Habeas Corpus Is Back

[haolejohn]

Now they took it again. Those fart faces!! This time they include Americans who will not be happy with their police state.

[CasualMaggot]

i miss the old shows...

[007HubbaBubba]

Power does corrupt doesn't it?

[WowEvanwoW]

this guy sounds like a faggot

[wtfkidproductions]

@WowEvanwoW do you have any idea how retarded you sound

[SisyphusTwo]

And if a citizen does not 'make-it', there won't any evidence of the defence being raised. Or should a citizen have his/her lawyer on stand-by 24/7 which of course is not practical. What do you think of merits of, in anticipation of this Marshal Law, citizens should start NOW sending letters to the Government raising the defence should Marshal Law eventuate. This way the onus is reversed and is placed on the Government.

[SisyphusTwo]

Thanks for the very informative clip and the very effective way you communicate it. I am just curious how one raises Habeaus Corpus as a defence. Let's assume Mashall Law occurs and thousands of citizens are herded into these concentration camps. Does a citizen simply scream to the military '

'I want to rely on Habeas Corpus' ? And what are the chances of the Military complying with thousands of such requests ? One would imagine this would create logistical difficulties for the Military.

[Punohuspicks]

YOU ROCK CENK!!

[tomitstube]

habeas corpus? isn't that in south texas?

let me guess... scalia, thomas, roberts and alito. i'm praying one of them will die soon.

[eb352mm]

unfortunately the majority of guantanamo detainees that are witnesses of american atrocities and crimes against humanity will probably be tortured to death so they cant testify, and we will probably never learn about the undisclosed secret prisons where only God knows what kind nazi experiments and sadism is going on

[TheFreedomBeing]

For the record, Habeas was not EVER suspended or removed. The Great writ has been and was used during the time it was allegedly suspended (I witnessed it first hand). People confuse statutized writs with inherent Great writs. There is a distinction, and the latter cannot be touched by ANY president, legislator or judicial egomaniac unless you CONSENT to it and agree. Wake up slaves...your govt actually is NOT your master/God, unless you consent to them being such. Consent, consent, consent.

[dkt80]

Doesn't mean congress wasn't fixin' to suspend the great writ :-) I bet they would have it they could.

[glocker8888]

TheFreedomBeing said "your govt actually is NOT your master/God, unless you consent"

That's a nice fairy tale.

Lemme know REALITY when you have a gov't gun in your face.

[TheFreedomBeing]

Typical response from a patriot whiner-complainer who will gripe and cry, but refuse to educate himself so that he can use their rules against them.

You probably think you can be force-vaccinated. I got news for ya...with YOUR level of ignorance...you likely can be.

[MachinaSapien]

hey glocker did you see freedombeings non answer? when the govt gun is in his face, he will wet hit pants like a sissy girl. his response was to use ad hominems and strawmen.

[nsaretard]

tell me about it! i been tortured and abused on those sick principles.. i want to sue the mfers and get them good too :)

[alexthelion828]

your all idiots. none of you are lawyers and act like you know what you are talking about. yes habeas corpus was suspended. and whomever brought up Osama, the US still has to follow the geneva conventions. read the actual law instead of spewing biased facts you found off the internet

[xGothimox]

You first.

[JCJC2009]

What the heck are you talking about?

Do you have any texual supports?

What you try to prove to the audeinces.

[horsesboy]

Look up a little case from 1950 called Johnson V Eisentrager. The Supreme court rule in a 9 TO 0 ruling said "We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States." Since congress gave Bush war powers and Osoma has declared on the United States what Bush did was legal.

[NullShade]

That's a lot like Ex Parte Quirin: enemy soldiers, even if detained on US soil, cannot claim habeas corpus.

However, the problem is that many of the Gitmo detainees were not obviously enemy combatants. They were accused of assisting a terrorist organization. You could accuse any one of us of assisting a terrorist organization. If being accused of that means you don't get a trial to let you argue otherwise, then there is basically no habeas corpus right.

That is the problem with Guantanamo.

[glocker8888]

NullShade: stop worrying about Guantanamo and start worrying about the jigaboo commie's "preventive detention" plans.

