Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

death of habeas corpus signed into law

youtube.com — "The president has now succeeded where no one has before. He ’s managed to kill the writ of habeas corpus." not suspend it, but kill it.

Bury

tuned2chords 1 year 332 days ago, made popular 1 year 331 days ago

2004 diggs
digg it

167 Comments
Who Dugg It?

Brandondork, on 10/12/2007, -27/+175Habea Corpus is Latin for "you [should] have the body", is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. But habeas corpus has a much broader meaning in common law today. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a prisoner be brought before the court for determination of whether that person is serving a lawful sentence and/or whether he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Habeas corpus can also mean that the imprisoning authority of an alleged murderer 'should have the body' to prove that there has indeed been a murder at all, but this usage is rare

Basically, this is a really bad thing that has happened
- DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -13/+60Did anyone notice the the submitted date on YouTube was back on October 16? How is this recent news?
  
  That aside, I don't care how MSNBC is looked at for this, but I am glad that someone in the public image has the gall to speak out against Bush.
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -7/+176Brandondork,
  At least give credit where credit is due: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
  
  You copied wikipedia verbatim.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17This will be reversed. Even if takes a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees all the rest of the document.
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -11/+105Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
  - Benjamin Franklin
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36DoctaStooge 23
  "Did anyone notice the the submitted date on YouTube was back on October 16? How is this recent news?"
  
  It's recent news until it's changed. We forget about this we might as well call ourselves a Dictatorship because that's what it is.
- phobos182, on 10/12/2007, -1/+54"The writ of habeas corpus is only legally denied from any unlawful military combatant according to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by President Bush on October 17."
  
  Therein lies the problem. You cannot deny habeas corpus to anyone without denying it to everyone. In this example being "I will only deny habeas corpus to unlawful military combatant's". If you are jailed by the government they can declare you an unlawful military combatant for their own reasons. You have no right to contest your imprisonment with this law in effect. You could be charged and tried in a military tribunal without a word ever spoken in your defense.
  
  Judged and sentenced without the slightest regard to your right to prove your innocence.
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8nice clip; however, i hope this isn't news to those watching (again?). This is a dupe and three month old news. =) dugg again anyway.
- standardissue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Here's the audio ripped from the Youtube video : http://www.mediafire.com/?3nrldedmdkn
- B3bomber, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Yez70, meant to digg you up but hit the down thing (why are these icons so small and close togeteher??). Anyway, digg him up for me guys, because that's true.
- anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21"You could be charged and tried in a military tribunal without a word ever spoken in your defense."
  
  This is incorrect. First, you have to be declared an illegal combatant, which requires a Combat Status Review Tribunal, where lots and lots of words have to get spoken in your defense.
  
  Second, American citizens cannot be declared illegal combatants, period. It's right there in the law.
  
  None of this should be construed as a defense of the law. It's a goddamn atrocity. But atrocities are best fought with facts, not with misinformation. In this case the truth is bad enough without embellishing it.
- AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7A habeas has also been used successfully in custody cases where children were wrongfully removed by CPS or when one parent has been denied visitation without cause. So the effects of this are much broader than they first appear.
- krypnos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Yez70 -
  
  I logged in just to digg you up for that. Granted the wording is a little different in the quote in my English book than that which you used, it was exactly what I was thinking as I read the article headline.
- venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17The Republicans seem to have forgotten that someday soon it will be the Democrats using / abusing all this power the Republicans have created.
  
  Odd.
- AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@ venicerocco:
  
  Yes, and then will ol' Bushie regret his decision when the Dems nail him on war crimes and he has no habeas corpus to fall back on, citing color of law or some other such nonsense?
  
  The bastard.
- bobbybobington, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Impeach the *****.
- Johnny87, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Let's impeach the president for lying
  And leading our country into war
  Abusing all the power that we gave him
  And shipping all our money out the door
  
  He¹s the man who hired all the criminals
  The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
  And bend the facts to fit with their new stories
  Of why we have to send our men to war
  
  Let¹s impeach the president for spying
  On citizens inside their own homes
  Breaking every law in the country
  By tapping our computers and telephones
  
  What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees
  Would New Orleans have been safer that way
  Sheltered by our government¹s protection
  Or was someone just not home that day?
  
  Let's impeach the president
  For hijacking our religion and using it to get elected
  Dividing our country into colors
  And still leaving black people neglected
  
  Thank god he¹s racking down on steroids
  Since he sold his old baseball team
  There's lot of people looking at big trouble
  But of course the president is clean
  
  Thank God
- aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5For the Christians, "This too shall pass." should bring comfort...
  For the Pagans, "As the pendulum swings one way, so must it the other..." should also comfort...
  
  Bless the men and women upon whose shoulders it will fall to correct this mistake...
- KyleGoetz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@aukxsona:
  "This too shall pass" is not in the Bible; it's from a poem by Lanta Smith: http://www.bible-infonet.org/bin/faq/bible_quotes/This_to_shall_pass.htm
- mekongcola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This sounds ALOT like the
  
  -The Reichstag Fire Decree-
  
  I honestly can't wait to move out of this country...
- aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1never said it was, but they always say that.
xlar54, on 10/12/2007, -169/+2Yawn.

