digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at thinkprogress.org

Scalia: Restoring Habeas Corpus Will Kill More Americans

thinkprogress.org — In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus protections apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Justice Antonin Scalia, however, is outraged. He adopted extreme rhetoric about the impacts of the decision, calling it a “self-invited incursion into military affairs” that would “almost certainly” kill Americans.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nblsavage, on 06/12/2008, -20/+462Better to die on our feet upholding the law than live by abandoning the principles our country was founded on.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/13/2008, -3/+98This is the same guy that said Torture wasn't against the Geneva conventions because it wasn't punishment.

      (Bans against cruel and unusual punishment)
      • Waiting2awake, on 06/13/2008, -3/+30Yepper, he is a real winner.
      • cawpin, on 06/13/2008, -7/+8Torture isn't punishment. Punishment comes after a crime, not before.
        • yetAnotherCroc, on 06/13/2008, -0/+15Actually,torture is punishment for the "crime" of not giving up information voluntarily. Doesn't make it right though.
        • stonebear, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Not true: While it is used for interrogation, it is often used as a punishment as well; particularly as a means of inciting terror.
        • evenson, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5That would be Scalia's argument. It's a pretty sad, and far too literal interpretation of the Geneva Convention.
      • jgzman, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2The Bill of Rights banns Cruel and Unusual Punishment. The Geneva conventions deal with treatment of POWs.
      • robotsound, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1i never understood how a supreme court justice can write off torture by saying it's ok because it's not a punishment.

        if torture isn't a punishment, wouldn't it just be assault?

        isn't assault illegal?

        or is he saying that the government has the right to physically harm people who haven't been convicted of a crime?
    • ClosedCaption, on 06/13/2008, -8/+34If we allow ppl to find out why they're in jail that will kill ppl? I dont get the logic in that arguement.
      • gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -2/+29Habeas corpus is to determine the validity of custody and to allow them to testify on their own behalf.

        Not really sure what you are talking about.

        However Scalia is clearly out of his mind.
        • arkaycee, on 06/13/2008, -1/+18I think ClosedCaption is talking about the fact (discussed roughly that way on NPR this morning, among other places) that the case against some of these people (the way the Bush Administration wants to run it) is "we think you're guilty but we'll not tell you exactly what your crime is, nor how we know about it, nor why we think you're guilty of it."
        • bjornski, on 06/13/2008, -1/+13This current administration seems to think that Kafka's "The Trial" was an instruction manual.
    • JimmySpaza, on 06/13/2008, -31/+3True. Now, allow me to apply that thinking to the 2nd Amendment and the rights of States to completely regulate (and possibly ban) abortion on demand. After all, we're following the law, right? And the Constitution including the 10th Amendment must be obeyed, right? RIGHT?!?
      • thechr0nic, on 06/13/2008, -0/+30I fail to see how this has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. I am assuming that either you simply added it in to the conversation, because you typeo'ed and really meant to refer to the 10th amendment; or possibly, because you truly don't understand the constitution.

        Now on to the topic of abortion, yes a strict reading of the constitution would agree that abortion is not something the federal government is supposed to regulate; since it is not a power delegated to it, by the constitution. Therefore, with a strict reading of the constitution, states 'should' constitutionally be able to regulate it. And with that ability to regulate, some states could choose to ban it. And you as a citizen should have the ability of free movement to travel to a state where it is legal.

        Now on to full disclosure:
        I am pro-choice, although personally if my wife became pregnant, I would not be happy if she chose to abort the pregnancy. I believe that abortion is a difficult, private and important decision that should be made solely between both biological parents and potentially their personal doctor(s). I believe that government has no business making that difficult and private decision for everyone

        -------------------------------------------
        second amendment:
        "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

        tenth amendment:
        "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
        • 1longtime, on 06/13/2008, -4/+7"I believe that abortion is a difficult, private and important decision that should be made solely between both biological parents and potentially their personal doctor(s)."

          I have to disagree, it should be made by ONE biological parent and their personal doctor. I'll let you guess which parent it should be.
        • thechr0nic, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3@1longtime

          you are free to disagree, and even have a different opinion. Thats why I started with "I believe" because it is my personal opinion. I put this disclosure of personal opinion, at the end of my post to separate it from my constitutional perspective

          You disagreeing with my personal opinion is a moot point, as my main contention was that the government should not be deciding these issues for us. Do you disagree with my main contention or are you picking at the semantics of what I said instead of addressing the point I was making?
      • gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -3/+11Right. Although you do not address it as well as thechr0nic did.

        I personally am neither pro-choice, or pro-life. I'm pro-*****, and anti-condescendingassholesonbothsides.
      • RayLC, on 06/13/2008, -1/+18Republican talk about "states' rights" is exactly that: talk. They're all in favor of states' "rights" to restrict our freedoms, but their right to add to our freedom (e.g. legalizing marijuana) isn't anywhere in their playbook.
        • DrDigg, on 06/13/2008, -1/+11Nor is allowing gay marriage, but they are all against banning it.
        • Lyk4n, on 06/13/2008, -11/+1Keep trying to find a way to legalize your tweeking..
        • pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -0/+9conservatives were in favor of states rights when they wanted to keep slavery. they talk about states rights when it comes to banning gay marriage. they talk about states rights when it comes to banning abortion. they figure if they can't get the entire country to live by their religious beliefs, they will at least make their whole state do it.
        • HonestAbe, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1A quote of a someone arguing in favor of states rights to support slavery would be a great addition to that comment.
    • RC155, on 06/13/2008, -6/+53Scalia makes our Supreme Court look like a Kangaroo court

      "Has anybody ever refered to torture as punishment?"
      Antonin Scalia

      http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/28808/1/T ...
    • bradysdaman, on 06/13/2008, -26/+3really? Where in our law does it say that people from other countries deserve the same rights as citizens....nowhere, thats right....but that would be logical
      • Technohamster, on 06/13/2008, -3/+16Human rights.
        • bradysdaman, on 06/13/2008, -6/+2is that a new law that i've never heard of?
        • Impossis, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4@bradysdaman

          the universal declaration of human rights you *****
      • nblsavage, on 06/13/2008, -0/+14"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."
        • bradysdaman, on 06/13/2008, -9/+1like i said...where in our law...thats the declaration of independence...but nice try
        • nblsavage, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Try the Constitution. Anyone on American soil is entitiled to protection under the law. Gitmo is by law American soil. So either the detainees are "enemy combantants" and get trials, or they are POWs and entitied to Geneva Convention protections.
        • bradysdaman, on 06/13/2008, -6/+1Thats actually not in our constitution
      • bullhead2007, on 06/13/2008, -1/+15You might want to read the constitution sometime. It's a real shocker how it recognizes all (read: not citizens) people have inalienable rights.
        • agooga, on 06/13/2008, -7/+2No. Our Constitution was written by and applies only to American citizens. By your logic, any and all foreign nationals are entitled to all the benefits afforded by our government, which is clearly absurd.
        • bradysdaman, on 06/13/2008, -8/+1apparently you should read it bullhead
        • bullhead2007, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6You are borth incorrect.

          Declaration of Independence:
          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.

          Constitution:
          See Bill of Rights:

          Amendment Four

          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


          Amendment Five

          No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

          Notice it no where mentions "Citizen". And in fact says "No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

          By your "logic" anyone who is not American does not deserve a fair trial. This is simply not the case. It says specifically that no one shall lose life, liberty or property without a due process of law.
        • kayala, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4@aooga: Wrong. When we hold a foreigner on our own soil or in a compound over which the US has effective control, that foreigner has the same habeas corpus rights that a citizen would have. That's what this decision declares; arguing against it is arguing against the Constitution itself.
      • davewelsh79, on 06/13/2008, -1/+15The US constitution doesn't just apply to US citizens. The constitution determines what the government can or can't do to people on US soil. Even a North Korean visiting the states has the right of habeas corpus if he's arrested for something.

        The US government was trying an end run around their own constitution by pretending that if they kidnapped someone and brought them to Guantanamo Bay, they "weren't on US soil so we can do anything we want to them."

        The supreme court just ruled that the government's little delusion doesn't hold water. If the US is running a prison in Cuba, then it counts as US soil and the kidnap victims there get a chance at a trial now.
        • bullhead2007, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6Are you Canadian? I'm just curious because you have the maple leaf, and you seem to know more about hour our constitutional government was set up, than the average American.
        • davewelsh79, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Yes. I'm Canadian.
      • kigcoopa84, on 06/13/2008, -10/+2tell that to the family of someone who dies because some lawyer wont let the government interrogate a terrorist who knows about a plot.
        • Zarokima, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Okay, so long as you inform the family of an innocent who was brutally tortured for 20 years that this horrific portion of his life as well as the mental and emotional anguish suffered by the family was all to preserve their freedoms.
        • kayala, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6That has nothing to do with this. We don't unconditionally follow the wishes of the family of someone who died. Otherwise, we'd execute every single accused murderer and rapist, regardless of guilt.
        • Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7Have you been watching the "24" marathon?