[BubbaGanoush2]

Congress did not give Bush war powers. Congress never ONCE declared a state of war, thus making this an illegal war. It's the law, look it up.

[ratje67]

Don't you all discuss about private property, jurisdiction and constitution.

Fair and swift justice is a human right and that's it.

It is just not possible to create some smart legal construction to enable denial of human rights.

Or you chose as a society not to respect human rights for suspects anymore.

And just say it like that.

[bompop01]

Habeus corpus is an inaliable right. That means that wherever you live in the world, America recognizes your right by birth to a fair and speedy trial. Its something we fight for as Americans. I don't like this Gitmo situation any more than anyone else, but in keeping with the spirit of the constitution, the detainees should be seeing a judge now. It would be nice if America could set a good example again, to have courage of our convictions, and live up to what we aspouse.

[edenstore]

@bompop01 I agree with the decision in the gitmo case. But this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. No real precedent existed for determining whether guantanamo bay was American sovereignty. And habeas corpus is not an inalienable right. The president can suspend it during rebellion or invasion, and the right does not apply under the laws of war. I agree that guantanmo bay is a de facto U.S. sovereignty. But that decision was not a foregone conclusion.

[dizzylizzyd514]

You are so annoying.

[zenqueen78]

Lol. Theres alot of You Tubers I wanna say this to.

[Zarlok2]

Habeas Corpus does not extend to foreign nationals, dear Hun. The consitutation is a pacvt between the governmental bodies of the united states and its people. Defacto, not foreign nationals. According to this ruling, foreign nationals actually have more rights than americans in the USA. Ya, great ruling you fucking commie.

[RationalLiberty]

Well it was not JUST foreign nationals we were picking up-Americans as well.

I do not know international law, but it would be astounding if habeus corpus was not protected under international law.

Practically we cannot go around abducting and detaining people from all nations just because they are "foreign nationals". If extended, we can just round up countless people, tens of thousands, and not charge them because they are "foreign nationals".

...

[RationalLiberty]

...

Also habeus corpus means that you cannot be detained indefinitely. That means you charge them with something to justify incarceration. It would be much much better if we gave them the right of habeus corpus than if we took it away-even if it could be justified under a "foreign national" status.

Saving "foreign nationals" right to habeus corpus is saving OUR right to habeus corpus.

We do not obey habeus corpus because its not just a democratic thing, we obey it because it is HUMANE.

[laleeloolelo]

You're right Zarlok, it is great.

At least James Yee (you remember him?) ordeal isn't for nothing if it help saves other innocents who are wrongfully sent to Gitmo, regardless whether they're Americans or not.

[eirefrance]

How do they have more rights? Do they have more habeas corpus?

[bonzelite]

I can't stand this guy's on-screen persona. Very annoying.

[bib777]

yeah I grew up in a communist country, we had secret prisons, people would get snatched away in the middle of the night never to be seen again because we had no right to a trial ie Habeas Corpus. Government would keep people in jail then transfer you to a mental institution and pump you full of drugs and in a few years you ended up as a vegetable where you said anything and at that point you could go to jail or stay chained to hospital bed for the rest of your life.

[movieguystarraisin]

For the first time in a while I have hope...

[erkd1]

Go Cenk go!

And WELCOME BACK!

[UnderseaCaveman]

Cenk,

You are absolutely right on this one....

Thanks for the great news!

Remember, Ron Paul voted against the Military Comm Act.

Hopefully, someday you will get "the revolution", like "I get it...what the hell was I thinking"....hopefully!

[ViraIVideos]

It's not a republican issue, it's not a democratic issue, it's a HUMAN issue.

Anyone against Habeas Corpus is clearly a puppet and not an independent human being.

WELCOME BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thewarnole]

Indeed...welcome back Habeas Corpus!

[osiris33]

FAVORITE!

[wombatty10]

Hey, Habeas Corpus!! Welcome back bro!! I've missed you for sooo long!!