Dugg down. Terrorism, war, and killing is newsworthy. Peace and justice is boring. Right or wrong - the guy is an incredible bore.
- cwac5, on 10/12/2007, -3/+59Are you really so caught up in our entertainment culture that you can no longer tell the difference between a show and your own life? This effects you and the hundreds of millions of people you share a country with. Not a movie character, you. Wake up.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+40It's largely due to idiots like "xlar54" that this kind of thing is allowed to happen.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Shut up slave.
Brandondork, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31For example:
A more recent use of the habeas petition is with cases involving DNA evidence. If new technology can prove a person did not commit a rape, he may file a habeas petition and allege his detention was based on a misapplication of the facts. At the evidentiary hearing, that person's attorney will present exculpatory DNA evidence, and the judge will order his release. In its most basic form, the writ of habeas corpus serves as the final chance a prisoner has to challenge his conviction, and it will be granted based on only constitutional issues.
- Doghound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
RockMyMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+49I think I saw that video awhile ago, but it is important enough to be on the front of Digg more then once.
- Whackly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Noctem : The Maude Flanders school of thinking.
  
  They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
  
  What could be more important than the erosion of personal liberty? This should be on the digg front page every day.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7at least until the law is declared anti-Constitutional
- ggiles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6>"They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  >-Benjamin Franklin
  
  Bah... Franklin. What'd he know? He was only one of the most enlightened men in early American history and a Founding Father. But Bush, on the other hand, he is "The Decider", after all... you gotta give him credit for all those years of drinking, snorting lines, and all that "hard work" clearing brush at his ranch... *phft*... he's just a Connecticut poser wearing cowboy boots.
  
  Amazing what damage that idiot and a weak Republican Congress did in 6 short years that took over 200 years to put together. Sadly, many Americans have no idea why this change is such an absolutely awful thing that's happened... all they care about is what gift they got for Christmas and who to vote for on American Idol.
- IzeasGT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What did other founding fathers have to counter that? Was Franklin rebutting any of the others?
  He was A founding father. Not THE founding father. And they were far from monolithic; about the only thing they ALL agreed on was "We want the British off our backs."
MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+46"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Rebellion? Nope.
Invasion? Nope. Well, no one is invading us, anyway.
Public Safety? Probably not.
- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -9/+41Our government is being invaded by insane right wingers who want to destroy our freedom, so I guess they can use their own invasion of the government to repeal our rights.
  
  Fun stuff.
- Noctem, on 10/12/2007, -49/+4Uhm, we've already _been_ invaded, _and_ our public safety comprimised.
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Who's invaded us again? Damn, I'd better tell everyone that there's an invasion going on, that way I can start an underground rebellion against the occupying forces.
  
  Moron.
- Noctem, on 10/12/2007, -49/+5@etnu:
  
  So, a dozen men from various arab nations _didn't_ enter our country, _didn't_ hijack 3 of our planes, and _didn't_ crash them into civilian and government buildings? Interesting. If that doesn't count as an invasion, what does?
- cwac5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25@Noctem
  
  That was an attack, not an invasion. Either way, being scared is no reason to throw your personal liberties in a trash can. You are being taken advantage of by people who tell you they are making you safer, but really just want more power.
- lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Since when is 12 people an invasion?
  
  ***** if thats true, the US is regularly invaded by foreign kids traveling for school.
  *****! They're invading! Kill 'em all!
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8That's the entire point - there is no codified criteria that have to be met to invoke this. Only an executive order that is entirely discretionary. Its potential for abuse rests solely on the moral character of out leadership, and I think that by now that is beyond question.
- oreo2123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@ cwac5:
  
  amen. i couldn't have said it better myself.
  
  this Olbermann report is older, but still news worthy. When I found out about this a few of months ago I wrote both my Senators (who both voted for the Military Comm Act)...their responses prompted me to join the ACLU. Now with the starting of use of RFID chips in passports*, I think I am prompted to leave this country.
  
  Am I the only one who think it a weird coincidence that the last time America saw this much tyranny it came from a one, King George???? Go read the Declaration of Independance and tell me it doesn't apply more today than ever.............
  
  *See:
  http://digg.com/security/Smash_the_RFID_chip_in_your_US_Passport
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@Noctern -
  
  So because of a single event that occurred over five years ago, you want to throw away all of our civil liberties? That is truly pathetic.
- donkeydrop, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5If you actually understood the law (unlike that pompous buffoon Olbermann) you would know that it affects only people who are NOT CITIZENS of the United States, and has nothing to do with constitutional rights. Even then prisoners do have a right to appear in a US court to challenge their status as an enemy combatant. So all the law says is that if you are a foreigner fighting against the US in some foreign country, you can't keep appealing to US civil courts. You get one shot to prove you're not an enemy combatant. If you lose then the military decides how to try your case. What else makes sense; you want US civil courts trying cases involving people who have never even set foot in the US, and who's only connection is that they tried to kill some poor G.I. ten thousand miles away from home?
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13That is simply not true, no matter how much you wish it so. Read it.
  
  1) It is in no way geographically restricted to those fighting in other countries.
  2) While some passages refer to "alien (non-citizens)" may others, specifically section 948b, refers to "unlawful enemy combatants." And what is the legal definition of "enemy combatant"? There is none. Who has the power to declare you one? The executive, and you can easily find instances of US citizens being declared enemy combatants held without charges and denied legal counsel..
  3) There is absolutely no provision or protocol in the MCA for protesting or appealing this. To the contrary, it restricts what legal counsel, if any, they may access to.
  4) The government need not disclose all evidence against you, even if you are granted a trial.
  5) There are provisions for being tried in absentia.
  