          Look, all intelligence agencies and specialists will tell you that the "ticking bomb scenario" just does not happen and has not happened. And if it does happen, then pardoning someone for illegal torture *IS WHAT A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON IS FOR.*


          Secondly, that's not what this is about. It's about people who have been captured/kidnapped and interrogated for SIX YEARS being able to say: "They need to prove they have a good reason or else let me go".
      • BryanG412, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4what the ***** are you talking about. The writ of habeas corpus applies to prisoners of the United States of America. Whether those prisoners are citizens or not is irrelevant. If you are a prisoner of the United States you are granted the right to a fair and speedy trial. To eliminate Habeas Corpus for prisoners of war goes against a founding principal of the Constitution.
        • kigcoopa84, on 06/13/2008, -5/+1maybe you should google Habeas Corpus buddy
      • nblsavage, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Cribbed from a post on slashdot:
        "It has nothing to do with the fact that they're foreign nationals, nor that it happens "abroad". The federal government has no powers that the constitution does not grant. They can't do anything "abroad" nor to foreign nationals without constitutional power. It's not as though they have infinite power outside our borders "just because".

        The consitution says, "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." This specifically states that unless there is rebellion or invasion, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended. There is no rebellion or invasion in progress, therefore, the federal government, both the executive and legislative branches, has no power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which is the power of the judicial branch to review any and all detainments, jailings, or imprisonments.

        There's nothing in the consitution that states that the executive and legislative branches can operate internationally, but the judicial branches cannot review international actions. The three branches of government are co-equal. I hate this recent distaste for judges by conservatives who want to reinterpret the laws of the land to let their idiot of a president do whatever they want. The judges are doing their duty to interpret the law. The fact that they're not elected by popular vote is BY DESIGN and should not be used to try to make their *co-equal* role seem less important.

        The constitution doesn't apply to a particular location. It applies to a particular federal government, regardless of the location. The consitution says, the government cannot restrict habeas corpus, it doesn't say, it cannot restrict habeas corpus on US citizens. Habeas corpus isn't a right of American Citizens defined affirmatively in the consitution, instead, the federal government is prohibited from suspending the right period, with no other conditions. Currently, the government is claiming the power to suspend the right of habeas corpus for the people at gitmo. The constitution says, NO, you cannot suspend that right. Doesn't matter who. Doesn't matter where."
        • kigcoopa84, on 06/13/2008, -4/+1What was 9/11?
        • nblsavage, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5"What was 9/11?"

          A cowardly attack from a group of people (mostly Saudi) who are all dead. Your point?
        • patpl22391, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Al Qaeda is dead? Looks like we did our job, shouldn't Bush have 90% approval ratings now?
    • callinthelaw69, on 06/13/2008, -2/+28Try explaining that to this neo-con piece of *****.
    • GoneSouth, on 06/13/2008, -3/+6great comment nbis, couldn't agree more.
    • agooga, on 06/13/2008, -13/+1Our country was never founded on the principle of granting rights reserved to American citizens to foreign enemy combatants or terrorists.
      • lostngone, on 06/13/2008, -0/+9Who said this only applies to "foreign enemy combatants", You could be locked up in Gitmo and held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant" without a trial as well.
        • agooga, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Are there any American citizens in Gitmo now? Or have they all been allowed to have regular trials?
        • Caffeinate, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1"Are there any American citizens in Gitmo now? Or have they all been allowed to have regular trials?"

          That's another part of the problem. No one outside of those running Gitmo could answer that question for certain. There probably are some American citizens in Gitmo. We wouldn't know though, because it isn't as though anyone in charge is anxious to talk about it. The secrecy in itself should tell you that something very shady is going on.
      • bjornski, on 06/13/2008, -0/+9"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."

        Where does that say "American citizens only"?
        • agooga, on 06/13/2008, -6/+1OK, I live in North Korea, but the US Constitution says I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where do I go for my goodies that the US Con says I'm owed? Why can't I use the US Con to regulate every aspect of my life here in NK? When you bleeding hearts write foolish things, you have to apply real world conditions to your tomfoolery. The US is responsible only for the US.
        • Dubbsacc, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6@agooga
          If you were in the US then yes, you would have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless of whether you are a US Citizen. You do realize that you can be in this country and not be a citizen, right?

          It says nothing about being applied to whatever country you're currently living in. However, if you visit, you will have these rights.
        • agooga, on 06/13/2008, -7/+1On 2nd take, you're citing the Declaration, and that's not the law of the land, so your point is meaningless. Sorry I bothered to respond.
        • kayala, on 06/14/2008, -0/+2Agooga, why are you deliberately refusing to understand the Constitution and this decision?
          If you are under American jurisdiction - if you're in this country or a captive under American jurisdiction - then the government is bound by the Constitution to respect your right to habeas corpus. That's all this decision says. You're not playing devil's advocate; you're just being deliberately obtuse. Get off the Interwebs.
      • BryanG412, on 06/13/2008, -0/+10Do you know kind of countries will keep prisoners of war locked up for years without ever granting them a fair trial? Countries that have little respect for human life. Countries that are run by dictators. Fascist countries. We are supposed to be the leader of the free world, and this was one small step in getting there.
      • saji79, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2I'm so glad you posted that!
      • crapmatic, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6"Our country was never founded on the principle of granting citizens rights to enemies of the state."
        -- any kangaroo court in 1930s Stalinist USSR
      • Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3It also wasn't founded on the principle of letting your fat ass post on Digg, but you do it anyway.

        Seriously, the US Constitution grants several rights to *EVERYBODY UNDER US JURISDICTION*, Citizen or Not, and was PURPOSELY written in those areas to say "all persons" instead of "all citizens".
    • techmaster, on 06/13/2008, -2/+26"Give me liberty, or give me death."
    • techmaster, on 06/13/2008, -14/+5"Give me liberty, or give me death."
      • NotOptium, on 06/13/2008, -0/+9I wasn't feeling it the first time, but you really convinced me on number two.
    • SyrusBass, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6That is so true, this country again and again has simply raped the principles upon which is was supposedly founded. I think this is great.
    • designer, on 06/13/2008, -19/+4We're talking about giving Habeas Corpus to terrorists that could have been killed on the battle field, but captured instead. You support giving rights intended for United States citizens only, to people that would kill you and your family for not being radical Islamics. Liberals are not only ***** retarded but a danger to our republic.
      • UberNick, on 06/13/2008, -2/+17You're dangerous to our Republic. Shouldn't you be cowering in a corner somewhere because you're "scurred o'tha turrists", troll?
      • nblsavage, on 06/13/2008, -2/+12If they are terrorsits then prove it.
        • tunapez, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The Liberty City Seven terrorists got a trial! Then a hung jury.
          And another trial, and another hung jury.
          And another trial... I guess if the Homeland Securers keep flinging enough chit, it will eventually stick.
          The War On Terror is the ruse, they found 7 patsies without enough brains to even incriminate themselves.

          http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- ...
      • MACady, on 06/13/2008, -5/+5Habeas Corpus applies to any human being touching U.S. soil. Please read the Constitution before you make a comment on it!
      • pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10MYTH: All the Guantanamo detainees are combatants who fought against the United States.

        FACT: 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.
      • Sapulator, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9Im starting to believe you (among others) are just Neocon scum Trolling these (and other) forums, hired by some kind of organization because real humans with souls dont think this way. By the way, STOP BLAMING LIBERALS FOR OUR COUNTRY'S PROBLEMS!!!!! THERE IS NO LEFT/RIGHT PARADIGM (just so you know, im not liberal)
      • HonestAbe, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7No one's disputing that there are "terrorists" there. We're just asking you to demonstrate it before you lock them up and throw away the key. Shouldn't be too hard, should it?
      • nullenigma, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Why are 'conservatives' so afraid of due process? If the accused are so obviously guilty, then you look awfully foolish being afraid of these same people having a fair trial.
        • designer, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Do you realize we just gave these terrorists more rights than the Nazis had at the Nuremberg trials? The Nazis that were tried actually wore a uniform, unlike these rotten bastards that in the future will be shot on the battlefield to avoid the judicial problems that will come from taking them prisoner.
    • dukeochutney, on 06/13/2008, -2/+16agreed the 'habeas corpus privilege' amuses me. last time i checked its a right and not a ***** privilege *****.
      • lived666, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution 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."
        • jessehadden, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4Interesting -- I never noticed that it was referred to as a "privilege" before. Regardless, since we are neither experiencing rebellion nor invasion, and as the public safety does not benefit by it (and is actually harmed by it), I would suggest that we embrace the court's decision.
    • stonebear, on 06/13/2008, -4/+33If I lay dying after a terrorist blast, and the last words I should hear are some neocon shill saying "I told you so," I shall utter as my own: "I may be dead, but you're still wrong."
    • thaddeusj, on 06/13/2008, -0/+16Exactly! I like to hope the majority of us would rather die at the hands of an undiscovered criminal than support anything that _might_ imprison the innocent.

