digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

House Democrats introduce bill to restore habeas corpus

rawstory.com — Powerful House Democrats have introduced legislation intended to restore the right to habeas corpus. Rep. Jane Harman (D), who chairs the Homeland Security Subcommitee on Intelligence, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D), announced today the presentation of bills that would reverse "problematic parts of the Military Commissions Act."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -167/+11Article One, Section 9 states: "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."

    Habeas corpus should be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion. It does not say if a judge, a lawyer or a government official requires it. It says if public safety requires it. Based on 9/11, the public still requires it, and should until the jihad madness stops. otherwise, you may as well just let the terrorists walk in the front door.
    • jimripper, on 10/12/2007, -8/+122How, pray all, does habeas corpus allow terrorists to "walk in the front door?" It only deals with events AFTER a person has been detained. The bigger problem you're not recognizing is the vague language used to classify people who may or may not fall under the category of "enemy combatants."
    • killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -77/+3pray all? no thanks.
    • netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -7/+133So, in other words, for our safety from the terrorists, we should destroy everything that makes America democratic and free? Because legalizing unlawful imprisonment pretty much does exactly that.

      ...Isn't that exactly what the terrorists want?
    • maldog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36The language very clearly states 2 reasons only: "rebellion" or "invasion". Reread it dumbass, it doesn't say "rebellion OR invasion OR public safety may require it"
    • florin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+47Whatever you're smoking now, stop. It's bad stuff.
      There is no rebellion going on. There's no invasion. You're just brainwashed by the neocons.
    • cheez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+47It's sad that we're at a point where we need LEGISLATION to enforce a basic human right
    • habfan29, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24"Based on 9/11, the public still requires it, and should until the jihad madness stops. otherwise, you may as well just let the terrorists walk in the front door."

      Curious hole in your argument. So, say there was another attack, and it is a Jihad. You decide suspending Habeas Corpus is the right way to deal with the terrorists involved. But the thing is, with a Jihad, you the terrorist has killed them self to kill the 'infidels'. So now, who exactly do you plan to imprison?

      Do speeding laws stop speeding? What makes you think that the suspention of habeas corpus will stop a terrorist from committing murder?

      Please, do tell.
    • smackywentz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@rasterbator...
      Hopefully you types get your way soon and lose all your rights including free speech. So I DON'T HAVE TO HEAR YOUR IDIOCY ANYMORE!
    • skulljar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9He has a point. The war in Iraq has made the public in America much less safe. But... and maybe I'm crazy here... ending the war in Iraq should be considered BEFORE suspending HC. Additionally, HC has not been declared suspended; instead this dodgy legislation has been rubber stamped by congress that does the deed without the declaration. No balls on the part of gov't. Its "catch me if you can."

      My wife says "how about we pass the 'Let's Remain America Act?" I say: how about we pass the Roll Back The Patriot & Mil Com Acts.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Why are we so quick to give away our freedoms just so we can feel safe?

      Did the revolutionaries stop paying taxes and protest the king of england because it was safer?

      Did blacks protest for civil rights because it was safer?

      Did we fight the Nazis because it was safer?

      Hell ***** no. Quite the opposite in fact. Those people were willing to die for freedom in this country. If the terrorists want to try to kill us for being free people then I say they can go ***** themselves. I do not say okay I guess we can't be free anymore. Stop being such pussies America! Be willing to die to preserve our freedom! If you aren't willing to risk your own life for freedom then you are not only a coward but you are a selfish coward and don't deserve to live here..
    • Saiing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9>Why are we so quick to give away our freedoms just so we can feel safe?

      More to the point- has giving away so many freedoms made you actually *feel* any safer? 'Cause it sure as hell hasn't worked for me.
    • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6America: she's back and she's beautiful.
    • MrESaulved, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4rasterbator writ: "Based on 9/11, the public still requires [the denial of habeas corpus], and should until the jihad madness stops."

      Even if 9/11 were "jihad madness", of which there is no evidence, it was single event of limited duration and limited to one section of a city, large and important as it might be. Not to mention, there have been no events since then. Our citizenry is remarkably well behaved and no where in any metropolitan area is there any semblance of any disorder. Why impose more order when none is needed? That will only create resistance and disorder, is that the intent?