  At best, the MCA is incredibly poorly worded and vague and as I believe in rule of law, I would hate to see the just execution of this Act be solely dependent on the motives and characters of those applying it.
- xister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1See this is the thing that gets me- Why was it that they had to do away with the Habeas Corpus? The above (miothegreat) says "threat to public safety". If you want to revoke a suspected terrorists' rights, why doesn't the "threat to public safety" part cover that?
twooranges, on 10/12/2007, -33/+11OLD

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Olbermann_The_Day_Habeas_Corpus_Died
- Shalabi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12Yep, these lazy diggers can't resist posting things twice.
VeryAngryJim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22The audio from that clip appeared in the Keith Olbermann podcast over on iTunes. After hearing it once I selected "Do not auto-delete" from the podcast menu. Now every single day when I listen to the daily news, I hear that audio clip. I've had it mixed in with my daily news since October.

People's freedoms get taken away when they've forgotten what it was like to have them, I'll carry this clip with me for as long as I can so I'll never forget just how much damage Bush did to this country.
- Shalabi, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6Why not actually do something to reinstate it instead of sitting around listening to an old audio clip?
- VeryAngryJim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26Ok, I'll go run for president, brb.
- Shalabi, on 10/12/2007, -31/+2Seriously, you probably don't even vote.
  
  Get off the computer and form a PAC.
- VeryAngryJim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yes, I did vote jackass. I'll get off the computer when I get off work.
brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9This happened months ago--notice the submitted date of mid-October. Aren't the democrats planning to repeal this?
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6After something is signed into law by a president , it can only be repealed by another law (according to 'the law'), which also must be signed by the president or, in lieu of that, requires a 2/3 majority vote, in both houses of congress, to override a presidential veto and make it a law.
  That scenario is true as long as we continue to follow the Constitution (that thing that Bush called "just a goddamn piece of paper").
wfunderberg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Farewell Habea Corpus, I knew thee well.
argonplatypus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+31Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Olbermann_On_Habeas_Corpus
http://www.digg.com/politics/One_Nation_Under_Bush
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Keith_Olbermann_on_the_loss_of_Habeus_Corpus
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Most_Compelling_TV_Comment_Since_Murrow
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Keith_Olberman_on_habeas_corpus
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/America_is_No_Longer_Free
http://www.digg.com/politics/Olbermann_Video_Habeas_Corpus_1789_2006
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Olbermann_The_Day_Habeas_Corpus_Died (almost 1400 digs, submitted 69 days ago)
http://www.digg.com/world_news/VIideo_Olbermann_on_the_death_of_Habeas_Corpus
http://www.digg.com/politics/VIDEO_Habeas_Corpus_1215_2006_RIP
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Was the law repealed? No. Then we still have to talk about this.
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8SARCASM
  
  In defense of "argonplatypus," this is such a trivial matter that we needn't bother to stay on top of latest developments. After all, rumor has it that Britney and Paris have a vaginal flashing scheduled for later this evening. Isn't that far more important?
  
  /SARCASM
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@16x9
  "After all, rumor has it that Britney and Paris have a vaginal flashing scheduled for later this evening. Isn't that far more important?
  /SARCASM"
  
  OMG When I first read that, I interpreted 'flashing' as a reference to that thin sheet metal piece that goes around the edges of a roof, to seal it.
  I've heard of Aluminum Flashing, but not 'Vaginal Flashing.'
  
  ...Must be some new building material!
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4> WaterDragon wrote: "...Must be some new building material!"
  
  It is. But it's useful only if you're building a skank. ;)
chevymanusa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Another good watch
http://digg.com/politics/MSNBC_s_Olbermann_calls_Bush_out_as_a_lying_coward_on_National_TV
mutatron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5MSNBC replayed some of Olbermann's opinion pieces on Xmas Eve (I think it was). Pretty cool stuff, but nowadays the power of the press is so diluted.

But this is not really the end of habeas corpus, I mean, this law will be taken to the Supreme Court if it isn't immediately repealed when the Democrats take over.
chrisjj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5An absolute disgrace that the government should feel that it's OK to play games with our fundamental right to justice. If the Democrats don't repeal this then we really are heading down the slippery slope to fascism.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5if the democrats don't repeal this us citizens may just accidentally find out it's been a one party system that plans to deny us our freedoms all along.
Noctem, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3"and he may now, if he so decides, declare YOU an unlawful enemy combatant, and ship you somewhere, anywhere."

THAT is fear mongering of the worst kind on Olbermann's part. Why on earth would anyone be snatched up off the street, and declared an unlawful enemy combatant, for no apparent reason? Habeas Corpus isn't ***** dead, people. Get a grip on reality.
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19How incredibly shortsighted.
  
  What do you have against just laws that don't depend solely on the moral character of those executing them? When you need not be charged, can be tortured, may or may not be given access to legal counsel, need not be shown all the evidence against you, and can possibly be tried and convicted in absentia, who will even know that you are innocent? Who will even know where you are and what happened to you? There is simply no possibility for a redress of grievances and no mechanism to correct an errant "arrest" and conviction.
  
  Read the Military Commissions Act. You will see that this is all possible and can be done against US citizens - see section 948b.
  