      If getting on a plane was like getting on a bus I would still fly. And if some terrorist flew that plane into the ground ... well who am I kidding I would probably be pooping myself. But the point is I would rather take that risk than agree with the idea that anyone who isn't wholly transparent is obviously up to no good.

      Not to mention hijacking an airplane is way on the highly ineffective side of killing a large group of people with a single weapon. What we experience at the airport is a facade, lending even less credence to the intrusion.
      • nblsavage, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5You're a braver man than any of the ***** cowards who are condemming the POTUS decision.
        • asskicker32, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6SCOTUS?
        • nblsavage, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3yes thank you for the correction - that was an embarrassing error.
      • asskicker32, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2agreed.
    • kd1s, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Bravo! I agree with you. Scaila is a crank, nothing but a crank. That said, I don't want a President that'll appoint more ideologues, which is why I suppose Obama in this race.

      At the very least we might restore some of the damage done to our reputation as the land of the free.
    • davbmn68, on 06/13/2008, -8/+4Great bumper sticker slogan...care to tell us how giving illegal combatants something they have never had a right to, fits into your mantra.

      I know it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to say that stuff, but in real life people get killed when we have to reveal secrets and sources in a public setting for every jihadist to hear. If it was never given before, not even by the founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or Truman, then what makes it all of a sudden a priority for these terrorists? I'll tell you why it's all about playing "gotcha!" politics with our national security. Before you say "George Bush started it". Grow up! That's a 12 year old's argument.
      • nblsavage, on 06/13/2008, -1/+9Again, how do you know the detainees are "illegal combantants"?
      • jessehadden, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4The International Red Cross has estimated that about 90% of the inhabitants of this concentration camp are cases of "wrong place, wrong time." For every one of those innocents who are tortured, humiliated, detained from their lives & families, and made to endure being utterly subjugated to a foreign oppressor... there is a person who has a justified reason for hating the United States. I'm sure they will be telling their friends, too.
      • Zipper114, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1davbmn68,
        Exactly how many of the people detained in Guantanamo have been proven to be "jihadists", or proven guilty of anything?

        Zero.

        If you want to surrender your right to habeas corpus go right ahead, but don't surrender mine. I'll never understand why so many people can think of themselves as patriots, Christians, and brave, yet so willingly surrender their rights, the moral high ground and their morals.
      • kd1s, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2It's simple. No place in the founding documents or Constitution say that you have to be a CITIZEN in order to enjoy those rights.

        And you can have secret hearings, it's done all the time. What the hell do you think a Grand Jury does?

        I've worked in law enforcement on the prosecution side, it opened my eyes to a lot of interesting things. You don't understand the judicial system, I do.
    • seomike, on 06/13/2008, -7/+5"Better to die on our feet upholding the law than live by abandoning the principles our country was founded on." So every President from Washington to Bush was wrong by not granting habeas corpus to an enemy? What this court has done is unheard of. Not only in this country but ANY country. How is this progression in the right way, when the precedent to this case ruled the complete opposite?

      Johnson v Eisentrager was the precedent case. If a US base in Germany was not considered American soil then how the hell does a leased patch of Cuba get that designation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrage ...

      What we have here is EPIC EPIC fail. The cave dwelling terrorist is > than the Nazi and given the rights a Nazi was begging for and denied...

      There are 5 judges sitting in Washington right now that are all guilty of sedition.
      • thaddeusj, on 06/14/2008, -0/+4The difference is between knowing and not knowing whether your detainee is an enemy combatant. What is important precedent from this decision is not that an enemy combatant is allowed the right to a fair trial, but that the government cannot treat anyone it deems a threat as the enemy.

        In other words, if I posses large amounts of flaked aluminum, magnesium, and phosphorous, I clearly have the ability to start a mind-***** huge fire the likes of which you have never seen. Only I am part of the northern lights pyrotechnics club and make fireworks for the fourth of July.

        If one of us used our access to combustible chemicals to burn down a library, would you support the idea that all of us could be held without the right to an attorney or without charges being filed against us?

        That is the difference. If I said "I am at war with the US and will arson buildings mercilessly," I am an enemy combatant. If I am a rando that is affiliated with this individual through other means (makes fireworks with, lives in another country with), then I am a civilian.
      • ironhide, on 06/14/2008, -2/+2The only epic fail was you opening your hole you *****.
        • seomike, on 06/14/2008, -3/+2Ironhide? Is that the nick name you ass buddy gave you because you never bend over and take it?
          Go level your rogue and leave the debating to the grown ups.
  • thecatcantalk, on 06/12/2008, -23/+174Thank God the system still works. *whew* This is soooo huge! This is wonderful! The Fascists are losing!

    And I'm still snickering over that Scalia quote about "what Jack Bauer would do" from last year...as if "Jack Bauer" were a real person. Repeat after me, Judge..."TV is not real. Actors on TV are not real people. TV is not real. Speculation, active imagination, and paranoid fantasy are inadmissible as evidence. TV is not real."

    Is it possible for a sitting Jusice to be disbarred? Seriously, is there a Bar Association governing Supreme Court justices?
    • TheSavant, on 06/13/2008, -6/+14You can always counter with "What would Captain America do?"
      • rewinn, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4You comment is apt, intelligent and funny. Captain America is just as fictional as Jack Bauer but NEVER would torture anybody.
    • lnf69, on 06/13/2008, -2/+42"system works"...
      Only barely, another conservative judge and things would have been terribly different.
      • funkyloki, on 06/13/2008, -1/+24Which is exactly how it will be if McCain't is elected.
      • Dubbsacc, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6Wouldn't one of the justices have to retire in order to be replaced by a justice of McCain's choosing?
        • Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Yes, but a vacancy in the next four years is almost certain to happen at least once.
        • Dubbsacc, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Thanks Terr01, I just saw a list of their ages and I agree, one could very well retire within the next 4 years.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 06/13/2008, -4/+17"Only barely" means that it still worked.
      The close vote reflects the divisions in our country today.
      • Pstmann, on 06/13/2008, -1/+12not if we get another republican president it won't.
    • gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -3/+18I agree, and besides, since when do we need to be invited to weigh in on military affairs. Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of an un-checked military industrial complex, and told us to be vigilant and watch them at every step.

      Scalia needs to remember that the biggest threat to American lives right now is our foreign policy and the fact that we're fighting a frivolous, unjustifiable war. Until that is taken off the table, he needs to hold his tongue.

      All that being said, I still have a hard time with extending constitutional rights to non-American enemy combatants, however it does seem justified under clause 4 of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which states:

      # Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
      # It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or for trial.

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_ ...

      Although they didn't go exactly by the word, because terrorists don't really fly a particular flag except the flag of Islam, they did go by the spirit.
      • arkaycee, on 06/13/2008, -1/+8Of course, some of the "enemy combatants" at Gitmo were Afghani citizens, fighting off an American army invading their territory. I can't really see calling those ones "terrorists" or saying the Geneva Convention wouldn't apply to them. They should by any rational person's thinking, be Prisoners of War. And not the War on Terror either -- that's like a War on Robbery. Let's lock up every robber until there is no more robbery.
      • Fedaykin311, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4It's not just about rights protected by the constitution, it's about basic and universal human rights, and protecting them for everyone.

        I don't care what country you come from or what you are accused of, it is fundamentally unjust to detain people indefinitely without trial.
      • rewinn, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Habeas is not a right that our Constitution "extends", it's a right everyone "has". The Constitution limits what our government can do; it doesn't really create rights (...with a few exceptions.)

        As to "combatants" the legal situation is very simple: if they only "crime" is fighting against us, they're POWs and can't be tried. But if they commit a real crime, e.g. killing civilians on purpose, then they get tried under our regular legal system just like any other criminal. We can even execute them according to our law; we just can't deny them habeas.
    • RayLC, on 06/13/2008, -0/+12A sitting justice can be impeached.
      • rewinn, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3And any lawyer can be disbarred for moral turpitude.
    • greenm1981, on 06/13/2008, -0/+17A supreme court justice can be impeached. However, if we can't seem to impeach a President over unconstitutional acts, then I don't know how Congress could impeach a justice.
    • dvddesign, on 06/13/2008, -0/+16WWJackBauerD?