    • vspazv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"There is no rebellion going on. There's no invasion."

      Sure there is. The problem is we're the invaders instead of the rebels.

      I can picture China invading us in 15 years and telling the UN it's to stop our expanding capitalist regime of terror. Then we'll have our own patriotic citizens hiding in the mountains and making IEDs to destroy our communist oppressors.

      Just remember that many terrorists act the way they do because they truly believe that they are doing what is right. Our views and the views of the foreigners are so fundamentally different that they can not co-exist in the same living space. We either need to accept the fact that we want to take over a foreign nation and stop playing nice while attempting to subvert their followers or get the hell out and let them follow their own set of rules.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Those Looney Leftists! Why the hell would they want to restore Habeas Corpus?
    • DangerMouse9, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Yeah, I'm so glad that they grabbed my neighbor and threw him in one of those camps. I just knew he was planning on flying a plane into the town cornfield. And I'm glad that they threw those that stood out against the detainment in there with him, after all if you don't 100% trust our government, or you're not a white heterosexual male that was born here, you should be thrown in a 6 foot deep hole.

      */ sarcasm

  • newbee70, on 10/12/2007, -71/+7Doesn't Habeas corpus deal only with CITIZENS of this country?
    • 1337Einstein, on 10/12/2007, -4/+77After all, why would we care about the basic human rights of anyone else?
      By your logic, it would be perfectly fine to deny Americans basic rights, so long as it isn't our government that's doing it to us, really ***** ethical.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -75/+4@newbee70

      You are absolutely right. If left up to the leftists like 1337Einstein, all of the people that we have captured in the last five years would be able to hire a lawyer and be released in to the world again to commit more murders. They're worried about treating people ethically who would kill them in a second if they were given the chance. If Darwin's Theory of Evolution were enforced people like 1337Einstein wouldn't last a day.
    • cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

      "The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a civil, not criminal, proceeding in which a court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody. Typically, habeas corpus proceedings are to determine whether the court which imposed sentence on the defendant had jurisdiction and authority to do so, or whether the defendant's sentence has expired. Habeas corpus is also used as a legal avenue to challenge other types of custody such as pretrial detention or detention by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursuant to a deportation proceeding."

    • cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So it appears that the goverment has used it for non-citizens for quite a while.

    • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41"If Darwin's Theory of Evolution was enforced"

      What the hell does that mean?
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Even so, the whitehouse has tried to deny HC to US citizens. And the supreme court unanimously slapped the whitehouse for that.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I've noticed a lot of the Freeper-types on boards like this tend to put numbers after their names. Why is that?
    • IAmRoot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Read the fifth amendment:

      "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 offense 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."

      It says *person* not citizen.
    • skulljar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8How about you listen to the great Decider: "...as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone." ~ Pres. Bush a few weeks ago.
  • jerryparid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I smell veto
    • wphj, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32Worst comes to worst they'll have to wait till 08. Obama won't veto it.
    • johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30@wphj: Actually, I expect a lot of things will be vetoed in the next two years, and the Democrats know it. It's election fodder - who voted against habeaus corpus, and who voted for it? Who "stood up to this administration when it counted", and who didn't.

      Even if Bush vetoes it, he'll go down in history as the man who vetoed a civil liberty that's existed for almost 500 years, and is the basis for many of our rights today: the simple right to have your case brought before a court and the charges read to you.
    • trogdor282, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12>Even if Bush vetoes it

      He's already the man that suspended it in the first place, I don't think he'll be losing much sleep over it this time... The bastard...
    • counterstriker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@ johnhummel

      just to let you know its more like 231 years not 500, unless another country had habeas corpus before america.
    • DwellsHere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Magna carta?
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"just to let you know its more like 231 years not 500, unless another country had habeas corpus before america."

      Great Britain, through its precursor states, has had habeas corpus for 700 years. I know it's hard to believe but yes, America didn't invent Freedom or Liberty.
    • Lelandd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"just to let you know its more like 231 years not 500, unless another country had habeas corpus before america."

      wow, the ignorance in this statement is mind blowing.