  I never thought a piece of legislation could make me cry. As a combat vet, I am beyond angry about this.
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@Noctem
  
  "Why on earth would anyone be snatched up off the street, and declared an unlawful enemy combatant, for no apparent reason?"
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/21/60II/main594974.shtml
  
  Wrong place, wrong time. If a government has the right to do something, eventually it -will-.
- nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi to name two people that have been picked up and held without evidence or being told what they were charged with and might have rotted there indefinitely if their story had not been picked up by the media. They are Middle Eastern which was apparently enough. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that the people who have suspended Habeus Corpus have no intention of excercising their new lack of restraints? This government doesn't need more power. It needs more oversight.
- nobeastsofierce, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Thank you, for some reason I thought the original quote was a hypothetical COULD. You changing that to WOULD in no way changes the context of the sentence
  
  Idiot
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I hear ignorance is bliss. Is it?
marcushe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24Olberman is so ridicuously smart.

He so totally ownes O'Reily.

O'Riely's response to that would be: "You're a nut. - You obviously hate your country."
DarthPoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15The writ of habeas corpus is only legally denied from any unlawful military combatant according to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by President Bush on October 17. Though it is supposedly only against aliens, the wording is vague enough to possibly be applied to US citizens, specifically in section 948b.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:5:./temp/~c109RM895J:e5622:
gabrielg01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9It so sad and scary to see how myopic politicians destroy our democracy in the name of "safety and patriotism".

Right after 9/11, standing on the rubbles of the WTC, George W. Bush declared that "Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America." That is true in itself, but he forgot to finish that sentence. The other half, which he didn't say would read something like this "...but our own politicians will destroy the foundations of America, something that Osama Bin Laden could never ever dream of achieving". And that is exactly what is happening. George Bush did more damage to our democracy than a thousand Osamas could ever do.

Wake up people! This is really the wrong direction we are moving in.
JJsays, on 10/12/2007, -18/+0Drama queens!
jhubsch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Wow, I've never really seen this guy before. He is so articulate and polite while at the same time firm in his opinion. Amazing.

Incredible speech as well.
- IzeasGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Such beings exist?!
  
  Oh, wait...I actually know one. On the Internets, no less. Guy called CountAlpicola. Maybe a few others, too.
DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3It is a shame how many 'diggers' are mindless shills for the democratic party and believe whatever comes out of the mouth of Keith Olberman. The funny part is most of you think you are libertarians, and then you go out and vote for the party of big government.

As for Olberman, maybe one of the digg girls can teach him what to do in bed correctly?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092006/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm
- peridyn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What the ***** does his sex life have to do with his opinions? this is showing that people are 'mindless shills' how? It's hilarious when one can't find something intelligent to say in order to disprove or remove credence from someones opinion, so they do a ***** google search to dig up dirt. lame.
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1It's the same argument the Leftists pulled on Oreilly. Nice to have a look at yourselves every once in a while, eh?
- Whackly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Libertarians, like myself, wouldn't vote for Democrats if the Republican party hadn't been blinded by greed, castrated by scandal and corruption, and been taken over by religious zealots whose attempts to legislate morality and return the United States to a point in time that never existed have undermined all the common sense built into our government. Whether you're a libertarian or a liberal, when your only choice is between to evils you should try to pick the one that's LESS EVIL.
- Whackly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I forgot to mention xenophibic racism in my description of the Republicans.
  
  Warmongering too.
- DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you call yourself a libertarian and vote democrat, you have no idea what a libertarian is.
greymaxcat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10*****...
Canada is too damn cold... can't move north
I don't speak Spanish... can't move south
oceans one the left and right....

I'm screwed.
- Whackly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Get and innertube and some friends. If we can get enough beer and crackers together maybe we can be the first U.S. refugee boat people.
  
  Of course, as messed up as the U.S. is right now, show me one country that's not more messed up? Seriously. If you can, I'll move there.
- pjwii, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You damned coward. Fight, donate to those who stand against this, do something! If this is your true opinion we don't need you.
curseyouberkley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Keith Olbermann for president.
rholloway, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2whether Olbermann is right or wrong or if Bush sucks or not, organized digging sucks harder and threatens the credibility of this site. First, it was anarcho-libertarians doing it--looks like today is the MoveOn.org crowd's turn.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4When will the fascist simpletons get their turn? Maybe once they figure out how to activate their AOL account...
Jammer, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Get a clue and a grip, people. Abraham Lincoln actually suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, so this is nothing new. More to the point: it specifically identifies "enemy combatants" as the target of this new law. So, unless you're considered an enemy combatant, Habeas Corpus still applies.

This has also been marked as duplicate, since we already went through this lame exercise once already with all the wannabe constitutional lawyers and their accompanying douchebaggery that post here thinking that their rights have somehow been infringed upon.
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Eh... I don't get why people mention past presidents' actions to say if something -should- be constitutional. Abraham Lincoln also tried to end slavery in the legally seceded Confederacy (laws against secession post-date the actual event) while keeping it legal in states that stayed part of the Union. Lincoln is not the undeniable ideal of legal powers.
  
  The duplicate thing...go ahead and mark it. Duplicates have every right to hit the front page if enough people think they're new or important enough.
  
  And these "wannabe constitutional lawyers" give evidence and arguments, you give a flame...weee.
  
  I think it's scary only because potential causes errors.
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4And what is the legal definition of "enemy combatant"? There is none.
  Who has the power to declare you one? The executive.
  
  For small minds that are mislead by pseudo-official sounding terms with no codified meaning, this is entirely discretionary.
- nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow, you're actually right. However let's put the emphasis on CIVIL WAR. Something that this war doesn't even approach. And yes, they must be an enemy combatant. But the president can label any group or person enemy comatants when he so chooses. He's not supposed to have that power but he does, through torturous legal manipulations.
  
