Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rack it up - democrats (and I mean every single rotten one of us) now officially hate the Constitution, as well as God, families, straight people, unborn babies, freedom, and according to Rush - oil. Good grief.

Posted by andtongs (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You won't have the constitution to protect you in hell.

Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The ruling was a correct one, reinforcing the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of writs of habeas corpus. It was not a political reinterpretation of the document. Good grief.

Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

andtongs still believes God votes Republican.

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on June 25, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This ruling may cause the military to "Take no prisoners"
unfortunatly. FDR must be spinning in his grave.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bush created the false need for us to urgently invade Iraq because they had WMDs and that we were all in danger. That, among the dozens of his other well-documented lies, along with his attempt to create more powers with less oversight for his executive branch, along with his tight relationship with the likes of the Ted Haggards of our nation and his attempt to push legislation for billions of dollars going to their faith-based outlets, along with the billions of dollars unaccounted for by Haliburton and its subsidiaries in Iraq, along with all the other corruption Bush is reponsible for, should be reason enough for everyone to seriously question anything else he's done. Most especially, whom he appoints to our Supreme Court, whom will hold those positions for life terms.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm confused how a supporter of the constitution would support denying basic due process rights to detainees on U.S. controlled land.

Posted by freda (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The detainees at Guantanimo are enemy combatants - terrorists - and not US Citizens and therefore not entitled to the protections that the US Contitutions gives to US Citizens. Habius Corpus is a Citizen's right, not an enemy combatant's right. This is not the United States of the World! Illegal Immigrants are not entitled to US Citizen's rights either. I think it is interesting that the very folks to whom this letter appeared to be directed to, are not the ones posting comments. I once recieved an email that had great advice..."Save a tree, cancel your liberal (Daily Journal) subscription".

Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone who believes in basic human rights should recognize that habius corpus applies to ANYONE who stands trial by the US Courts and/or US Government.

What's wrong with getting these people a speedy trial? What's the point in letting them sit in Guantanamo for years while we decide what to do with them? For all you conservatives I would think this would be the last thing you would want since it's the US Taxpayers money that pays for them to sit there.

Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Freda -- The Constitution is not just about guaranteeing rights to US citizens. Perhaps its most important function is that it puts limitations on what our government can do to people, and those limitations MUST be in effect not only on our soil but anywhere else, too. Furthermore, those limitations are meaningless if they only apply to American citizens, or if they can be sidestepped whenever the administration feels justified in doing so. While it's vital that we fight terrorism, we simply cannot bypass our most fundamental laws in the name of national security. We CHEAPEN America when we do so.
.
As conservative columnist George Will wrote last week, "No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America's Constitution, which limits Congress' power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion.... As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, 'is a separation of powers principle' involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment."
.
The Supreme Court acted correctly in this case.

Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

freda,
Except the Constitution doesn't say that due process is only a right guaranteed to citizens. In fact, it specifically refers to "people."

Read the Bill of Rights. I think you'll find it enlightening.

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like your 8:58 a.m. argument, ANonnyMoose. And for those of you whom believe this country was founded upon Christian principles - think again. The church's doctrine states that 'it' is the only power on Earth and the only power above it is God. Look up 'Unam Sanctam' or ' Asculta filii'.

In America, as many of you are aware, we have a democracy and everyone has rights . . . including the right to vote for our representatives. This would not be possible with the church's system. Who gets to vote for the pope, or any other of its clergy? The church is the offspring of the monarchial system of government. Look at the language: our lord, the king, the kingdom of . . ., etc.

The only difference between the church and the monarchial system it was borne of is the church doesn't have legions of soldiers to enforce the pope's desires, as do monarchs and emperors. The pope doesn't need soldiers to enforce doctrine because it uses the psychology of terror to control its sheep. The terror is the fear of an eternal hell. But it did take many, many centuries of actual terroristic carnage and bloodshed to convert all of Europe to Christianity during the church's infancy under The Holy Roman Empire. Oh, and there was a time when the Italian people revolted against the Vatican and the pope hired the Austrian army to fight its battles. They say money can buy anything, and the Vatican is the wealthiest bank in the world, after all.