[semcounty]

Habeas Corpus and corpus christi are good places to visit ut they dont exist in America

[traceurjason]

Everytime conservatives open their mouths, they spew out more America hating propaganda. Why do they hate America so much? No respect for the constitution, spying on their own citizens, torturing people, starting wars based on lies, intolerance of other cultures,..... Republicans call themselves Americans, but they act more like the Soviets. Bottom line, Republicans hate what America stands for.

[NiceDinosaur]

@traceurjason Isn't "conserving the Magna Carte," by maintaining Habeas Corpus, a "conservative" idea? Or is it democratic, because it preseves democracy. Or is it liberal because it promotes freedom? Labelling stances on issues--as say, a donkey or an elephant--doesn't do anything to solve the problem of what we ought to do. This is only a left-right issue if you make it that way. To be honest, I believe George Bush and Barack Obama were pushing nearly the same agenda.

[MacMan5555]

@traceurjason you are awsome

[peepnklown]

The US Constitution should be amended to say, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, PERIOD!"

[milkgodnl]

.. yes, I see what you mean .. When we look at this portion of Article I Section 9, the clause that follows weakens it considerably:

"..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."

[TavishHill]

The population was not in rebellion nor under a invasion.

[TheRagingCelt]

MAGNA CARTA, BITCHES!!!

[daguilar7]

Bush goes to hell! And Habeus corpus comes back! Woooohooo!

[amiableCDN]

Evene Judges depend on who feed them.

Thank the Creator the vote was 5:4.

It might have been higher but even the jufdges know where their bread is buttered so as long as it passes the slimeball judges can vote against it as long as it wins anyway.

[dmanway]

Nevermind!

I was trying to say that the "cost" of keeping those detainees at gitmo has just became unbearable to the government. Therefore, brining back HC will give them an easy way out to either the death penalty or just simply sending them back to their countries of origin.

don't get me wrong! I'm still happy we got our constitution back in act.

[dmanway]

Why my comments are not posted!?

[dmanway]

I guess I was posting along one.

[norbu2006]

I have some bad news for you. This decision did not say that secret prisons are unconstitutional. Only de facto U.S. sovereign soil is protected by the Constitution. Also, didn't you go to law school? You should talk about Roberts's dissent, saying basically he defers to the political will of Bush and Congress to substitute for habeas with the military tribunal procedures, as far as due process goes.

[mcalien24]

scalias dissent is disgusting

[FeelFreeToArgue]

One of my favorite articles ever was one someone did right after the SCOTUS decision to install Bush that used Scalia's own prior opinions to defeat his rationale for voting in that case. Since then, I've not taken a single thing this intellectual fraud has said seriously.

[antoinehjl]

i feel a lot safer now that its back

[adamsfall]

Next to Bush and Cheney, add Pelosi to the list of those who should be criminally prosecuted. In Pelosi's case, it is obstruction of justice.

[AyaReiko77]

Bush = War Criminal, 'nuff said.

[sirfith]

Time to update the history books that progressive saint Franklin D. Roosevelt = War Criminal for Ex parte Quirin

...

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), is a Supreme Court of the United States case that upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal over the trial of several Operation Pastorius German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States.

[dacherx]

The Geneva Convention supersedes Ex parte Quirin. There is question if the WW2 German 8 got due process or railroaded by tortured confessions, which is exactly why secret tribunals are an affront to any civilized nation.

There are plenty post-WW2 terrorism laws in the books that cover and supersede any WW2 cases. FDR was no angel, interning the Japanese-Ams was another statist abuse of power. We can only resolve to learn from the past to not repeat mistakes in order to make a better future.

[sirfith]

The detainees at gitmo (and the nazi spys in Ex parte Quirin) did not follow the Geneva Convention (Not wearing a uniform/targeting civilians). If you do not follow the Geneva Convention, you are not entitled to Geneva Convention protections.

From the Geneva Convention Part I. Art 2.:

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

[laleeloolelo]

And how do we know the ones caught really are "enemy comabatant" in civilian clothing if not WITH HABEAS CORPUS?!

We're talking about a place where a SOLDIER like JAMES YEE can be sent to just because he's a muslim!!!