  Your blind faith in government is astonishing.
Cleotis, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2You libtards should be all about this- big brother society and all. Your only bitch is that your man isn't in office right now. Perhaps if one of you all-knowing and benevolent libs were at the helm you'd be singing a different tune.
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You're only happy because youre man -is-.
  Kinda stupid when half the voting members of the country thinks the rulership is against them at any given time. Bush, Kerry, Hitler...whoops. point being, it's not the ruler, it's those who "follow" (really lead) the ruler.
  
  Name one president in the last 100 years who actually was -directly- responsible for anything useful...
  I don't mean their cabinet. I don't mean their advisors. I mean the president himself.
  Puppets make great strawmen...
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If you call yourself a conservative you should be ashamed. Whatever happened to small government? Conservative fiscal policy? I see....
  
  As a lifelong conservative, I scoff at non-thinking and easily led simpletons that cheer for there party as if it were a football team without ever looking at what they stand for. Face it: the Republican party has done an about-face from conservative policies in six short years. Talk about flip-flops.
- clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6So you didn't listen to anything he said right? Where he named 3 other presidents who did exactally the same thing if not worse thing then Bush and have then later made other presidents apoligize for their actions? He's citing historical examples of how America has learned these actions WILL BE USED FOR BAD how can we trust Bush with this power? If 3 other presidents claimed this power and imprisioned thousands of innocent Americans how can we trust anyone to use these kinds of powers effectivly?
  Is it still liberal mumbo jumbo when more than 1 president has abused powers before? If Kerry got elected and pulled something like this, you'd be fuming along with me. Since it was some rich republican who gives you an extra $20 on your taxes you'll defend him to the death. Grow some brains before posting on the internet, this is 1 peice of the puzzle where people feel Bush has gone wrong, and unlike allot of them this is not based on opinion...this is based on historical fact. I'm sure you know nothing about that though, I take it you're a drop out?
- cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0@clubmasta2
  Do you even know what the hell you are talking about? The law specifies "alien" not "citizen"... You sit there and spew out all this "grow some brains", "effectivly", "on the internet", "allot of them", and "peice", yet you insult the intelligence of dropouts? *****, I would rather be a dropout, then be a ***** illiterate like you.
  
  Don't let your trailer door hit you in the ass while beating your hasty retreat...
- clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cpuenvy
  
  You're only insulting my speeling cause I'm right
  Nobody argues grammar on the interwebs unless you're wrong
  I'd rather be personally attacked on the internet for my grammar then wrong :)
  So this means that over half the population that imagrated to our country 20-30+ years ago is now destroyed. It's not to far off to just grab citizes off the street and do the same thing. You won't complain till it happens or effects you :)
- cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0No, I am making fun of your "speeling" because you are insulting the intelligence of dropouts, when in fact, you articulate yourself no better then my 8 year old. Nobody will take someone with a 4th grade education seriously in any serious argument.
  
  Read what I said.
  
  And read what Robertson said: "The Constitution does not provide alien enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay with the constitutional right to file a petition for habeas corpus in our civilian courts, and thus Congress may regulate those combatants' access to the courts".
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@cpu
  
  Read the rest of the Act. Many of the sections apply to "unlawful enemy combatants" a term that is in no way restricted to non-citizens. The only criteria for being an "unlawful enemy combatant" is that the executive name you as such. That's it. There is no check list. And we have seen multiple cases of US cits being labeled as such - that is why this is so disturbing.
  
  And on a more altruistic level, "We hold these truths to be self-evident....", and "...certain inalienable rights...." It is historic practice to extend our constitutional rights to citizens and non-citizens alike. Foreign nationals are still (well, were) mirandized when arrested, given due process, and tried as necessary. How can we call something an inalienable right if the first thing we do is alienate it?
  
  To occupy the moral high ground you must practice what you preach, and not just when it's convenient.
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not only very liberal people who hate Bush. If you'd turn off Fox news and come into the real world you would see that many conservatives and Christians can't stand Bush either. He is far from conservative when he's spending America into another depression or when he's killing our soldiers. He's far from Godly for too many reasons to list. Maybe name calling and dividing up into sides makes you feel better but you're in the minority. The majority of ALL people of any kind hate Bush.
antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Oh my God. This is the most slanted, one-sided "news" report I have ever seen! And the Left claims that the Republicans are fabricating news stories...
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In the spirit of future debate, please tell everyone why it's slanted.
  Go tell Maher Arar how heavily these paranoid allegations are slanted toward some Leftist insane idealogy.
  
  Most Republicans I know hate and fear the Bush Administration, too.
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41) This was an editorial, not news.
  2) List a single fact that was fabricated.
  
  Is this just a case of thinking it too horrible to be true? If so, actually read the Military Comissions Act. I dare you.
cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0Ok. I am still a bit confused as to how this affects United States citizens...

From Wiki:

"On 29 September 2006, the U.S. House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for any alien (noncitizen) determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[2][3] by a vote of 65-34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed 48-51.[4]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006."

If we are worried about the legal rights of aliens, then I don't see what the fuss is about. They are lucky to enjoy any rights whatsoever, because I know that many countries have different laws for non-citizens.

Seems like a bunch of organized digger ***** and alarmists with their panties in a bunch...
- nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If you read down a little further in that same wiki article, you will find all of the points by various legal experts on why this poorly worded bill can easily include US citizens. In short, the president can name anyone an enemy combatant and they would then fall under the jurisdiction of this law.
  