      Magna Carta -1215- i can't belive so many people don't know about it.
  • Arcesius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+60What I don't get is how they can justify denying someone, regardless who, a trial for an indefinite period of time. If you're so ***** certain they're a "terrist", wouldn't you be able to prove that in a court of law? I mean, isn't that the whole idea behind habeas corpus; (don't know where to use a semi-colin... it just looked cool here) that if all the evidence points towards them being guilty, that you know they're planning to/already have commited a crime, then you should be able to prove it to a court within a reasonable amount if time? Please explain to me how you can know someone is "the bad guy" without being able to prove it.
    • kushed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Agreed.
      ***** BUSH. If he can twist law and the constitution in addition add ***** too it, I am not sure what is or could be illegal next. To me to constitution was carved in stone, but now it has whiteout all over it.
    • jeffgus, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Ummm.... Have you ever played "Capture the Flag?" Do you understand the rules are loosely based on real war? People captured on the battlefield already have a status and a process to handle them. They are called prisoners of war. Prisoners are held until: They are freed by their side overtaking their captors, diplomatic negotiation from their home country (we have release some GITMO detainees because of this), or the end of the war. There is nothing in war tradition about habeas corpus.
    • xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26@jeff:

      I have two problems with your argument (aside from stating real war should follow capture the flag rules, etc).

      1. Terrorists do not act on behalf of one country, they act on behalf of an individual group, thus there won't be any diplomatic agreements with their country to negotiate for their freedom.

      2. The current definition of the 'war on terror' is a never-ending fight, which by your statements, means that these people will never be released.

      Like it or not, the face of war has changed. The current US strategy is to handle things like in the past, much like the some did when guerrilla tactics first came about and old line formations were helpless. Old tactics will not work against this perceived threat. The solution is to simply ignore them and do what we can to protect our people from gross incompetencies in security. Attacking these people and taking away their rights unjustly only fuels the fire. Also, pissing off the populous of the US is a terrible idea as it can only draw us closer to a civil war or anarchy.
    • faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@jeffgus...

      Oh, just shut up, idiot! Your mama's calling you, it's time for your sniffly nose medicine.
    • Poovey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1O.J. Simpson
    • idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@faskippy
      You're begging the question: What are your parameters?
      Don't compare apples to oranges. You're so linear.
    • jeffgus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0@xtmno3:

      I was stating the opposite of what you wrote. I was saying that the game is loosely based on war, not that war is based on the game. I think that is pretty obvious.

      1. You are right! Thus the problem. Due to separation of powers, they have not standing in civilian courts. Except for a few cases, most do not have a country to negotiate their release. This is the way it is always been. Thus the title of the article is bogus. You can't "restore" something that never existed on the first place. People captured in a battlefield have always been under military supervision and never civilian.

      2. In any sort of military action, you have three options: win, give up, or cease fire. When these things happen is up to the factions involved and never have timelines associated with them. Historically, winning is the best option. To win one group must cause the other group to realize it has no hope of winning. Ignoring the problem really hasn't helped the world much so far. Take a look at a map that plots the events involving these death-cult wack-jobs over the last 10-20 years. It is a real problem that spans many countries. So we must try to pummel them into thinking they have no hope of winning in their own backyard since, given their history, they will not consider the other two options. We should prop up and distinguish peaceful Muslim countries that do not support the wack job death cult types.
    • Nydas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jeff:

      1. And whos to say everyone arrested and held is a terrorist? Not everyone detained was caught planiting an IED or shooting at soldiers. Most were jus in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or Intel was bad a n soldeirs raided the wrong village. Haveas Corpus is ment to protect these people. Not the terrorists. As it stands now, the US military has the power to detainee any one they see fit. And if they get a trail by the Iraq goverment and are said to be innocent, the US military can refuse to let said individuals go.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"1. Terrorists do not act on behalf of one country, they act on behalf of an individual group, thus there won't be any diplomatic agreements with their country to negotiate for their freedom."

      Since when are most crimes committed on behalf of a country? These "enemy combatants" were citizens and residents of their respective places of origin, and are therefore protected by the Geneva Conventions. The argument you've put forward is used to circumvent the Geneva Conventions when there is no legal basis to do so. The Bush Administration invented the term "enemy combatant" to avoid them being designated prisoners of war, which they are.

      "2. The current definition of the 'war on terror' is a never-ending fight, which by your statements, means that these people will never be released."