[dacherx]

If these are not Geneva Convention case, they belongs in civil court as plenty cold war precedence, no 3rd choice.

The civil courts and laws may have not been mature enough to deal with unprecedented war cases in 1942 and made mistakes. That was then, they had no time or experience to do a better job, we do.

We shouldn't use mistakes in the past to justify repeating them. Just like we don't repeat witch trials, segregation, slavery arguments. Leave the dirty past in the past. Move on.

[megamarsvin]

Forget the lawyer speak for a second and for a second and try to use your own brain. You think it's OK to imprison and torture confessions out of people who we picked up in a warzone for being in the wrong place at the wrong time without ANY oversight?

If we want to be argue that we're BETTER than 'the terrorists' we have to ACT better first.

[Mennion3]

Hurrah! Welcome back HC!

[siogyumolcs]

this is why you gotta VOTE for OBAMA and not McSame!!!

[dacherx]

And it's mind bending how GWB can just make up his own laws on "illegal combatants", when there is clear precedent of US courts prosecuting foreign captured drug kingpins from Gen. Noriega to Colombian drug cartels in another "war", the "war on drugs" and it's illegal combatants.

GWB shows total disrespect, disregard and dishonors the history, heritage and institutions. And Cheney high secrecy because he hates democracy. Rumsfeld hates the US military, by his meddling and masterminding.

[FeelFreeToArgue]

Cenk is right, this is huge. This is important. We can't live in a society where our freedom is at the pleasure of the chief executive or anyone he appoints and still think of ourselves in any way a free people. I'll perhaps have to...cringe...write a letter of thanks to Justice Kennedy. I think I can make myself do it...my hands may shake a little...

[dacherx]

Good. The debate was disgusting. Either you have absolute faith in the US Constitution without compromise or you don't. I believe the US Constitution is the ultimate foundation of the USA as a united people and legitimate nation.

I wonder if those who ignore the Constitution depending on which way the wind blows also view their Bible or their equivalent religious text in the same fuzzy way. It means they never believed in the Bible in the first place. The US Constitution is my Bible.

[MustacheVerra]

Well said!

[RockinRowdyRufus]

Whew...It almost feels like we were falling down a cliff toward fascism, and we reached up and caught a little branch...hope it holds.

[DeletedDelusion]

I'm glad for America, and the rest of the world.

Well done.

[swaggajee]

You know, I was just thinking about those 4 douchebags that voted against it. I think the Democrats should try to get them thrown off the bench on the basis that they are mentally unstable and unfit to reside on the bench.

I mean what sane and rational person would vote for something that would make their career and total life's work obselete? Seriously, for these ambitious lawyers to work so hard climb the ranks to the Supreme Court only to vote against the Judicial System is fuckin retarded

[eirefrance]

It would backfire. Democrats have been losing the partisan battle for 20 years. The reason Obama is so popular is that he tries to rise above this divide. I agree about their douchebaggery, but we have to 'respect' their position.

[swaggajee]

Why must we "respect" their position? NOT ANYMORE!!! That's exactly how America was put on the fast track to Fascismland!!!

When the neo-cons start talking their noise and fear-mongoring we need to expose it for the Hitler-speak that it is. Fuck being respectful!! I say turn them into Lil Hitlers and try to ruin them for the stupid shit they say...they certainly aren't respectful of my beliefs so fuck them if they get their feelings hurt.

[eirefrance]

Forcing them out of office because you disagree with their political positions IS fascism. Its playing right into their hands. The percentage of the country that think they agree with those judges will react by saying we are forcing our politics on them (which will be mostly right). Use your free speech, call them out, and if we can convince our citizens, maybe it will happen.

[SpiritualAtheist]

5 to 4. That's still pretty scary. VERY scary.

[eirefrance]

Remember that Kennedy (the swing vote in this and EVERY other 5-4 decision since Alito's nomination) is 88 and will probably retire soon. I don't have to tell you what a McCain nomination will do to the Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito bloc and the next 40 years of our country.

