had it mixed in with my daily news since October.
People's freedoms get taken away when they've forgotten what it was like to have them, I'll carry this clip with me for as long as I can so I'll never forget just how much damage Bush did to this country. - physphd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19How incredibly shortsighted.
What do you have against just laws that don't depend solely on the moral character of those executing them? When you need not be charged, can be tortured, may or may not be given access to legal counsel, need not be shown all the evidence against you, and can possibly be tried and convicted in absentia, who will even know that you are innocent? Who will even know where you are and what happened to you? There is simply no possibility for a redress of grievances and no mechanism to correct an errant "arrest" and conviction.
Read the Military Commissions Act. You will see that this is all possible and can be done against US citizens - see section 948b.
I never thought a piece of legislation could make me cry. As a combat vet, I am beyond angry about this. - etnu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Who's invaded us again? Damn, I'd better tell everyone that there's an invasion going on, that way I can start an underground rebellion against the occupying forces.
Moron. - anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21"You could be charged and tried in a military tribunal without a word ever spoken in your defense."
This is incorrect. First, you have to be declared an illegal combatant, which requires a Combat Status Review Tribunal, where lots and lots of words have to get spoken in your defense.
Second, American citizens cannot be declared illegal combatants, period. It's right there in the law.
None of this should be construed as a defense of the law. It's a goddamn atrocity. But atrocities are best fought with facts, not with misinformation. In this case the truth is bad enough without embellishing it. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@Noctern -
So because of a single event that occurred over five years ago, you want to throw away all of our civil liberties? That is truly pathetic. - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17This will be reversed. Even if takes a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees all the rest of the document.
- VeryAngryJim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yes, I did vote jackass. I'll get off the computer when I get off work.
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17The Republicans seem to have forgotten that someday soon it will be the Democrats using / abusing all this power the Republicans have created.
Odd. - DarthPoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15The writ of habeas corpus is only legally denied from any unlawful military combatant according to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by President Bush on October 17. Though it is supposedly only against aliens, the wording is vague enough to possibly be applied to US citizens, specifically in section 948b.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./temp/~c109RM895J:e5622: - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Wow, I've never really seen this guy before. He is so articulate and polite while at the same time firm in his opinion. Amazing.
Incredible speech as well.
- Whackly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Noctem : The Maude Flanders school of thinking.
They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
What could be more important than the erosion of personal liberty? This should be on the digg front page every day. - physphd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13That is simply not true, no matter how much you wish it so. Read it.
1) It is in no way geographically restricted to those fighting in other countries.
2) While some passages refer to "alien (non-citizens)" may others, specifically section 948b, refers to "unlawful enemy combatants." And what is the legal definition of "enemy combatant"? There is none. Who has the power to declare you one? The executive, and you can easily find instances of US citizens being declared enemy combatants held without charges and denied legal counsel..
3) There is absolutely no provision or protocol in the MCA for protesting or appealing this. To the contrary, it restricts what legal counsel, if any, they may access to.
4) The government need not disclose all evidence against you, even if you are granted a trial.
5) There are provisions for being tried in absentia.
At best, the MCA is incredibly poorly worded and vague and as I believe in rule of law, I would hate to see the just execution of this Act be solely dependent on the motives and characters of those applying it. - Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@Noctem
"Why on earth would anyone be snatched up off the street, and declared an unlawful enemy combatant, for no apparent reason?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml
Wrong place, wrong time. If a government has the right to do something, eventually it -will-. - oreo2123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@ cwac5:
amen. i couldn't have said it better myself.
this Olbermann report is older, but still news worthy. When I found out about this a few of months ago I wrote both my Senators (who both voted for the Military Comm Act)...their responses prompted me to join the ACLU. Now with the starting of use of RFID chips in passports*, I think I am prompted to leave this country.
Am I the only one who think it a weird coincidence that the last time America saw this much tyranny it came from a one, King George???? Go read the Declaration of Independance and tell me it doesn't apply more today than ever.............