      The definition of war has been manipulated to include a metaphorical "war against extremist ideology". The "War on Terror" is as much of a war as the "War on Drugs". Guess who gets to decide when the war has been won? It's an excuse to exercise wartime powers and curtail civil liberties. America is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. No international treaty define war as "a struggle between belief systems". You cannot wage war against a concept or idea.
    • fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Like it or not, the face of war has changed."

      I disagree. War is still war. What we are dealing with here is not war - it is not a conflict between two or more nations, nor a conflict of groups of polarized states within a nation.

      What this is already had a name. It is terrorism. A crime. The crimes are large, certainly; but the criminals are still few, and are still criminals - not representatives making war on behalf of a nation. War is not measured by the size of the crime. One person cannot "make war", they can only commit crimes that they, as individuals, are responsible for.

      The government's attempt to characterize this as a war is disingenuous and has no positive connotations - the tools to deal with criminals, both in-country and outside our borders, were already in place.

      Should we determine that a criminal was being sheltered or supported by another country - Afghanistan, for instance - we might, in extremis, decide to declare war on them until or unless they gave that person up or stopped supporting them. That war would have a beginning, middle and end. Because it *is* a war; a war between two nations, entities with borders, national assets, citizens and infrastructure.

      Saying "war against terror" is exactly equivalent to saying "war against crime" because terrorism is, in point of fact, nothing more than a heinous crime. Such "wars" never end, because there is no end of criminals. There is no cause for fouling up the network of freedoms we had in order to "punish" or "track" these criminals. There is no difference whatsoever between the moron who blew up the federal building, and the morons who flew into the WTC. They're just criminals. Our laws were perfectly sufficient to deal with them.

      Bush and company have well and truly pulled the wool over the US population's eyes. It isn't the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last, but it is one of the more obvious attempts at subversion of the population. Perhaps - someday - there will be a reckoning, with the feds being held accountable for the evil they have done.

      But I doubt it.
  • XxFinalexX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I can understand WHY the writ was revoked, I may not agree with it, but dire circumstances justify dire changes. However, I do not believe that the justification they gave to revoke the writ of Habeas Corpus is credible.

    Reinstate it; Liberty over Security.
    • iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24"I can understand WHY the writ was revoked, I may not agree with it, but dire circumstances justify dire changes. "

      Then you have failed as an American. There was no reason nor justification other than to stomp down a boot on the face of freedom. There were no dire circumstances that justify this action. There is no reason to stop due process and hold people without trial. NONE!

      WE are not the ENEMY. WE are the people and WE are the Government... not "them".
    • rhinst, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Maybe not Liberty OVER Security, but there needs to be a balance. Right now, the tilt is away from liberty, though I hesitate to say it's tilted towards security. Detaining everyone you can get your hands on who happens to be named Mohammed doesn't necessarily make anyone more safe.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yes, liberty over security, but really we don't have to choose one over the other, we can have both and to hell with whoever convinced you otherwise.
    • iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Our rights were given to us by our creator not by man. Men setup governments to protect these rights which are 'self evident'. The government has no right to take that which is not theirs.
    • Pfhreak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Reinstate it; Liberty over Security."

      I'd like to offer a slightly different verstion: "Reinstate it; Liberty over False Security."

      Also, lest we forget, there is a group of congressional Democrats whom we need to keep a careful eye on:

      http://democratsfortorture.org/

      They voted in favor of the Torture Bill, and need to be held acountable in 2008 if they vote against re-instating habeus corpus.
  • cubedude6491, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42I'm not gonna lie, I kind of want my rights back please...
    • Bidger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>> I'm not gonna lie, I kind of want my rights back please...

      That is exactly why you have the right to arms, when the govt tries to take your rights from you to reply with a burst of gunfire
  • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Allah be praised!