One might wonder 'why the need for hiring an army when the pope claims to be BFF with the one and only omnipotent being in the universe'. It's laughable! So is the bulletproof popemobile. Our country is full of suckers. It's why I keep getting email from Mr. Mybooty and his clan in Nigeria telling me to send a few thousand and he'll send me a share in tens of millions. They all know we have a huge number of dolts who'll fall for that BS. It's also why U.S. churches have historically been the target of con artists. Take, for instance, Ted Haggard. He was one of the greatest leaders of the modern Christian movement in the U.S. What a con artist he turned out to be. It's a good thing Bush didn't get to push his 'Faith-Based Initiatives' plan on us (you know, the one where government would allocate trillions of dollars to the Ted Haggards of our country).

Separation of church and state was the greatest definer of this country and I'm glad for it and the rest of the constitution and its bill of rights.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Habeas Corpus is the only thing that keeps Bush's Gestapo from breaking in to your house and taking you out of your bedrooms in the middle of the night. Without Habeas Corpus you could be declared an unlawful combatant by the executive branch of government, which would essentially be a dictatorship at that point, and carried away to some dark dank place never to be seen or heard from again. IMHO, Habeas Corpus is the most important provision in our Constitution. Anyone who disagrees with the Court's decision in this matter either doesn't understand the Court's ruling or is a Fascist SOB.

Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW, Habeas Corpus applies to "ANY PERSON", not "ANY CITIZEN".

Posted by hometown (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hold on now,

The Posse comatatus law says that you cannot use the military for police work and things of that nature. Therefore the U.N. (which is so highly touted by the left when it suits them) enacted the geneva convention which in part govenrs the laws, as well as the rights of POW's which is what they are, not American citizen's. Prisoner's of war are governed soley by the Geneva conventions and should not be by our supreme court which is for American citizen's not POW's. This is a war lest people forget, right or wrong. Further, for all you bleeding hearts who care so much about the detainee's in guatanamo better remember that these folks were taken in combat zones while actively fighting or killing our servicmembers and would kill you and your family if they had the chance. These are not nice people, they activly pray and wish for our deaths and destuction. Finally, the military and our judicial system was kept separate for a reason so that our American rights were not trampled on by the government using the military on us when we disagreed, and that is why we must not use anything except the Geneva Convention when dealing with "detainees" is gitmo.

Posted by hometown (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EDRULE3

So why do you hate on religon?

You can say that people are stupid to believe in a higher power but many, many people have been helped by religon. Whether it was to find a purpose, or get a thanksgiving turkey to those who would normally go without. Before you rail too hard on organized religon I simply ask that you remember all the good that they do and what our society as a whole would look like without it. It may not be for you but it is for millions of others who do believe and for you to think us believers all suckers, please think again.

Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Finally, the military and our judicial system was kept separate for a reason so that our American rights were not trampled on by the government using the military on us when we disagreed, and that is why we must not use anything except the Geneva Convention when dealing with 'detainees' [in G]itmo."

Hometown -- Your argument in this sentence makes no sense. You are correct in saying that the military (being part of the executive branch) is separate from the judicial branch. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not the Geneva Convention (GC) applies to the detainees, or whether or not it's the ONLY standard that applies. (You may recall that the Bush Administration at first tried to argue that the GC does NOT apply to the detainees, but the Supr. Court ruled in 2006 that it does.)

You are suggesting that ONLY the GC applies here, and that U.S. laws do not, meaning the Supreme Court should butt out. That is simply not true. Keep in mind that Gitmo is not only a military program; rather it's the U.S. Government itself -- the Bush Administration (executive branch), acting under the authority of special powers granted by Congress (legislative branch) -- who is responsible for Gitmo. With Gitmo, just like with everything else it does, the government must follow its own laws, and the Supreme Court has the authority and the responsibility to determine whether the other two branches of government are proceeding according to the guidelines that are laid out in the Constitution. Again, this has nothing to do with whether the detainees are U.S. citizens or not; the question before the Court was whether or not the government is acting legally.

The GC applies to prisoners of war once they're held. This issue pertains to whether or not they're being held properly in the first place, going above and beyond the guidelines set out in the GC. The question was, do these detainees have the right to contest their imprisonment in a court of law like anyone else who's been imprisoned by the U.S. Govt? The Constitution states that habeas corpus rights (which, by U.S. law, apply to everyone, not only Americans) may only be suspended by an act of Congress enacted during a time of "rebellion or invasion". The Court's ruling was that the military tribunal procedures that have been set up by the Bush Admin., by the authority of the Detainee Treatment Act passed by Congress, are legally inadequate, not sufficient to meet the standards required by the Constitution. Therefore, habeas corpus has not been legally suspended; therefore, the detainees have the right to contest their imprisonment in U.S. Courts.