*See:
http://digg.com/security/Smash_the_RFID_chip_in_your_US_Passport - nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi to name two people that have been picked up and held without evidence or being told what they were charged with and might have rotted there indefinitely if their story had not been picked up by the media. They are Middle Eastern which was apparently enough. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that the people who have suspended Habeus Corpus have no intention of excercising their new lack of restraints? This government doesn't need more power. It needs more oversight.
- chevymanusa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Another good watch
http://digg.com/politics/MSNBC_s_Olbermann_calls_Bush_out_as_a_lying_coward_on_National_TV - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Shut up slave.
- greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10*****...
Canada is too damn cold... can't move north
I don't speak Spanish... can't move south
oceans one the left and right....
I'm screwed. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It's unreal how the terrorist have overwhelmingly won.
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8That's the entire point - there is no codified criteria that have to be met to invoke this. Only an executive order that is entirely discretionary. Its potential for abuse rests solely on the moral character of out leadership, and I think that by now that is beyond question.
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If you call yourself a conservative you should be ashamed. Whatever happened to small government? Conservative fiscal policy? I see....
As a lifelong conservative, I scoff at non-thinking and easily led simpletons that cheer for there party as if it were a football team without ever looking at what they stand for. Face it: the Republican party has done an about-face from conservative policies in six short years. Talk about flip-flops. - AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7A habeas has also been used successfully in custody cases where children were wrongfully removed by CPS or when one parent has been denied visitation without cause. So the effects of this are much broader than they first appear.
- nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow, you're actually right. However let's put the emphasis on CIVIL WAR. Something that this war doesn't even approach. And yes, they must be an enemy combatant. But the president can label any group or person enemy comatants when he so chooses. He's not supposed to have that power but he does, through torturous legal manipulations.
Your blind faith in government is astonishing. - Doghound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
- curseyouberkley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Keith Olbermann for president.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7at least until the law is declared anti-Constitutional
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6After something is signed into law by a president , it can only be repealed by another law (according to 'the law'), which also must be signed by the president or, in lieu of that, requires a 2/3 majority vote, in both houses of congress, to override a presidential veto and make it a law.
That scenario is true as long as we continue to follow the Constitution (that thing that Bush called "just a goddamn piece of paper"). - gabrielg01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It so sad and scary to see how myopic politicians destroy our democracy in the name of "safety and patriotism".
Right after 9/11, standing on the rubbles of the WTC, George W. Bush declared that "Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America." That is true in itself, but he forgot to finish that sentence. The other half, which he didn't say would read something like this "...but our own politicians will destroy the foundations of America, something that Osama Bin Laden could never ever dream of achieving". And that is exactly what is happening. George Bush did more damage to our democracy than a thousand Osamas could ever do.
Wake up people! This is really the wrong direction we are moving in. - 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8SARCASM
In defense of "argonplatypus," this is such a trivial matter that we needn't bother to stay on top of latest developments. After all, rumor has it that Britney and Paris have a vaginal flashing scheduled for later this evening. Isn't that far more important?
/SARCASM - peridyn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What the ***** does his sex life have to do with his opinions? this is showing that people are 'mindless shills' how? It's hilarious when one can't find something intelligent to say in order to disprove or remove credence from someones opinion, so they do a ***** google search to dig up dirt. lame.
- clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So you didn't listen to anything he said right? Where he named 3 other presidents who did exactally the same thing if not worse thing then Bush and have then later made other presidents apoligize for their actions? He's citing historical examples of how America has learned these actions WILL BE USED FOR BAD how can we trust Bush with this power? If 3 other presidents claimed this power and imprisioned thousands of innocent Americans how can we trust anyone to use these kinds of powers effectivly?
Is it still liberal mumbo jumbo when more than 1 president has abused powers before? If Kerry got elected and pulled something like this, you'd be fuming along with me. Since it was some rich republican who gives you an extra $20 on your taxes you'll defend him to the death. Grow some brains before posting on the internet, this is 1 peice of the puzzle where people feel Bush has gone wrong, and unlike allot of them this is not based on opinion...this is based on historical fact. I'm sure you know nothing about that though, I take it you're a drop out? - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9This happened months ago--notice the submitted date of mid-October. Aren't the democrats planning to repeal this?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 167 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is