[Tobimar]

And the other scary thing about this ruling is the criticism that I heard on a Fox News news report. They said it was a ruling from the "liberal wing" of the Supreme Court. I would not call Anthony Kennedy a liberal. He's not as conservative as Scalia-Thomas-Alito, but he's sided with them more in this session than with the others.

[MachShot1337]

You think thats bad? Fox, before the rulling, was trying to promote the idea that they have more rights than regular prisoners. Which makes the location of the prison, in an area not bound by the constitution, make PERFECT sence.

[ilovesdgc]

Cheers!!!

[samuelantonio]

Chalk one up on the dam score board for democracy and the constitution of the United States, fuck ya!

[swaggajee]

Yay!! A great measure of pride was restored in my country today!!! Too bad there is still long, long way to go before I'm as proud of the USA as I once was.

Wow, now that it's set in a bit I'm feeling some relief. No more of that possible (but maybe unlikely) threat that the FBI could bust down my door, take me away with no one knowing, and keep me locked up forever with no trail just cause I spoke out against Dubya.

Phew!!!

[iammasterlion]

Welcome back Habeas Corpus. We missed you.

[UGOTDAJACK]

George Bush is a war criminal! Habeas Corpus is now back in effect...God is good

[KnoxSUX]

During the Civil War, Linclon stopped Habeas Corpus. Do you think he is a "war criminal"?

[Skeezy727]

Ummm, yes?

He is the only president in American history to start a cause a civil war.

[sydfynch]

The supreme court later ruled that action unconstitutional as well, although the constitution does allow for the revoking of Habeas in one instance only: if the country is under threat of invasion or insurrection. So it's a whole lot easier to argue Lincoln had cause than Bush, for sure. Bush has NO cause.

[KnoxSUX]

Remember, the terrorists attacked us FIRST. They killed thousands of Americans (remember 9-11-01?). Just think, the terrorists don't have a uniform, and we have no way of knowing who they are. Revoking of Habeas Corpus was critical in convicting terror suspects.

This isn't like WWII when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

[lestliness]

"convicting terror suspects" is critical indeed, but how do we know that they're guilty when the trial is private and out of public scrutiny? What if an innocent man goes to jail and he never had the right to plead his innocence. HB is so critical to the construct of the constitution that it really is the backbone that proves you have the right to have somebody listen to you. 9-11 was a crime and you deal with it as such, but our president used it to lie us into a war & commit tyranny at home.

[KnoxSUX]

The trials are ment to be private so only the military and the defendant are involved. HC is indeed critical to the citizens of the US, but not to the people who threaten our freedom. What "tyranny at home" do you speak of?

[dacherx]

Who threatens our freedom? The federal government is who.

For example, the way NY Gov. Spitzer was busted for paying a hooker was FBI using it's new anti-terrorism financing search powers to dig broadly into someone's finances, even for non-terror cases. Just like in the past how US gov't used anti-Mafia laws against activists and unions.

The government is the enemy of this "freedom" you speak of. Unless your definition of freedom is different than mine.

[laleeloolelo]

"HC is indeed critical to the citizens of the US, but not to the people who threaten our freedom."

And how do we know those people at Gitmo really there because they "threaten our freedom" and not because of prejudice or mistaken identity WITHOUT HABEAS CORPUS?

Do you remember JAMES YEE?!

[47f0]

Precisely correct. When the executive branch has so inflated their power that they can declare anyone on the planet, INCLUDING AMERICAN CITIZENS, an enemy combatant, and make them utterly vanish, then we have truly lost the values, and the freedom that the terrorists supposedly hate us for.

[47f0]

Shame on you. We are either Americans who represent incorruptible values, principles and the rule of law or we are not.

When we adopt the values of the bad guys, because we are fighting the bad guys, the whole world sees the hypocrisy, and we discard the foundations and principles of this country that say, "No matter what others may do, this nation will hold the high ground, morally, ethically and legally."

[GrownupPhan]

Refresh my memory, who has been convicted, and how was suspending HC crucial to that result?

[lestliness]

suspended habeas corpus. Bush was trying to kill it permanently.

[KnoxSUX]

You have NO way of knowing that for sure. Gotta love radical democrats.