    I keed, I keed... Now we just need to string up whoever voted to compromise habeas corpus for treason (why yes, that does mean a majority of our congresscritters and senators)...
  • StaplesGuy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Come on guys, everybody know's terror suspect's aren't people. Only AMERICANS are people!
  • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Nooooo, the dems want to know if the ppl we detain are there for a reason or not!! Wheres the outrage? We cant question whether or not justice is being served thats...thats Un-American

  • goldylocks7621, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I should remind people that the only supposed ( there is among many very, very, suspicious events of that day the niggling problem of a 47 story building falling down at free fall speed into it's own footprint because of a few small fires) terrorist event of any significance happend 5 year ago, hardly a reason for instituting a near police state.
  • bsmeteronhigh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22I know, after Bush vetoes the bills....let's impeach him. We won't tell him why. Irony of Ironies.
  • buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The members of CAIR should be brought before a judge ............habeas corpus

    http://charlotte.com/109/story/43990.html
    " Jibril Hough of the Charlotte-based Islamic Political Party of America charged that Katz speaks mockingly about Muslims and showcases only critics of Islam on his 3-6 p.m. show at 1110 AM."

    "His agenda has been one of inciting fear, hatred and ignorance against Muslims," said Hough, who is also spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte. "His type of rhetoric would not be allowed against any other minority community ..."



    • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Funny I thought that was the muslims agenda....they do a better job of making eveyone hate them than could any bigot.



  • fuckthenwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Write your Representative in favor of these bills http://www.house.gov/writerep/
  • halsparks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31It's kinda bizarre to remember a time when we cursed the Soviet Union for the things we are doing now.
    • nihilite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Is it ironic that Bush says other countries "hate us for our freedoms" and we "need to fight for liberty" when his adminstration is working to strip us of those freedoms? I guess maybe he thinks if he takes it out of the constitution the evildoers won't hate us any more.

      Gotta love the FoxNews Doubthink Shuffle: War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
  • strabes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Finally the Dems do something that upholds the Constitution and is within its limits! Maybe they'll finally scrap this whole [insert big-government liberal policy here] thing. Or maybe this is just a big PR stunt.

    The right needs to get back on track with the Reaganites.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Reaganites? You mean, supply-side, cut-and-spend deficit mongerers? Yeah, let's borrow our way into prosperity once again, like trailer trash with a new platinum Visa. And as for "big government", Reagan made it bigger than ever.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I guess that means we can negotiate with terrorists again. Who will we sell missiles to so we can support the Contras?
  • rnokkin, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3Is this the best you lefty nutbags can come up with? What's wrong, hung over from Fristmas? Buried as so stinking LAME.
    • faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Speaking of lame, can we bury you, too? Blocking, yeah, that's the ticket!
  • buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1That's not right!
  • bonexaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I totally dugg this before reading it just because of the title...

    I'd be happy if every "popular" article on digg was about this as this really is one of the most important things that NEEDS to be rightfully restored to ALL Americans ASAP
  • buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3We have Right's I want a judge!
  • xSEED, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2wait a minute i just this on 24!!
  • Niteryder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Finally someone with some common sense to restore the rule of law and the rule of constitutional law
    and the restoration of the American way and the principals of a culture of democracy.
  • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3>Powerful House Democrats



    HAHAHA... anyone who knows anything about politics knows that there iS NOTHING powerful about the House of Representatives... its full of hundreds of loudmouth blowhards who have very little influence(no matter which party).

    The real power is in the Senate, and President. Those votes count for lots more and you have to work much harder to convince the number of people you need to get something passed because just having one or two people not support you can mean the difference........in the House you count votes in large blocks of tens.


  • EgyptianVicker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2this is a good thing right?
    • cbambrick, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Yes, so everyone sees that the defeatocrats are idiots.

      (this will subsequently be buried for being against Digg's politically biased standards)
    • EgyptianVicker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@cbambrick

      what do u mean?
      {defeatocrats, that's a new one},
      and if you mean to say that you don't like the fact that digg is favored by Democrats, they why are you still here?
    • cbambrick, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5they are defeatocrats because many of the democrats want to lose the war

      digg is a good news source for non-political news, i guess
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5cbambrick: Nobody wants us to "lose the war." What many are pointing out is that Bush and his policies have so effed up the situation that a traditional military victory (i.e. the "surge") has a low to nonexistent probability of working. Even the top U.S. Commander in Iraq says a military solution won't work, and he suggests taking a tack towards a political one: http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKPAR83430220070308?src=030807_1318_TOPSTORY_u.s._commander%3A_no_military_iraq_solution

      Further, as more information comes to light about how the war was started, it's becoming evident that going into Iraq was a mistake in the first place, and it's proving to be a distraction that probably cost us any kind of positive outcome in Afghanistan.
    • cbambrick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I don't understand... many leading Democrats (including the two Presidential nomination favorites) want us the pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. There is still a significant insurgency in the Baghdad region. If we pulled out, they would overrun the Iraqi government and Iraq will revert to chaos.