      He'd sit in jail and serve out his DUI sentence, that's what he'd do.

      Stop making heroes out of celebrities.
      • EllimistX, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1That's why he is a hero...not the DUI part, but taking his sentence like a man and crying like that whiny bitch Paris Hilton.
    • brstilson, on 06/13/2008, -0/+9It's fitting, neoconservatism was founded after Leo Strauss watched an episode of "Gunsmoke." It's a juvenille look at the world. Neo-cons need to get out of the ***** sandbox and realize life isn't a game of cowboys and indians.
    • catbeller, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4The fascists lost by one vote.
    • foofightrs777, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Seriously Thomas and Scalia should be impeached. They make a mockery of the court.
  • Verchiel77, on 06/12/2008, -12/+115Sorry, Tony. You can't legitimize El Presidente's junta EVERY day...
    • rz8472, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5And Scalia isn't even the worst of them. You forgot Justice Thomas.
      • rald84, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2no, i would rank thomas much much lower. scalia at least adheres to some bizarre notions but thomas just blathers. one opinion he (thomas) wrote said that the cross (along with the flag) should be exempt from first amendment speech. he was alone.

        and i suspect one reason kennedy does this is he sees being the swing vote as a way to secure his legacy as an author of landmark opinions. he wrote the ones legalizing gay sex (you know, the one ron paul rails against) and restricted death penalty to 18 and over.
      • retr0grade, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5I agree with Raid84- Thomas, at least, is internally consistent within his fantasy world. Scalia is an aggressive total hypocrite, which is why republicans love him and everyone else thinks hes' such a f*cking dirtbag. Scalia makes up his mind first and then rationalizes his decision after, which is the exact opposite of the way the system is meant to work. He used to at least pretend to care what the law was and cover his treason with excuses, but he's gotten sloppy and complacent since the Bush v. Gore decision, and it's decisions like this one which show that he's not even trying anymore.
  • IrishJoe, on 06/12/2008, -11/+103This from the man who ruled that votes shouldn't count and selected Bush and his hunting pal Cheney. Another fear-mongering neoclown telling us we need to surrender our rights or the boogeyman will get kill us in our sleep. Don't look now, there's a commie oops I mean Iranian under your bed!
    • timewarp424, on 06/13/2008, -19/+4Bush - Check
      Hunting Pal - Check
      Cheney - Check
      Fear-mongering -Check
      Neo(conservative)-Check

      Congratulations, you successfully connected this event to a completely unrelated event. You're talented at liberalist mudslinging.
      • JointVenture, on 06/13/2008, -7/+3thats so ***** true.

        This is a liberal circle jerk.

        One can only hope that someone they know or love dies a horrible death at the hands of one of these ***** when they are released.
        • NickFury, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Wow, so you side with the terrorists then? Why do you hate America?
        • mechnoch, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4You hope that an American is dies a horrible death at the hands of someone released from Guantanamo? You are one sick *****.
    • HonestAbe, on 06/13/2008, -2/+5Help! I'm a ***** coward neocon and I'm scared and I need you to protect me! Here, you can have all my rights and ignore the constitution! Do whatever it takes to keep me safe from the turrists!
    • kigcoopa84, on 06/13/2008, -6/+3tell that to the family of someone who dies because some lawyer wont let the government interrogate a terrorist who knows about a plot.
      • foofightrs777, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6This is the price we pay for living in a free and open society. Considering the alternatives I'd say it isn't very steep as even in an authoritarian society acts of violence are perpetrated and people die; often hands at the hands of the government.

        First off, your statement is a blatant lie as the government does and will investigate terrorist plots and you're disingenuous in saying otherwise. In light of the patriot act the government has far more power than they should ever need to investigate. Furthermore, even if your patently dishonest scenario existed it's not "some lawyer" who won't let the government investigate a plot. It's over 200 years of jurisprudence (body of law), our Constiution, and core American values which protect our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Wake up and see past your own selfishness.
      • Caffeinate, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2It happens every single day in America that some lawyer protects a criminal from being interrogated about something. It is called liberty, following the law, and respect for human rights. The gunslingers always want to shoot first and ask questions later...unless they are the ones that could potentially be shot. Then it is a totally different story.

        As another poster said earlier, if I lay dying to a terrorist bombing, and the last thing I hear is a torture-advocate saying "See I was right!", I want the last thing that I say to be, "No, you were still wrong."

        There are some things that you cannot do and still retain your humanity.
  • theeandrew, on 06/12/2008, -14/+117This was a 5-4 decision, with Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas dissenting. I really REEEALLY hope Obama gets to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices.
    • jeffiek, on 06/13/2008, -30/+19Be careful what you wish for.

      Very, very, careful.
      • Pstmann, on 06/13/2008, -3/+16like getting McCain would be any better?
    • resipsa, on 06/13/2008, -11/+9I'm personally hoping that he makes it to his second term with a full-on Democratic Congress and then proceeds to "pack" the Court like Roosevelt wanted to.

      It's a "dirty" trick, yes, but it's wholly Constitutional. Moreover, I think that it would make for a better Court. As administrations came and went, the larger size would make for a better "buffer" against the more volitile nature of the Legislative and Executive.Branches.

      Of course, it would also make for a lot more civil liberties in the interim, which I'm all for.
      • gbjxc, on 06/13/2008, -0/+11On the other hand, it strengthens the Executive Branch hugely at the expense of the Judicial, which one could argue is precisely what George W. Bush has been trying to do for nearly eight years now...
        • Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Would it really? No, seriously.

          I can certainly see that it would weaken the Judicial branch short-term, where a large bunch of them were nominated by the same President, but longer term...

          Would a larger number of justices weaken the Judicial branch, or would it strengthen them by making individual nominations (by a President) less important?
      • j0ew00ds, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4You're an idiot. Do you understand the basis of our system of government?
    • gn0stik, on 06/13/2008, -6/+4To take a phrase from "Charlie Wilson's War"

      We'll see.
      • Sairynn, on 06/13/2008, -1/+9There is absolutely no need to quote a vague, insignificant phrase like that.
    • pianomahnn, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Didn't all the old ones check out during Bush's Presidency? I don't think in the next 8 years anyone is voluntarily leaving, so that just leaves involuntary (death). Don't think any of them are expected to kick the bucket.
      • rblancarte, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1No.

        here is the current SCOTUS:
        John Roberts - 53 - R
        John Paul Stevens - 88 - R (though has moved VERY left since his appointment)
        Antonin Scalia - 72 - R
        Anthony Kennedy - 71 - R (been more Libertarian)
        David Souter - 68 - R
        Clarence Thomas - 59 - R
        Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 75 - D
        Stephen Breyer - 69 - D
        Samuel Alito - 58 - R

        Stevens would almost certainly retire during the next presidential term, especially if it lasts 8 years. Ginsburg, maybe, and with some luck we could get Kennedy and Scalia to step down too.

        The biggest problem is that if McCain is in the White House, it is almost a given that the SC is locked up by the Republicans for at least a decade.
        • dsmx, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1People on the judiciary shouldn't have any political leanings as it colours there judgement and prevents them from making fair and balanced decisions.
      • peburrows, on 06/13/2008, -0/+0you're an idiot. you should check the validity of your statements.
    • surian, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6Alito, Scalia and Thomas, to me, seem to always be on the wrong side of a divisive issue. I can almost not even bother figuring out what I personally think about an issue and save time by just taking the opposing view from those three.
      • retr0grade, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I'd argue you shouldn't lump Thomas in. He often arrives at the 'wrong' conclusion, but he almost always uses good logic to get there- which is much more than can be said for the vomit and bile that comes from Nino's pen.
        • catbeller, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Excellent logic led to the Hammer of Witches and the murder of millions of women. Logic is useless if the initial premises are mad.

          The Four Necon Justices have used impeccable logic to justify kidnapping, secret evidence, suspension of habeus corpus, false courts, and imprisonment with torture. And please understand that holding a man in solitary confinement is the ultimate torture, as it never ends. The prisoners always go mad. It may take a month, or a year, but the mind goes.
  • CryRightardCry, on 06/12/2008, -18/+91Scalia is representing the dumb ***** viewpoint.
    We all knew this jackass was bad news when President ***** appointed him, but did we know he'd actively try to destroy the judicial process?
    • poploserdigg, on 06/13/2008, -13/+3Dugg for being crazy old and knowing how to use a computer.
    • rald84, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2i don't like scalia either but your main point is wrong. scalia charmed the senate and got unamious confirmation for rehnquist's seat. the democrats saved their energy to battle reagen's elevation of rehnquist to chief justice.
  • facttech, on 06/12/2008, -8/+112Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts all voted against restoration of habeas corpus, which the rest of the justices (accurately) see as one of the most basic and foundational rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Do you see a pattern?