[lestliness]

First off, you're judgment sucks. You take one sentence and you assume I'm radical democrat. I'm a conservative, not a neocon, just and old fashioned conservative. Second, you're making this a partisan issue when it's not. Finally what is it that I don't know for sure? That lincoln suspended HC? Or that Bush wanted to remove it permanently?

[KnoxSUX]

The Linclon thing wasn't directed towards you.

How can you assume that Bush wanted to remove it permanently? I'm sure there are different circumstances since our enemy doesn't wair a uniform.

In past wars what do you think happend to the POW's?

[dacherx]

Same way if an illegal commits a crime under US jurisdiction, imprisoned on US land, he is subject to US justice and US laws. Equal justice to all (in US jurisdiction).

Just like if you chew gum in Saudi Arabia, you are subject to Saudi law.

And "illegal war combatant" is just a nonsense term of convenience made up by GWB. It's either a war or not. And wars a fought by soldiers, however they are dressed. If there are no opposing soldiers, then there is no war.

[eirefrance]

Except they have not been made POWs specifically so that Geneva Coventions do not apply.

[KnoxSUX]

Then what are they?

[eirefrance]

Anyone defending their homeland from outside invasion is classified as a POW. Anyone we captured in Afghanistan or Iraq is, therefore, a POW. I wouldn't mind if the detainees were denied habeas corpus, so long as the Administration had the brains and balls to work out a proper (perhaps new) classification for them. Their decision to simply hold them for an indeterminate amount of time (and use torture, explicitly against Geneva Conventions) meant that someone had to something.

[KnoxSUX]

So you belive the terrorists can behead as many US soldiers as they can get their hands on and you think we shouldn't be able to "torture" derainees so they would talk?

Sure, if we can torture one life to save one hundred. Then be all means we will.

[TavishHill]

The problem is torture doesn't work. It isn't practical. You only end up onwild goose chases. And btw, the detainees aren't necessarily terrorists. Most of them likely have done nothing wrong in fact. If tey have, the govt will have no problem proving their case against the individual in a court of law. If you have evidence they are terrorists, then put up or shut up. Prove it in court, therwise, they have done nothing wrong and deserve o be let go.

[superRoot]

How about sexually torturing children in front of their parents? How would you like to be raped by a large object covered in battery acid? These tactics are both ADMITTED. I bet you watch 24; it has conditioned you, and many others, to accept the UNACCEPTABLE. Torture is not only disgusting, it is unreliable. Give me 30 minutes with you, and I'll have you admit to the Kennedy assassination you fool.

[beornborg]

The problem is that there is no guarantee that the intel gained from torture is credible. During the Inquisition, witch trials, and the Reign of Terror people confessed to all sorts of things that they did not do. We demean ourselves and lose credibility as a leading nation if we stoop to the level of a terrorist.

[KnoxSUX]

If we were to "stoop to the level of a terrorist" we would be beheading terrorists. Have you heard of that?

[eirefrance]

No, I don't believe that, but I don't want US legal officers to behave like terrorists, either. Shame on you for wanting that. The entire point of habeas corpus is that we don't know if the people in Gitmo ARE terrorists.

[KnoxSUX]

Torturing is a counter terrorism thing, sometimes we must get info from any way we can.

[beornborg]

How could you establish and enforce the rule of law when you don't respect it?

[KnoxSUX]

What do you mean? State your whole idea.

[laleeloolelo]

This is my idea.

In order to prevent an accident where an innocent man is wrongly imprisoned or tortured then we must have some kind of law which puts the burden of proof on the accuser before the accused can be imprisoned.

Isn't that what HABEAS CORPUS is?

[KnoxSUX]

First, if a person is caught with a terrorist cell he is probably affiliated with it. The only people in Guantanimo are terrorists and suspects.

[Tobimar]

Any proof to that? This is why we needed this ruling, so that the Bush Administration (or any future one) will be held accountable. If Congress will not do that, then let the courts do it.

[laleeloolelo]

Knox, James Yee wasn't caught with a terrorist cell and yet he was sent to Gitmo anyway.