      I'll admit it... a civil war has broken out in Iraq b/w Shiite and Sunni militants. These are two political factions in Iraq and Gen. Petraeus knows that a political agreement must be worked out between the two sides. Until an agreement can be made, increased American, British, Iraqi and other coalition presence is needed to keep order. (The British have withdrawn some troops from Iraq b/c they are mostly responsible for the southern regions of Iraq which are for the most part, in order.) Basically, Petraeus says that we need an increased troop presence along with some political negotiation.

      From your Reuters article, Petraeus is quoted: "MILITARY ACTION IS NECESSARY to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient."
    • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ cbambrick

      Not digging you down for the opposing view, digging you down for the childish "defeatocrats" remark. Now, you can digg me down for calling you a repugnantcan. See how fun this is? And we've managed to dislike each other with none of that pesky political discourse that might make our country all better.
    • RationalCenter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@cambrick -

      The point is, we have fouled up the Iraq situation irretrievably. It was probably possible to stabilize Iraq at some point in time, but that window of opportunity is long gone. We have both a civil war AND an insurgency. Look at the history of the last century - when has an outside military force ever been successful in defeating an entrenched insurgency? Our very presence is the major motivation for the insurgency, and only fuels the violence.

      We can still provide electronic surveillance, satellite intelligence, and provide air support to the Iraqi government. We can provide intelligently monitored economic assistance (which we have neglected with Afghanistan, to devastating effect). However, every American life lost at this point is a tragic waste that will have no impact on our security or the long-term security of Iraqis. It has already been the greatest blunder in human and monetary cost in modern times; there's no need to add to the tally. It's place in history is secure.
  • buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Come and get me CAIR alert the media
  • cbambrick, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I believe the terrorists do receive habeas corpus... If you shoot at our soldiers, they will arrest you. Then we tell them that they are arrested for shooting at American soldiers-- it's called taking Prisoners of War.
    • SuperCujo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2But a Prisoner of War is a combatant from another country, not a multi-national group...
    • maidix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ummm... if you shoot at "our" soldiers, the soldiers kill you.
  • EgyptianVicker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Liberty over Security
  • buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2that is correct
  • armyofbees, on 10/12/2007, -0/+311775 Patrick Henry: "give me liberty or give me death!"

    2007 republicans: "take my liberty, I'm scared to death!"
    • EgyptianVicker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7well said
    • SilasTommorrow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's awesome! I'm going to steal it for my signature on DanCarlin.com (the 'Common Sense' show).
  • venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The blame of things like this lies not with the government, but with the people who beleive such actions are justified. There are too many people in this country who think macho, war-like actions represent a strong country.

    Yes NASCAR, I'm talking to you.
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3you cannot restore what is inalienable to begin with... stupid democrats.
    • SuperCujo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Except when President Monkey Boy has suspended it...
    • trogdor282, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They're not restoring the right to it, they're restoring the availability of it. Rights can't be revoked, but they can be denied. In this case unconstitutionally.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@supercujo he needs to be dealt with too.
  • Surfer51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This was a great thread...thoroughly enjoyed going through the comments. Loved my freedom to read them in my own residence on my own computer...

    But for how long?
  • buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2 great site for information and facts

    http://www.michellemalkin.com/
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Another name ending in a number. Weird.

      And I don't think "information and facts" means what you think it means.
    • MurderMystery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Here are some more...
      http://mediamatters.org/
      http://www.dailykos.com/
      http://moveon.org/
      http://www.dineshdsouza.com/

      EDIT: Sorry. I don't know how that last one got in there.
    • Nozzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Michelle Malkin? Oh yeah, the dumbass wingnut c*nt who thought internment camps were a good thing. Yeah, I respect what she has to say.
    • generic12, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0DumbleDorito, people end their usernames in numbers because the ending of snack food names was entirely taken, surprisingly enough. You cornered the market on deliciousness, you rogue!