    Too bad it will be a LONG time before they retire. The Democrats should not have confirmed Alito and Roberts; it was clear they do not stand for the kind of America I believe in.
    • 55mph, on 06/13/2008, -2/+22Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans for the situation we find ourselves in. Special interest funding have polluted the two party system. It's one big party now. Corportocracy!
      • PhantomRogue, on 06/13/2008, -2/+7The the only party who can fix it... the Revolutionists.
    • Pstmann, on 06/13/2008, -6/+13unfortunately democrats are huge pussies who are terrified of their own shadows.
    • ralphthemagi, on 06/13/2008, -9/+3So, they shouldn't have been confirmed because they don't stand for the kind of America *you* believe in?
    • zacharytelschow, on 06/13/2008, -13/+4Enemy combatants are not citizens of these United States and are not guarenteeed "the most basic and foundational rights guaranteed in the Constitution." Nor should they be.
      • danthegrant, on 06/13/2008, -2/+10actually, that's inaccurate. The due process protections of the constitution protects non-citizens as well - references are made to "persons" rather than "citizens" - a meaningful distinction. Citizens are afforded more rights than non-citizens, but there are many baseline rights that are intended to be accorded to all. Go ahead and read the constitution, and note the language in 5th and 14th amendments.
      • paradexes, on 06/13/2008, -1/+6Except we have detained them. That is a slippery slope. Don't forget there are already 2 American Citizens in Gitmo. I think people forgot about John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla. Both of whom I believe are being held in Gitmo as enemy combatants. So look at it this way. At the very least those two deserve their day in court. Even if the proof is overwhelming that they are guilty, the system still needs to do it's due diligigence. And since the people in Gitmo are being held there, on what is presumably an American Property (as Gitmo is not officially part of Cuba), then they need to be tried as criminals in our nation.

        I am no legal expert, but it seems pretty straight forward to me.
        • Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1"Jose Padilla. Both of whom I believe are being held in Gitmo as enemy combatants."

          I don't know about Lindh, but Padilla was actually kept alone in isolation in an an otherwise-abandoned military brig in South Carolina, manged with remote-control doors and cameras.

          Now he's serving our his four-year term in Florence, Colorado.
    • kalvinb, on 06/13/2008, -8/+8In the constitution Habeas Corpus is explicity called a "privilege" which can be revoked.

      It is not a right.

      Section 9 - Limits on Congress

      The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

      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.

      • Calinthalus, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Wasn't that Lincoln's grounds for suspending it?

      • krische, on 06/13/2008, -2/+8So when is the Iraq war a case of rebellion or invasion? If anything WE are the ones invading their country and their rebellion can moreso be considered self defense.
        • kalvinb, on 06/13/2008, -4/+4You can debate the grounds of Bush's decision all you want. My point is that it is a "privilege" not a right.

          Claiming it's a right while questioning someone's knowledge of the constitution is highly ironic.

          You don't have a right to habeas corpus.
      • ubuwalker31, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7You're missing the big picture. Sure, traditionally, Habeas is a privilege, a special entitlement granted by the government on a conditional basis. The privilege springs from the constitution and our common law. The conditional granting of this privilege by the constitution is a right that can not be taken away.

        Since our rights flow from the constitution, according to the constitution, the privilege of the writ can only be taken away during a rebellion or an invasion, and only when public safety requires it.

        Thus, the privilege of the writ can not be suspended while civilian courts remain operational. [Thats from the 1866 Supreme Court Case Ex Parte Milligan]

        There is no rebellion. There is no invasion currently. Public safety doesn't require it. The Courts are function. The legislature is functioning. The executive is functioning. Therefore, Congress CAN NOT SUSPEND HABEAS CORPUS.

        Its very simple. When the terrorists attacked on 9/11, we were being invaded and civilian courts weren't functioning properly for a few weeks. Suspension of habeas would have been fine then.

        Why is it such a big deal to let a terrorist go in front of a judge after being captured (especially since he should have been executed in the field in the first place since he is an unlawful combatant) to make sure that the government actually has the authority to hold him? I don't think any judge would second guess the military in the heat of battle...but 7 years later...of course they will.

      • Fedaykin311, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4It doesn't matter if it's technically a right or a privilege. The Constitution clearly defines the only two conditions under which it can be suspended: invasion or rebellion. There is neither an invasion nor a rebellion, thus it is unconstitutional to suspend Habeas Corpus.

        end of discussion....
      • Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Pedantically, you are correct. It is not a "right".

        But that doesn't mean that Bush nor Congress have the power to suspend it.

        Nor have they had that power for quite a few decades.

        It is a privilege protected by conditions, and those conditions have not been met, and it is equivalent to a "right" insofar as the US Constitution says they have it.
  • snafflepaffle, on 06/12/2008, -10/+53Here's to hoping that Scalia is one of the Americans that will be killed.

    OK, not really. But what a prick that guy is. How can someone as obviously smart as Scalia not recognize that the price of freedom and living the American way intrinsically involves risk.
    • ichbeineinrcg, on 06/13/2008, -3/+35Because he's above the law and above the concerns of the little people. Scalia doesn't care about you and me; he's protected.
    • resipsa, on 06/13/2008, -6/+13It's strange that there haven't really been any assassination attempts against the Justices of the Supreme Court. Killing a President may change things in the short-term, but the VP would likely carry on his predecessor's policies in large part and the President's party would likely get a lot of "sympathy" votes in the following elections.

      Assassinating a Supreme Court Justice (or more than one) would be a much better way of effectuating long-term change, so long as one were to time it right. It may have to do with the mollification of having one's party in control of the other Branches of government, but you'd think that someone would have tried.

      Then again, murderers aren't exactly the most rational of people.

      I'm not advocating in any way for such a thing, but I do think that it's odd that no one has tried.
      • NotSoHotPink, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Off to Gitmo you go. That last sentence will be stricken from the record.
      • ubuwalker31, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3First off, say hello from the entire Digg community to any FBI and Secret Service Agents that show up at your door.

        Second, Stephen Johnson Field, a Supreme Court Justice, had an assassination attempt on his life. Also, John P. Slough, a NM State Supreme Court Justice, was assassinated.

        Justice Byron White and Justice David H. Souter were assaulted by miscreants.

        Google is your friend.
        • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3You should find a way to get those Justices kicked off the bench rather than hope for one of them getting capped.

          They're Federalist Society jackoffs, the HAVE to have dirt on them somewhere.
      • Terr01, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Have you considered a Creme Brulee?
    • Chestnut3499, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7Unfortunately, this nation is allowing itself to become a collection of weak and fearful people. Those are the only kind that are swayed by the type of fear-mongering that Bush and company (including Scalia in this article) perpetuate over and over again. What the hell happened to America the Brave?
    • Pstmann, on 06/13/2008, -2/+1Here, Here. No really.

    • whodoes, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1I cant condone, under any circumstance, a conversation calling for someones assassination. I suspect that we agree on a great many of the days political and social issues but that sort of joke defiles our common values and arms the wingnuts with the easiest of excuses to tune us all out. Like citizenship, the public forum is a right which can be used and/or abused.
  • chase001, on 06/13/2008, -12/+31Scalia looks like he could croak from a heart attach real soon... hope Obama gets to replace him.
    • vbullinger, on 06/13/2008, -8/+6WTF? Did you just say you hope he dies? I don't like him either, but, come on!
      • SquidProQuo, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5I daresay that realizations of Scalia's insane views will result in more deaths than any terrorist that might benefit from this ruling by the court. If it's your loved one, maybe you'd prefer he had a couple more cheeseburgers ...
    • bradysdaman, on 06/13/2008, -6/+2You mean McCain
      • SquidProQuo, on 06/13/2008, -1/+7Ya McCain aint lookin' so good either.
        • bjornski, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3Looking at the videos of him, it seems that just this last campaign has added another 5 years to him.

          Not good.
    • davewashere, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3I don't wish death upon the man, but I would like to see him step down from the bench. The whole idea behind lifetime appointments was that Supreme Court Justices would be able to ignore public opinion and political pressure and make rulings based on our Constitution. Scalia folds to the Neocon agenda at every chance possible and then just explains that it's his interpretation of the Constitution with nothing to back it up. In the past, it's been common for justices to lose their perceived political leanings when they are sworn in, because they no longer have to "fall in line" to impress top politicians. Someone should tell Scalia that he doesn't have to keep pulling favors for the people who put him in his position, especially considering some of them are dead.
    • hemispheres010, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't outright hope that he dies, but the fact is that's the only way he's off the court, and the country would be better for it.
  • AbsolutePatriot, on 06/13/2008, -31/+13Another loss for the globalist shills! Scalia has been a puppet for the Fascist administration ever since their inauguration. Like the rest of them, he disregards the constitution, which by definition makes him a traitor.