You remember JAMES YEE don't you?

He's the MUSLIM US SOLDIER wrongly sent to Gitmo.

[beornborg]

Long term, torture damages our intent to restore security and establishing a democracy in Iraq. Habeas corpus needs to be respected otherwise we function as a secret police force that kidnaps and tortures without any checks and balances much like the terrorists and the old dictatorship. You can't have a functioning democracy or earn the respect of the Iraqi people without supporting fundamental human rights. In your view, knoxsux, how does torture promote democracy?

[KnoxSUX]

Torture promotes democracy because we get info. about terrorist's camps. That will help unify Iraq.

[Tobimar]

Torture does not promote democracy. Read any history book on the various Inquisitions? Was that promoting democracy?

[laleeloolelo]

"Torture promotes democracy because we get info. about terrorist's camps."

Do you have any example of ANY TERRORIST'S CAMPS that were exposed from this "interrogations"?

"24" isn't documentary you know.

[laleeloolelo]

Uh i don't think JAMES YEE would agree with you on that.

You remember him don't you?

[TavishHill]

The problem is the authorization to go into Iraq didn't just Bush permission to go into Iraq, it gave him the language to simply declare that any group of ppl who fought against foreign invasion were "terrorists" and in his "War on Terror", that meant they were classified as POW's by default.

[eirefrance]

If the Administration wants their policies to be followed, than they can't treat the Constitution like a bull in a china shop. They have to provide accepted legal justifications for their actions.

[eirefrance]

Thats true, we don't know that for sure, but the nature of this war is that victory can never be declared, just as in the War on Drugs. It allows for a continuous state of war-time priviledge.

[beornborg]

KnoxSux, do you support our Constitution or not?

[KnoxSUX]

Of course I do.

[eirefrance]

Where in the Constitution does it say the Government has the right to own and operate land that can be considered outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution?

[KnoxSUX]

We make deals with forein Government. It is still property of the US.

[eirefrance]

And what about being US property puts it outside of the jurisdiction of the Constitution?

[KnoxSUX]

Its private prop. Only US Armed Forces are allowed in. Guantanimo is a prison, not a tourist attraction.

[eirefrance]

My house is private property. I can't hold someone as a prisoner in my house. Are you suggesting that the Constitution is only in effect on publicly owned land?

[KnoxSUX]

Did I say that?

[banshee17067]

you can not hold someone prisoner in your home are you f-ing retarded? doesn't matter if they broke into your home or what. you can place them under citzens arrest until the police arrive and thats it

[eirefrance]

Huh? Detaining someone until the authorities arrive has no connection to the discussion, not to mention that citizen's arrests are not that simple. You cannot grab someone off of the street and lock them up in your home. You can also face legal action for performing a citizen's arrest.

[sophielovesmaher]

Yes, now.

One of the ideas that are a part of our national ideals is that if you take someone's rights away, you can do it for a bad one.

[tehflo]

i guess he hates america

[Wendy62]

It was a beautiful decision, yes. And I heard Rush Limbaugh screaming about it, later on in the morning -- LOL, he was all on the ACTIVIST JUDICIARY, all those evil judges that HIS GOP PRESIDENTS appointed.

[sugarpuddin88]

One Folk, One Reich, One Fuhrer - George Bush (the decider)

[BenAliGtor]

Thank God this day has come. The rule of law lives!

[soularimus]

Good to hear, good to hear.

HAHA when you say "how'd you like them apples?"

HAHA great

[totallyautomatic0]

america fuck yea, so lick my balls and something something.. its the american police theme

[pwg357]

Definetly cause for celebration!

A great day indeed civil rights. I hope many more are coming.

[BarryNC]

Excellent news. Maybe there's a little hope for this miserable country.

[nicolenigro]

This is the best news I have heard in a long time!!!!! I literally cried when Habeaus Corpus was abolished!

I have one question for any of the candidates- "If you win the Presidency, can we have our Constitution back?"

That is more important to me than half-hearted promised about health care and NAFTA and the economy.

[seemoretube]

First!

[mrtdot]

u were second