      And just to clarify, habeas corpus is a right afforded to American citizens, not combatants in armed conflict who, under customary international law, can be held until the conflict is over (I'm being serious here - and not as an apologist for the administration. No country anywhere would give up combatants captured on the battlefield while a war is still going on). When is the war over? That's the troubling part. But focusing only on Afghanistan for a moment (since the State Dept. says most detainees being held under color of US auth. are from Afgh.), neither the US nor the Karzai govt. would say that the war against the Taliban and in Afghanistan is over. So there it is. As wars go, it's still pretty short, though it seems long given all the failures on the ground.

      I'm no expert on the Geneva Conventions or US Constitutional law, but it seems that "restoring" habeas corpus won't do much for individuals captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2001/2002 awaiting an appearance before a military commission (note too that the US can't exactly just toss them into criminal court since both extraterritorial jurisdiction and lack of evidence prevents prosecution anyway).

      Just throwing it out there.
    • counterstriker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Buddy06

      A picture of the real Michelle Malkin http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/3/3e/Malkinmoving8nk.jpg
      p.s. despite the address it is definatley not pr0n

      @generic12

      Yes reinstating habeas corpus will do good for enemy combatants and terrorists stuck in judicial limbo, it will get the terrorists that were actually trying to kill innocent people charged and it will get those who have been falsley accused of being terrorists out of prison.

  • skye42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1veto? I smell signing statment.
  • Poovey, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1So do you guy's think that they will suspend Habeas Corpus after they instate Sharia' Law here in the USA? I have no Idea WHY the left defends these animals. Radical Islam is a Pro Slavery, Pro Sexist, Pro Racist, Anti Democratic, Theocratic Atrocity!
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Just out of curiosity, when did you decide that someone else's behavior should dictate that our society and laws should sink to their level?
    • moft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2someone's a bit afraid of the reds under the bed...
    • actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Radical Islam is a Pro Slavery, Pro Sexist, Pro Racist, Anti Democratic, Theocratic Atrocity!"

      Wow, they sound like they have no concern for human rights.
    • RationalCenter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@poovey -

      Alleged "animals." That's the point - maybe they are animals, maybe they aren't. Habeas corpus means the government has to prove that they are. The people accusing the detainees are the same people, remember, that told us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. If they can screw that up, and dozens of other intelligence "findings," why should I believe they didn't screw up detaining some of these people?

      Totally aside from the issue of possible incompetence, habeas corpus is a restraint to prevent potential abuses. Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen, but by calling him an "enemy combatant", the administration sought to deny him habeas corpus. I suspect they really believed he was, but in reality the President could just as easily accuse anyone in the country of being an enemy combatant and lock him or her away, without contacting a lawyer, and without even admitting they were in custody. That is simply too dangerous a power to give to any individual or branch of government. It begs to be misused, and it will be.
  • xXRUSHXx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Hopefully the patriot act is next; YES i want all my freedoms back !!! don't you?
  • Osiris7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Warmongers and neocons love the idea of a perpetual war. They can justify almost anything with it. A "war on terror" is just what they were looking for, because it's a war on a technique rather than any group or nation, and thus it will never end.
  • Brain1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1 Homeland security is a big Joke and the Jokes on US. If Bush cared about security, he would have the US, Mexican border secured, and he would have never of sold those 6 US seaports to the ARABS. Habeas Corpus is a right he wants revoked ,so he can control us better,with an element of Fear.
    • counterstriker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11. The department of Homeland security is a good thing believe it or not, it will go on the very short list of Bush's accomplishments. The department of homeland security organizes a bunch of goverment agencies into a hierarchy, so the agencies know who overrules who. This hierarchy also helps with communication between agencies such as the FBI, CIA, local and state police

      2.ok I am not sure about this, but I think the republican party may have passed a bill that would start and fund the construction of a huge wall between the United States and Mexico, with more security personnel, barbed wire, and all that jazz.

      3. Not all Arabs are bad and by generalizing like you are, you are promoting the racism against Arabs that members of the Repulbican party such as Ann Coulter have been Subliminally promoting over the last few years. Arabs can be good people too.

      feel free to reply to me if I am wrong on anything, I am way to tired to digg up facts on this right now.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fences, and Walls keep people out, but they also keep poeple in. There will always be illegals coming here. This whole anti-immigrant sentiment that many white americans are having is really racially charged. I would doubt you guys would get mad if English people were coming here illegally. Or if Canadians were.. But nope.. Its those "dirty" mexicans uh?