    If O'Bomber or McWar win, don't expect things to be any different, though. Both are bilderberg shills who will stack the court with even more fascists, albeit in disguise. If someone isn't mossad approved, you can bet they won't be nominated.

    Vote for Dr. Ronald Earnest Paul if you want supreme court justices that stand for FREEDOM
    • Becca4RonPaul, on 06/13/2008, -18/+6Okay you ROCK. Befriended. : )
    • lnf69, on 06/13/2008, -4/+6I thought RP announced that he is giving up the presidential race. Are advocating a write in vote?
      • vbullinger, on 06/13/2008, -2/+7Write-in, whatever. Or Chuck Baldwin or Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney or Ralphy.

        I'd rather have YOU as president, and I don't know anything about you.

        My dog would be a better president. Treats and belly rubs for everyone!
        • Chestnut3499, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3That last line made me love you.
      • AbsolutePatriot, on 06/13/2008, -4/+5I will write him in if I have too. I will NEVER vote for any of those other neocon shills (which includes bob barr - the candidate the bilderbergs told to "see the light" as to cover their bases this election)

        I can't honestly describe myself as a patriot if I DON'T vote for paul...
    • resipsa, on 06/13/2008, -5/+14Unless you mean reproductive freedom, of course.
      • vbullinger, on 06/13/2008, -4/+6This argument comes down to a misunderstanding:

        Pro-choicers are not baby killers. They believe that a woman's right to choose is the higher priority.

        Pro-lifers are not anti-women. They believe that a baby's right to life is the higher priority.

        As soon as we can look at the other side and fully understand how they feel, we won't hate eachother so much.

        I mean, honestly, no matter which side of the fence you lie, can you not see it the way I just put it? If you're pro-life, can you please see that the other side doesn't hate babies or not care at all about the life of the aborted child? And that all they're saying is that the rights of an adult human are more important than the rights of a potential human? And if you're pro-choice, can you please see that the other side is just saying that the right to life is more important than the right to do what you want?

        Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers respect the rights that the other side hold in the highest of priority, they just prioritize differently. And understandably so. You need to understand people before you can get past this.

        Ron Paul, in this case, feels that the right to life is more important than the right to do what you want. It's that simple. He feels that you can do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm anyone else. He's pro-legalization of drugs, for example. He feels that abortion kills a baby, so can you understand that for one second here? And he's a flipping gynecologist. In fact, the most ardent pro-lifers are women. Do they hate women? Wrap your brain around that one for a second there.

        I'm pro-life, but I believe that abortion should remain legal because of just how complicated the issue is. What if it's week one? Can the baby feel? Think? Probably not. Is it alive? Who knows? What if the woman was raped? Or if she's 15? Or if the baby's a product of incest? Or if the baby would be a crack baby? I feel that abortion should remain an option. The way to end the practice is to get everyone to behave better, educate them and get them to practice safe sex, abstinence or whatever methods help them make the right choices and to respect the fact that their actions may result in a child.

        Any retort, resipsa? Can you come up with anything better? Advise against abortion but leave it legal and don't make anyone feel ashamed for their actions? My older sister had an abortion as a teenager, for example. I completely understand her actions and have never said anything against them and didn't lose any respect for her at all. She was a teenager with no money and her boyfriend was a loser, that's why she did it. She had a good cry over it and is now happily married to a much better man.
        • Chestnut3499, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4I didn't really expect the most level-headed description of the abortion debate here on digg, but you, sir, just laid it out in the most rational, human terms I believe I have ever heard.

          Thanks
        • pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3the debate hinges on when a life begins. some christians believe it starts at conception. jews believe it starts at birth. muslims believe it starts when the bones form. when you try to define it as starting at conception, you are forcing everyone to live by your religious beliefs. that is what ron paul tried to do when he sponsored the "sanctity of life act". if he doesn't believe in abortions, he doesn't have to perform them, but trying to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else is the opposite of his freedom message. this is why he doesn't believe in separation of church and state.
        • kayala, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4Your entire statement was shrouded in anti-choice rhetoric.
          "a baby's right to life"
          "the life of the aborted child"
          "the rights of a potential human"
          Until it leaves the uterus during birth, it is a fetus, not a baby. Until it leaves the uterus during birth, it is not a citizen (seriously, check the language of the Fourteenth Amendment. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...") and cannot expect to be treated as a citizen. A "potential human" could exist at any stage of the reproductive process, from the formation of the gametes (Is it killing a "potential human" if a woman does not get herself pregnant every time her ovary releases an egg? Is it killing "potential humans" every time a man does not use every single sperm in his arsenal to impregnate a woman? Think of the children!) to the fertilization of the egg to the implantation of the ball of cells to the formation of the fetus to the birth itself. Where do we draw the line? It's a difficult question, but the first step is using scientifically correct language that was not created with the intention of emotionally manipulating people. Come on people, this isn't hard.
    • roflbrothel, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6O'Bomber? Really? Mossad approved? lol

      Everyone knows the Israeli intelligence community is just another Illuminati front! IT'S ALL A J00 CONSPIRACY! EVIL NAZI COMMUNIST J00 BANKERS CONTROL EVERYTHING!
    • pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6how does ron paul stand for freedom? he tried to ban abortion on the federal level with his "sanctity of life act". he support texas right to ban sodomy. he doesn't believe in separation of church and state. the only freedom he stands for is his freedom to make everyone live by his religious views.
    • vinod1978, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Stop being a coward, and make your vote relevant.
  • papipablo, on 06/13/2008, -8/+50Scalia and his gang of judicial lackeys are a far bigger threat to America.
    • lnf69, on 06/13/2008, -6/+2Half a sentence there.
    • lnf69, on 06/13/2008, -5/+4Ok, try again:

      "Far bigger threat" then WHAT. Again, it's only half of a sentence you have there. It's an uncompleted comparison.

      Far bigger threat then terrorism?
      Far bigger threat then RIAA?
      Far bigger threat then same-sex marriages?
      • papipablo, on 06/13/2008, -1/+20Far bigger threat than grammar Nazis.
        • orlyfactor, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Haha. Awesome.
        • AugustusOsari, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Should have pointed out his use of "then" in place of "than." You seem to have that part of the language down.
      • IrishJoe, on 06/13/2008, -1/+5I think papipablo means a far bigger threat than granting habeas corpus rights to detainees whom, once they've had their day in court, are convicted of crimes even possibly terrorism. The thinking is that once you carve out a special group who are guilty until proven innocent, it is a small step to assigning political enemies/opponents/dissenters to that special group who cannot challenge their detention prior to charging them. Remember US citizen José Padilla was held for more than three and a half years in solitary confinement before the government charged him with a crime.
      • SquidProQuo, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Yes, Yes, and Yes.
  • MarkEarhart, on 06/13/2008, -17/+83It is a bittersweet day for me. The Supreme Court of my country has restored habeas corpus to the Guantanamo detainees, but the very fact that they were ever denied it in the first place, and that it has taken six years for the court to act speaks volumes about the political situation in America.

    Allowing the government to pursue its current course will kill the most Americans!!!

    Shame on you Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas!!! Your job is to uphold and defend the Constitution. Your opinions are irrelevant when the Constitution is being flagrantly violated. You are a disgrace to the Court, the nation, and the human race.

    As for Bush’s remark about possible “further legislation,” the only rights Mr. Bush and all in the government who have conspired with him in his unconstitutional power grabs, treason against the United States of America, and War Crimes (under US Code and the Geneva Conventions,) should have is a moment to get right with their maker just before they meet him via a noose or firing squad on the White House lawn. There are hundreds at ALL levels of government who have enabled and looked the other way who are just as guilty as Bush and Cheney. The Congress (those who aren’t sentenced to death,) should allocate funds to cover the White House lawn with rows of gallows for mass execution and the carrying out of justice.

    As for McCain and Obama, if justice is served both parties will have to look for other candidates (Hillary doesn’t qualify either,) as they should be among those to hang.

    Why bother looking for other Republicans and Democrats? Haven’t they caused enough trouble? We have and “invertebrate Congress” (to quote Ray McGovern,) who should have impeached Bush and Cheney long ago. They promised change in 2006, but what have they done that is of any value? Nada. They squawk and carry on with theatrical histrionics, but when it comes time to vote on the issues they all waffle and support the Bush administrations assault on the United States Constitution.

    Do you want to find the real terrorists and bring them to justice? You will find them all in Washington DC. They expect us to believe they are protecting the homeland, but are unable to prevent millions of illiterate wetbacks and the majority of the nations illegal drug supply from crossing our Southern border. With the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, who appears to be a decent, honest human being (whether I agree with his politics or not,) all 535 members of Congress are unfit to serve. We must unite and get their attention by ANY means necessary if we wish to survive. America is now the 12th in line when overall freedom of a nation is considered. What happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave, and what are YOU going to do about it?