  Looks like I (and wikipedia) could be corrected in the post below.
- Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Here's where it gets fuzzy:
  
  Americans are not excluded from the definition of unlawful enemy combatant (948a.1) and without defining "competent tribunal" (948a.1ii) a person can be labeled as a uec by the president on a whim. Now, the MAC states that uecs are detained until a military commission can be convened and then that person is tried. However, the MAC also states that US citizens cannot be tried in a military commission (948c). That means if you, an American citizen, are labeled an unlawful enemy combatant and detained as such you will be stuck waiting for a military commission to convene when it legally can't. Nowhere in the MAC is this situation handled; you could theoretically be "stuck" in a detention facility for awhile.
  
  Now habeas corpus is still provided to US citizens in the MAC so you, a US citizen, can challenge your detention. That just requires getting access to a lawyer that is allowed to interface with you.
  
  http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109wTd3PQ:e2995:
  Note the above link will eventually expire.
- cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0That is some interesting information, and I thank you both for articulating yourselves so well. I have since read a bit of great information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006 , and I must say that I do support some of the thought behind the bill.
  
  The problem I had was when prisoners wanted to take their Gitmo detentions to United States courts. That is not right!
  
  But it seems the only court challenge on the MCA has given us some useful opinions that will help clear up some of the confusion...
  
  Judge Robertson wrote that "The Constitution does not provide alien enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay with the constitutional right to file a petition for habeas corpus in our civilian courts, and thus Congress may regulate those combatants' access to the courts".
  
  See, if habeas corpus was really considered "dead", then every single lawyer in this country would be filing cases against the Government, and the Supreme Court would already have in hand a brief from every single civil and Constitutional organization in the country. I am not sure that this is as bad as people are making it.
ryalslawfirm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31. This piece has been featured on digg.com several times. This is nothing new, as previous commenters have no doubt observed.

2. Keith Olbermann has his facts wrong (though, perhaps at the time of taping, he was correct). At the very last moment, before the signing of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the portion of the senate bill which would have allowed the arrest of U.S. Citizens that were classified as "enemy combatants" was stricken from the version presented to the president for signing. Statutes are difficult to read, but I urge you to try.

3. I know all of this, b/c I read the draft bill (the version that suspended HC for US citizens) and flipped out. I created a huge announcement that I placed on my law firm's web page pointing to the draft bill and a brief tirade on how stupid we all are for letting this happen. Then, I read the signed version of the act on THOMAS the next day, and found that the offending provisions were not in the statute. I felt like a schmuck for getting all worked up for nothing.
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Thanks. Good advice and good info. +Digg
- AnotherBrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't feel bad if I where you. The fact that a provision like that was even suggested by someone who has sworn to uphold the Constitution is disgusting.
Atash, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Several US presidents have suspended habeas corpus, and several have arranged for extrajudicial arrests, imprisonment, and execution.

Abraham Lincoln, who is now worshipped as an idol in American schools and history books, arranged for secret arrests and executions of his political opponents. This is acknowledged by both his critics and his sycophants.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo79.html

Most of those summarily executed were not southern spies but northern critics. Lincoln's former gay lover, Joshua Speed, turn his back on him over what he perceived to be his ruthlessness and treason to his country.

Woodrow Wilson not only suspended habeas corpus (and the US wasn't even involved in WW1 yet since the Lusitania had not yet been loaded with a cache of armaments to provoke an incident), the surviving victims (some died in prison) were not released until Warren Harding came into office and pardoned them--which is probably the real reason that historians damn Harding and fawn over Wilson.

Roosevelt of course had many thousands of Japanese imprisoned by executive order, without charges, without due process of law, and--contrary to the politically-correct version--also suspended civil rights of German immigrants and even some of their American born children.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson both arranged for assassinations of heads of state, which is a sort of an extrajudicial execution.
keith34595, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I do not know about you guys but this is not the first time that habeas corpus has been suspended and it probably will not be the last. During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus because it better suited his political and military needs, Jefferson Davis also did the same thing in order to institute Military Law in the Confederate States. FDR also suspended habeas corpus in the 1940s and put thousands of Japanese Americans into internment camps because it would make America safer. While the author of this comment is saying he killed the writ of habeas corpus, the same could have been said during the time in which Lincoln, FDR and Davis were in office but every time it was reversed so therefore it was seen as a suspension. This will be reversed and in the future when the history books talk about the worst president in history, they will mention how he also tried to do away with the writ of habeas corpus but was unable to.
TheEditor1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2This again, GOD. When will you people actually read the legislation instead of listening to some over paid, under talented talk (out of his ass) head.
headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It's unreal how the terrorist have overwhelmingly won.
- clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3++
  They didn't want to kill Americans as much as they want us to kill ourselfs. Sure, it had to be done with a large scale attack on our soil but look what we've resorted to to find them, giving up everything our country stands for. Maybe those years of corruption will finally catch up to us. This is the reason I don't join the military, I'm not going to defend a corrupt democracy until we shape up. Come on, EVERYONE knew the terrorists were in Afganastan...so we go to Iraq? I want to bring justice to Osoma Bin Laden, I don't know about you...but that ***** has 3000 american heads fresh on his shoulder and I'd like to show him how us Americans feel about this. Sadam is just another corrupt dictator in a town run by thugs, it's like Mexico without any tourism.
Niteryder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Welcome to the totalitarian government of Dictator Bush
rholloway, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1digg it down and prove my point, but organized Digging SUCKS.
amapeach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We should petition it as Americans rather than just "saying not doing" Just write congressman/woman Remember People rule the country not him. Besides if a congressman/woman wants to be voted for again they'll follow the people rather than risk another poor election.
ryalslawfirm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Those worried about totalitarianism, see my comment above. Those NOT worried about totalitarianism (the glib posters who oh so casually cite the fact that "oh, whatever, other presidents have suspended habeas corpus") should be aware that the suspension of habeas corpus normally is and definitely should be an emergency action taken during wartime or extreme natural disasters in order to keep local conditions from descending into chaos. We have things like constitutions and statutes in order to avoid handing the poweful members of our society the keys to impliment their will through summary process, rather than the will of the people through some sort of due process.
Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Political demagoguery. Anyone who believes a word of what the talk show
political pundits says, on either side of the political spectrum , is being duped.