      Really now I can care less about the border.

      CAlling Miami a third world nation... Tht's a load of BS its no way Third world unless you mean to say the majority isn't white, and the language is something other than English then yes its Third world. Because any country that doesn't have white people in it is Third world, and is inferior because they aren't white uh?

  • brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@counterstriker
    "Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century."
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus#History_of_habeas_corpus_in_England
  • caution, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0cover your women and bow to mecca
  • austix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Bush regime are criminals, liars, hypocrites and Dick C. is pathological liar and a mass murderer. We have more to fear from christian fundamentalism than Al Q. Impeach them.
    • right75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More stupid trash talk about impeachment.

      IMPEACH HIM ALREADY OR SHUT UP. I'm tired of hearing you liberals talk about impeaching him, then you never do it!
  • farksucksmasack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this administration, run by the NEOCONS, has done more to terrorize this country and its citizens than any other administration on earth. they allowed 9/11 to happen in order to further their goals of middle east oil domination, and have sold our freedoms to the highest bidder, or the VP's company.

    the only terrorists that i fear are the ones responsible for shredding our constitution and scaring the retarded masses into hiding from the terrorist under the bed.

    impeachment is too good for these shiatstains.
  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a step in the right direction but I won't be happy until I see "Bush convicted of Treason" as a digg story. And when that story breaks, I predict 10,000 diggs.
  • realist73, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This article is misleading (to most Americans who don't even know what Habeas Corpus is) because it makes it sound like Habeas Corpus is currently being denied to US citizens, and that "powerful house democrats" are coming to the rescue. Nowhere in the article does it attempt to clarify this.

    US citizens can no longer be held as unlawful combatants after Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which in my opinion was a proper decision by the Supreme Court. Currently, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 denies Habeas Corpus only to non-us citizens that our government has deemed unlawful enemy combatants or is in the process of deciding whether or not to call them such. What remains is whether non-US citizens can be denied Habeas Corpus. If you're writing an article on such a complex subject, you should know these facts and report them, instead of glossing over them to embellish the intentions of "powerful house democrats." But I guess this constitutes 'journalism' in 2007.
    • fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, you're absolutely wrong. Here's the sneaky part:

      The military commissions act allows indefinite detention w/o habeas corpus while "awaiting determination as to status as an enemy combatant." There is no time limit or pressure for them to make any such determination, nor do you have any rights - no speedy hearing, no trial, no communications, no lawyer, no notification of anyone, no answers to anyone inquiring about you, *no nothing*, while you wait.

      Because of this, the sequence is: Pick you up, dump you in some hellhole awaiting determination as an enemy combatant, and... [dead silence ensues]

      This is aside from the fact that these rights were detailed for persons, not for citizens. The whole "enemy combatant" thing is smoke and mirrors. Either people have these rights, or they do not. And under this nation's legitimate laws - until or unless they manage to legitimately amend the constitution - people *do*. No matter if they are citizens, no matter where we house them, no matter what they have done.

      Bush, Cheney and their pet legislators are the criminals here. They have done great harm to the entire country, as well as to individuals like Hamdi and the people they are illegally wiretapping.

      If there were any justice at all, impeachment would already be ongoing. But Bush has set himself up as a monarch, what with his "signing statements" and his "the constitution is just a damn piece of paper" and his "I'm the decider." The man is a moron *and* a criminal and among other things, has broken his sworn oath to defend the constitution. There isn't a single US citizen that supports this administration that has the basic sense to pour piss out of a boot.
    • kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2thats undebateable. YOu can't suspend habeas corpus for ANYONE.... Citizens of other nations that have residency in our nation or they're touring our nation should be able to do so without fear of being falsely labeled an enemy combantant, and then held in prison indefinately getting booster shots from a guy named Miriam.
  • MikaelMN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Reverse the destruction wrote upon our Constitution...

    ... but don't forget to hold the perpetrators 100% accountable:

    www(dot)ImpeachforPeace.org
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.