    The pen is mightier than the sword most of the time, IF there is anyone reading. There is a time and place for the “Sword,” thus the second amendment. To arms America!!! Your lives will depend on such action in the near future. Acquire any form of guns and other weaponry you can get, and stash as much ammunition as you can get. A rough road lies ahead for us all unless you are working with the enemy.
    • dennisrhidalgo, on 06/13/2008, -4/+6Well said!
      • dennisrhidalgo, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6Well, with a few exceptions.
    • lodibug3, on 06/13/2008, -5/+5Morning Mark.. You've been busy this morning. Good for you. I'm printing out your comment for my husband. He has Strong Opinions on the Judiciary as well! Great Job. Thanks for the Post
    • InvisibleInk, on 06/13/2008, -5/+7r3VOLution!
    • papastout, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3Well Spoken Mark! Thoughtful, well written, and I whole-heartedly agree. (=
    • lajaw, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2The detainees will now have more rights than the Nuremberg Trial detainees. I agree with the SC decision. But, we must tread lightly. Let's bring all our troops home form foreign soil and then there won't be anymore of this.
    • Snuff99, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1Damn rebels...you're gonna have Uncle Sam all over us.
    • j0ew00ds, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3alright, i'll say it..... Ron Paul?
    • Blitzenn, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1"Bush’s remark about possible “further legislation,” "

      The danger in Bush's approach is that he has found a way around the constitution and has demonstrated it to all that will follow him. If you can squeeze a bad piece of legislation through congress under duress, you can violate the constitution until someone actually sues and goes through years of litigation to prove it was a flagrant violation (of rights). So America is the place where the rights of individuals are upheld, unless someone wants to temporarily remove them from you and f%^ you over. Your only recourse is going to be to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to PROVE that your rights were inappropriately removed and spend years incarcerated in the process.

      Bush's comments about 'further legislation' only denote his complete mis-understanding of how the constitution actually works. He absolutely has to pass a constitutional amendment at this point to change the outcome of the decision. Legislation will not help him here as there is not enough authority there to bypass the constitution. Regardless, his comments denote he does not believe that is the case. Another piece of common law, will allow him to violate the constitution until another challenge is made, and on, and on, and on. The process needs to be fixed in a way that a simple piece of common legislation cannot become standing law, for any amount of time, without a judicial review blessing the sanctity of said law. This 'after the fact' removal of inappropriate law only opens the door to loads of inappropriate laws being passed and enforced for years until a successful challenge is mounted. That is very very wrong.

      I hope that there are civil penalties available to the detainees as recourse at the least. I also hope the settlements are inordinately large to act as a deterrent to stop this crazy tact in the future.
    • mvlazysusan, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1go ron paul :>)
  • geegel, on 06/13/2008, -7/+17Congratulations US! You have returned among the select group of free countries.
  • Waiting2awake, on 06/13/2008, -8/+13Help me out here guys - Can a sitting Judge be removed? Or are they there for as long as they want to be?
    • cjdunn, on 06/13/2008, -1/+25To remove a Supreme Court justice, they would need to go through the impeachment process (I think this applies to Federal judges as well). Meaning, the House of Representatives would need to hear of and investigate allegations of wrong doing.
      Then the House would vote on articles of impeachment (much like a grand jury finds that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial).
      If the articles are passed, it moves to the Senate which will act as jury and a majority vote would find the justice guilty and be removed from the bench.
    • lnf69, on 06/13/2008, -0/+16Pretty much, it's choice B. It's a lifetime appointment and a very difficult removal process.
      • pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6we should send him on a hunting trip with cheney.
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/13/2008, -1/+12Thank you both for the information...

      Wow, so things are going to be dicy for a while then huh?

      Good luck guys, we're going to need it.
      • bradysdaman, on 06/13/2008, -5/+2things aren't dicey at all...thats why there are 9 justices on the supreme court. Scalia hasn't committed a high crime or misdemeanor and cannot be impeached. Scalia is right in this instance
        • hemispheres010, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Um...are you saying that he was right and that our government should be able to hold people for as long as they want without any recourse on the part of those held?!?
    • sulthernao, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3It is impeachment, but has never been successfully carried out against a SCOTUS justice.
  • 55mph, on 06/13/2008, -7/+19Scalia is a complete *****! It amazes me that he sits smugly on the Supreme Court. He treats our constitution like toilet paper as he advances the neocon agenda. There ought to be a law!
  • lnf69, on 06/13/2008, -5/+9Let's not get too excited. This is a very important ruling, but only one of many steps that need to be taken to set this country back on track, democracy wise.
  • chicoer2001, on 06/13/2008, -8/+20The government has said Gitmo is Cuban territory. WTF? That's like saying the American embassy in Paris belongs to France.
    • wheresjim, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7Guantanamo Bay is actually owned by Cuba, we lease it from them for something like $4000 a year, but the checks haven't been cashed since Castro took over in 1959. They protest our presence, but good luck getting us out!

      That said, U.S. law should apply to activities taking place on an overseas base, no matter who owns the land.
    • kigcoopa84, on 06/13/2008, -1/+3no because the American embassy in France is an embassy you imbecile.
    • arkaycee, on 06/13/2008, -0/+1It's a perpetual lease, though it sounds like there's some controversy (I'm glad you asked this, got me to look it up). Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_ ... - the "History" section. Wow, water theivin' accusations, and now it looks like maybe us holding enemy combatants is against the terms of the lease....
    • surian, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2If I recall correctly, the justices did acknowledge that it was not technically US soil, but they went on to say that we could not outsource our constitutional requirements. Their point was that simply because we did something outside of the US does not mean that we were freed from US laws.
      • Blitzenn, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Thank god for that, but Bush has also said that he believes the Supreme Court's decision on the matter is only an 'opinion'. He also has clearly stated that he believes additional 'legislation' will resolve the matter. Little does our little moron for a President understand of the requirements of Constitutional Amendments. It is a long term process and cannot be completed by the figureheads in Washington alone. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798])

        Bush is obviously lacking in knowledge of the fundamental Constitutional processes. We (as common citizens) will pay dearly for that lack of understanding unfortunately.

        .
    • Caffeinate, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1It makes me wonder why Bush is so desperate to keep some of these people locked up. Do they know something that he would like kept quiet? Do they know something Cheney would like kept quiet?

  • JimmySpaza, on 06/13/2008, -32/+8Why do liberals insist on providing illegal aliens and foreign-born terrorists with Constitutional protections? Such is a perversion of Constitutional law and morality for that matter.
    • thechr0nic, on 06/13/2008, -3/+24Jimmy:

      You seem to try to polarize every issue as 'liberal' or 'conservative'. And then you speak of perversions of the constitution as if an un-declared war was constitutional. We would not even be at war, had we followed the constitution and got authorization for war from congress. Had we gone through the difficult process of getting declaration of war from congress, it would have required thorough justification; thus these current wars we are fighting are 'unjust wars' for lack of a declaration from congress.

      Guantanamo bay was a calculated effort to hold foreign nationals outside of the rules of our laws, so that we would have the quasi legal ability to use techniques that would be illegal here in America such as suspension of habeas corpus and torture (water boarding for a specific example of torture). Bush knew that if these foreign nationals were to go through our court system, that he would never be able to hold them indefinitely without charges, he knew that he wouldn't be able to water board them to obtain a coerced confession.

      In America, we should never fight an unjust war, period. We should use our military for common defense, never for pre-emptive offense. It seems to be, that we wouldn't be having this discussion at all, had we actually followed the constitution in the first place. That to me, is a much larger immoral perversion of our constitution.

      I don't expect any intelligent response from you, such is the nature of trying to talk to a troll. However, I am open to being surprised, so please feel free to use all the 'logic' you can muster to give a good rebuttle.
      • noahhoward, on 06/13/2008, -6/+2"We would not even be at war, had we followed the constitution and got authorization for war from congress. Had we gone through the difficult process of getting declaration of war from congress, it would have required thorough justification; thus these current wars we are fighting are 'unjust wars' for lack of a declaration from congress."

        http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
        • ironhide, on 06/13/2008, -2/+6That's funny, no where in there do I see the words "declaration of war"
        • noahhoward, on 06/13/2008, -7/+2That's even funnier because I can't see many other ways to apply military force in a country. What makes Iraq a war and not an application of force.

          You ever think there's more than one way to say 'we declare war'?