Habeas Corpus is not dead. If a person is a terrorist in this war an apprehended,
he is a prisoner of war. Prisoners of war don't get habeas corpus. Every single
lawyer in the U.S. would make a stink in the press if they had a client that the state
denied habeas corpus to. Notice that there haven't been any cases.

If you want an example of the cancellation of habeas corpus, you should read up on
President Lincoln's treatment of Democrats and the press during the Civil War.

Anyone who listens to Keith Olbermann and believes what he says is
(in the vernacular of our times), a *****' idiot.
- JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't remember the name of the TV documentary, but it was about The Patriot Act and what happened after 9/11. Basically, thousands of Muslim-Americans in the U.S. including doctors and businessmen who lived here all their lives were detained for weeks and months by the FBI shortly after 9/11. They were taken into custody by the FBI right from their homes and their relatives and family were not given any info about them. That was because the GOP and Bush put together the Patriot Act and plopped in in front of Congress and told them to read the hundreds of pages and voted on it within days. Any help with the name of the program would be appreciated. I think it was on the Sundance channel.
- heffae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Just because Lincon overstepped his power doesn't make it OK. President John Adams passed the "Alien and Sedition Acts" that made it illegal to criticize the party in power that was Wrong. FDR authorized internment of Japanese Americans during WWII that also was Wrong.
  Good and Bad presidents regularly go too far and it is our duty as patriots and citizens to keep them in line.
  
  If we want to remain the greatest country on Earth then we had better damn well act like it. This means that our enemies may have certain advantages over us because we will not bring ourselves down to their level. We should make every effort not to kill innocents and to ensure that only the guilty are imprisoned. Yes this makes things harder but it's not easy being the good guys.
  
  I love my country but I find as time goes on it's getting harder to recognize. Thankfully it is still a democratic republic even though the various corporate interests have far to much influence in governance the last congressional election showed that it is still possible to affect a change. And if putting the democrats in charge of the legislative branch doesn't change things well we get another shot in 2008 as long as we can keep people aware of the issues hopefully we can get leadership that isn't corrupt, evil, or incompetent.
- Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@JesusisSatan
  Find out what tv show it is.
  
  @heffae
  
  Your argument is not good. I didn't contend that because
  Lincoln did it, that it was good. I gave it as an example
  of abuse of habeas corpus.
  
  And the Alien and Sedition Acts were bad in my book, too.
  
  What FDR did, I have mixed feelings. There are arguments
  for detainment, and against, but the mindset in 1942 is different
  than that of today. People were vastly more parochial, and racist,
  which put Japanese Americans at risk on the street. They were at
  risk from attack from angry Americans. People were super pissed,
  and fearful of Japanese invasion and spying. In those times of
  totally mobilization, I can sympathize with the arguments for
  concentration, but I hate the way in which it was carried out.
  They were robbed of their lands and other material wealth,
  which amounts to government sponsored theft. The whole
  thing could have been done better. They richly deserved
  compensation, and it came too late and was too little.
  
  As far as judging this habeas corpus thing, I doubt if anyone
  in this entire string has read the law. And the presentation
  by Olberman was pure showmanship. Contrary to the paranoia,
  nobody here has lost the right to habeas corpus. The very
  ideas that the President should be removed from office is humorous
  because it takes the House and Senate to pass such a bill.
  Plus, in this free society, it can be challenged in the courts.
arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Fellow Americans: Take heed, for as of this morning, you have been made the enemy.

Not to your friends, neighbors, relatives, or colleagues, but to a dictatorship that everyday tightens it's grip a little more on the people of this country, blue and white collar alike, under the guise of safety and liberty defense.

If there were ever a time for those of us living on American soil - regardless of colors, creeds, political stances, life orientations, ethnicities, gender, financial ties, wealths or debts - to come together as a people and demand back what we and those before us have shed sweat & blood for... that which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of true happiness... that time no longer draws near, because that time would be now.

George W. Bush must be civilly ousted from power, followed by the members of his cabinet. All should be formally charged & tried as war criminals wish appropriate sentences. Despite Bush's own lack of honor & decency, now more then ever the American people can display their own decency before the entire world by removing Bush & his cabinet from power, giving them a fair & honorable trial, and starting on the journey to right the wrongs made during (and in some cases, prior to) his taking office.

We are the land of the free & home of the brave - *Not* land of the politically-restrained, home of the frightened-to-question-power.
JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Don't be paranoid, huh?

Is the Pentagon spying on Americans?
Secret database obtained by NBC News tracks ‘suspicious’ domestic groups

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Updated: 6:18 p.m. ET Dec 14, 2005
WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.