          "Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war
          on terrorism..."
          I.E. We're going to have a war

    • IrishJoe, on 06/13/2008, -1/+20US citizen José Padilla was held for more than three and a half years in solitary confinement before the government charged him with a crime. He would have been covered by this ruling. If the Bush Administration decided to name you or me an enemy combatant, prior to this ruling we would have no right to challenge our detainment. This eliminates the guilty until proven innocent category created by the Bush Administration.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1If any U.S. citizen was held without trial, then that is absolutely wrong and entirely unconstitutional. But, the non-citizens? Screw 'em. They shouldn't have fought against America.

        Why do you think that I want Bush impeached? Well, for that and a lot of other things.
    • nblsavage, on 06/13/2008, -0/+7Jimbo, The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it limits governmental power.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1I know. And it proclaims pre-existing rights inherent to every American, such as the right to keep and bear arms.
    • gbjxc, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Well, the point is sort of that, in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, since they aren't given trials or access to lawyers, they really can't be called terrorists in any legal sense, can they?
    • brstilson, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4"Why do liberals insist on providing illegal aliens and foreign-born terrorists with Constitutional protections?"

      By liberal do you mean "people who respect the constitution?" It is legal for U.S. citizens to be held at Guantanamo Bay, without trial or charge, indefinitely thanks to the Military Commissions Act. U.S. Citizens HAVE, in fact, been held without trial or charge. If the people at Guantanamo are truly guilty, then what do you have to worry about? If the case against them is so airtight, then you have nothing to worry about.

      This should be no problem to implement if the prisoners there are actual terrorists.
      • JimmySpaza, on 06/14/2008, -1/+1"By liberal do you mean "people who respect the constitution?"

        No. By liberal, I mean someone who interprets the Constitution figuratively and loosely to fit whatever preconceived notion and political outcome they have at the time.

        "It is legal for U.S. citizens to be held at Guantanamo Bay, without trial or charge, indefinitely thanks to the Military Commissions Act."

        This is wrong and unconstitutional. Bush should be impeached for this.

        "U.S. Citizens HAVE, in fact, been held without trial or charge. If the people at Guantanamo are truly guilty, then what do you have to worry about? If the case against them is so airtight, then you have nothing to worry about."

        Not the point.

        "This should be no problem to implement if the prisoners there are actual terrorists."

        It's a problem if the terrorists are U.S. citizens.
    • Pstmann, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4Why do pseudo-conservatives insist on providing Bush and friends with rim-jobs? Such is a perversion of common law and morality for that matter.
    • theuber1337, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2The Magna Carta established these writs 800 years ago. Today they are recognized as universal human rights and all countries are supposed to follow them with all peoples. Without them the US is as good as Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia. So I say to you, ***** off.
    • vinod1978, on 06/13/2008, -1/+2I think you are watching Fox new a bit too much. The MAJORITY of people that were taking to Guantanamo were actually released because they were falsely accused. There were innocent people that died during their stay at GB because medical facilities were shameful. I can count the number of people that were really proven as terrorists on my fingers. That's why even republicans, like Condie Rice believe it should be shut down, and this is why the vote was important.

      We have the RIGHT to ask why we were imprisoned, and if the government can prove it, they have no business detaining anyone. If we don't stand up for these values now, then we might as well adopt China's political & social policies. We might as well we already depend on them for our most of our economy.
    • vinod1978, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1One more thing. Do you guys realize that KBR - a Haliburton subsidy was given $30 Million to to Expand Guantanamo Bay? KBR was also in Iraq 6 months before the resolution in congress was passed to use military force in Iraq. Do you still want to give your government that much power knowing how they have abused their power in the past?
  • maxpower17@digg, on 06/13/2008, -5/+2only if they let it happen!
  • wynja, on 06/13/2008, -8/+17Scalia is a real piece of *****. Way to go there dick.
  • SQLserver, on 06/13/2008, -9/+35It is people like this that are doing their best to make America a Christian Iran.
    • frenchylefrench, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4More like a Christian Taliban
  • suzywang3000, on 06/13/2008, -9/+10W is gonna give him a HJ.
  • jerryterhorst, on 06/13/2008, -5/+13i dont see how someone with such beliefs can be in an appointed position to uphold the constitution. that makes absolutely no sense to me.
  • FrankHope, on 06/13/2008, -6/+5Must be getting warm under those robes. Maybe scatterbrained Scalia's brain is fried.
  • rzxc, on 06/13/2008, -4/+32This decision will save American lives. Though some of the detainees may be found not guilty, and some of those detainees may chose to become terrorists after they are released, that loss to American lives will more than be offset by the benefit that will arise when the world sees us live by our principles. All men are created equal. When Scalia says we are at war with Islamists, Muslims think that we are at war with Muslims. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. We must treat them with respect. We must believe they are innocent until proven guilty. We must extend them the same rights we have. If do, we show them that our war is not against their religion. We must win the hearts and minds of Muslims. This decision is a good first step.
    • noahhoward, on 06/13/2008, -6/+5We were living by our principles before 9/11, apparently that doesn't mean *****-all.
      • BryanG412, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2We were, and after 9/11 we had the sympathy of the entire world...then we ***** it all up.
        • noahhoward, on 06/13/2008, -2/+3Sympathy didn't do much to prevent it and we sure as hell didn't have the sympathy of the many people in the arab world who were dancing in the streets chanting death to America.
      • pintomp3, on 06/13/2008, -0/+6no we weren't. our foreign policy for the past 50 year have been almost the opposite of our principles. 9/11 happened because we strayed a long time ago.
    • jbrand45, on 06/13/2008, -0/+3Excellent points. . . the Islamic extremists that we are "at war" with are, sadly, what the majority of Americans view as a stereotypical Muslim. That, obviously, couldn't be further from the truth. Anyone who has actually studied the Islamic beliefs, and Quran in particular, would know that Muslims like bin Laden, and others in al Qaeda, are warping the teachings of Muhammed to suit their own agendas.

      Unfortunately, Bush and his regime are more than content to perpetuate the lies and misinformation, and even more unfortunately many Americans are either too lazy or too ignorant to learn the truth for themselves.

      As a predominately Christian nation, we should be working arm-in-arm with Muslim nations, for the similarities in both religions outweigh the differences when you get past all of the political, fundamentalist, and extremist sects, which I might point out are found in both religions.
    • kigcoopa84, on 06/13/2008, -3/+2You are very misguided if you think there is a single terrorist in the world that cares about our principles.
    • VBDon, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1It's extremely naive to think that our kindly treatment of terrorists softens their view of the United States. They were raised and indoctrinated by a culture that only respects strength and violence. If we show softness, it signals to them that they should now increase their efforts to attack and destroy us. If we show them that we can be more willing to kill them than they are to kill us, they will back down and show respect. I know this is counterintuitive to Americans, but this is not our culture. You need to understand it before you make mistakes that get innocent people killed.
    • legolas68, on 06/14/2008, -1/+0We don't need to win their hearts and minds. We need to tell them what is what and not to mess with us. Do you think that if a couple dozen American extremists flew some airplanes into Mecca that innocent Americans in Muslim countries would be afforded anything close to Habeas Corpus?

      Your head is full of visions of love beads and peace signs.
  • richardpryor, on 06/13/2008, -30/+5Scalia is an American hero who truly protects the constitution.

    Buried for anti-americanism
    • greenm1981, on 06/13/2008, -2/+9Buried as inaccurate
      • richardpryor, on 06/13/2008, -8/+1You obviously don't know your history.

        Either that or you hate freedom.
        • greenm1981, on 06/13/2008, -1/+4The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a legal framework that protects freedom. So, no I don't hate freedom.
        • kayala, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2"They hate our American freedoms!"
          You hate the Constitution.
      • cryptomystic, on 06/13/2008, -2/+4I'm burying you for being a NeoConservative fearmongering assclown.
    • stormkrow, on 06/13/2008, -0/+5Scalia is a NeCon asshat who answers to his masters in the White House.
    • vinod1978, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4Do you realize the MAJORITY of people that were taking to Guantanamo were actually released because they were falsely accused. There were innocent people that died during their stay at GB because medical facilities were shameful. I can count the number of people that were really proven as terrorists on my fingers. That's why even republicans, like Condie Rice believe it should be shut down, and this is why the vote was important.

      We have the RIGHT to ask why we were imprisoned, and if the government can prove it, they have no business detaining anyone. If we don't stand up for these values now, then we might as well adopt China's political & social policies. We might as well we already depend on them for our most of our economy.
    • hemispheres010, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Buried as troll.
    • vinod1978, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1Read my story, and then continue to say that:
      http://digg.com/political_opinion/Thoughts_on_the_ ...
  • rinks, on 06/13/2008, -2/+2Although the last 6 years of court "victories" for these detainees have gotten them exactly nothing. Nothing will change in regards to this until Bush is the hell out of office.