A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period.

“This peaceful, educationally oriented group being a threat is incredible,” says Evy Grachow, a member of the Florida group called The Truth Project.

“This is incredible,” adds group member Rich Hersh. “It's an example of paranoia by our government,” he says. “We're not doing anything illegal.”

The Defense Department document is the first inside look at how the U.S. military has stepped up intelligence collection inside this country since 9/11, which now includes the monitoring of peaceful anti-war and counter-military recruitment groups.

So any criticism of Bush permits the U.S. government to watch and possibly detain you under The Patriot Act? Pure intimidation if you ask me. Do I have to be careful not to offend King George for fear that my IP address will be forever tracked by the FBI? Will I no longer feel safe to visit my favorite porn sites of teen girls getting gangbanged by 5 dudes because it could be used against me later?
3n7r0py, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3For perspective: "Unconstitutional - The Way on Our Civil Liberties" ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3105519703637733227&q=Unconstitutional&hl=en
- JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Holy crap! I was just talking about this!! As soon as I posted my comment, you came up with the program already. I remember the title now "Unconstitutional..." Thanks. :)
heffae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. (Secret Military tribunals)
F
or depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury (Suspension of Habeas Corpus and Military tribunals)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses (Secret CIA prisons)

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. (Iraq War)

So out of the 27 original reasons that we rebelled from England. TheNew King George has violated 4 (The fourth one may be a bit sketchy). So we may not have the rational for a violent revolution yet we should certainly keep our eyes on this.
cruzlee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Same video, better quality.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9Ao0RrXHZEk&mode=related&search=
JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's going to be a sad day when Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran throws the Geneva Convention guidelines back in our faces. Well, sad for our troops.
5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15hop4orce's Law:

If there's a video, the claim is inaccurate.
- 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Search "owned" or "busted" on YouTube. 99% of the videos do not prove what they claim.
gardeth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Because of this and other terrifying parellels form 1920's Germany, my german grandparents refues to visit us here in America.

Oh and they want us to move back to Germany, doesnt seem like a terrible idea at this point.
- Gustave5436, on 10/12/2007, -3/+01920's Germany? I think you may mean 1933-1945 Germany, as, apart from terrible poverty, I cannot really think of anything extraordinarily bad about the Wiemar republic.
gmallard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He did not mention Lincoln, because just like the people who did here, he would get dugg down for it. As I imagine I will

Too ***** bad.

It ignored a serious historical fact.
- Refrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did you have a point to make?
AaronS2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What this admin does in the name of the war on terror. They can get away with anything. Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule this unconstitutional.
Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3hmmm the erosion of an individual's rights in western society....and more power to government and corporations..
hobophobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As bad as it is for our lawmakers to pass and our president to sign into law such idiotic things, they still must pass judicial review in order to have the weight of law. If they do in fact remain upheld by the courts, then we must do the only sane thing left:

Boot off a bootdisk, format, install new government, update security patches, drivers, etc. Once the entire government is compromised by lunacy we have been rooted and there is a rootkit firmly in place. The only recourse of the people in that situation is a fresh install of a new, improved operating system.
- pacetua, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1What idiotic things? Enemy combatants deserve jail. The idiotic thing to do would be to allow them back into the world to kill more troops.
  
  Although, the analogy about the computers goes well with the Digg atmosphere.
- hobophobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Enemy combatants deserve the Geneva convention, and they must be shown to be enemy combatants. The whole idea of a system of justice and due process is that people don't get thrown in cells without a fairly strong assurance they belong there. History has shown us that those with the power to do so will lock people up (among other things such as torture and execution) for any number of selfish or stupid reasons (for the Christians, look at what happened to Jesus; look at the Holocaust; look at the Imperialist tendencies toward the natives in the Americas and in Africa among other places).
  
  Last time I checked not a single man, woman, or child that is housed in Guantanamo Bay has been given a speedy, public trial with the right to counsel and the right to confront the evidence and witnesses, nor even the right to be presented with the charges against them. It is not justice.
  
  It is a danger to the very principles our nation exists to protect, and those who would have our nation destroyed or even wounded by such practices are undeniably violating their oath of office and deserve to be removed. But they would be granted the due process they seek to deprive. That's the difference you can find in the character of man: the fiend denies others what he gives himself.
- pacetua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@hobophobe
  
  There are two types of enemy combatants: enemy combatants and ILLEGAL enemy combatants. The difference between the two is that the one are just "soldiers" following orders from their superiors. The illegal combatant is one who has broken the Geneva Convention and is being held until they have been found guilty or not guilty of their crimes.
  
  Either way an enemy combatant is going to be held against their will. And lets not forget, court dates are a pain no matter who you are.
- pacetua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1[sorry, digg jacked up my last comment, so I started to rewrite it, but refreshed the page and saw some of what I wrote reappear...]
aletoledo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3what can we do to stop the slow bleed of liberty? Honestly I know nothing as an individual I can do and its nonsense to think of a group forming to stand up against this.
- gute321, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0you vote
- jstroot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I write letters to my senator, but I'm not sure if that does anything.
  
  It seems to me, that nothing short of an outright revolt will stop this ridiculous ***** from continuing. But watch out!!!! If you revolt, you are an UEC!!!!
- Thex1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2stop reading new from the primary outlets whom are all corrupt and in bed with governments....create alternatives to mainstream news services and reduve there grip on information...DIGG is one of those solutions..
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
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.

death of habeas corpus signed into law

Login or register to add a comment