As long as the detainees are being held, the rules of the GC must be followed. But it is simply not true that U.S. laws can be, or must be, simply ignored in the meantime, as you seem to be suggesting. Our government does not have the legal right to violate the Constitution whenever it wants to.

Posted by hometown (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lawful combatants do not have the same rights as the average american. I believe that the constitution and the bill of rights were meant for Americans and a model for the rest of the world. That doesen't mean that the rest of the world has to follow those ideals nor adhere to the rights guranteed therein. Therefore they are not afforded the same rights as Americans because they are lawful combatants and subject to the international courts and tribunals and governed by the Geneva Convention which BTW none of our enemies since ww2 have followed anyway. We (servicemembers use the code of conduct as well as the geneva convetions to guide us as to the proper actions taken for and with POW's when they are captured. Just because they are on what's considered US territory does not make them American citizen's and therefore not subject to our rights, freedoms or laws. Please remember that many German's in WW2 were taken and brought to Fort Indiantown Gap PA. for internment as POW's. They had no leagal right to contest their detaintion and they have no right now. The government is not violating the Constitution rather they are following international law via the Geneva Conventions. Also Bush tried to get around the Geneva Conventions because none of our enemies follwed it. I was in Iraq and had the pleasure of helping transport these pow's to several detaintion facilities and we always treated them with care and consideration when in our custody. The same cannot be said about our cruel and heartless enemies who will torture and kill you with no regard for the geneva conventions or any other law for that matter. The only reason we follow it at all is because we are trained and try to do the right thing everytime we encounter an enemy.

Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Point-by-point, Part 1:

"Lawful combatants do not have the same rights as the average [A]merican." -- The Court's ruling was that YES, Gitmo detainees DO have the same rights as the average American, because the Gitmo system is legally flawed. It had to be set up according to U.S. laws before combatants were ever detained, and THEN those detainees could be subject to the military tribunal system of appeal. But since it wasn't, detainees get to appeal in court just like you and I would.
.
"I believe that the constitution and the bill of rights were meant for Americans and a model for the rest of the world." -- The Constitution does more than guarantee rights to Americans. It also places legal limits on the actions of our government in everything that it does, both here and abroad. That function applies here.
.
"That [doesn't] mean that the rest of the world has to follow those ideals nor adhere to the rights guranteed therein." -- Correct. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone did?
.
"Just because they are on what's considered US territory does not make them American [citizens] and therefore not subject to our rights, freedoms or laws." -- Unless they have diplomatic immunity, foreigners ARE subject to our laws while they're here, just like we're subject to other nations' laws when we leave. Some rights, such as the right to vote in U.S. elections, are only available to U.S. citizens. Other rights, such as habeas corpus, are granted to everyone, including foreigners, as long as those rights aren't specifically legally suspended.

Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Part 2:
.
"Please remember that many [Germans] in WW2 were taken and brought to Fort Indiantown Gap PA. for internment as POW's. They had no [legal] right to contest their [detention]..." -- You offer that statement as evidence that Gitmo detainees must suffer the same fate. Do you have evidence that such camps were properly set up under legislation passed according to the Constitution? If they were, then you can't compare them to Gitmo. If not, then they were as flawed as Gitmo is.
.
"The government is not violating the Constitution rather they are following international law via the Geneva Conventions." -- According to the Supreme Court, who is the ultimate body to decide such things, the government HAS been violating the Constitution by not properly suspending habeas corpus and thereby denying the detainees due process. The GC doesn't address that concern.
.
"Also Bush tried to get around the Geneva Conventions because none of our enemies [followed] it." -- That gives you some idea as to the recklessness of the current administration. America should hold itself to the highest possible standard of conduct and follow the GC no matter who else does.

"I was in Iraq and had the pleasure of helping transport these pow's to several [detention] facilities and we always treated them with care and consideration when in our custody." I commend and thank you for your service. You were setting the correct example of how we should behave in the international community. If our government had taken that much care in establishing Gitmo, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Posted by hometown (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

While we fundamentally disagree about what is correct and what should be correct, I want to take a moment to say I found ANNAmoose's comments enlightning. This is the way a proper online discussions should be. People politely agreeing to disagree and discussing matters and opinons, not arguing. So to Annamoose, Thank You!

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hometown;
I don't 'hate' anything, but I despise how easily people are led like sheep to believe they are doing good things 'in the name of God' by those with agendas. I despise the Iraq war and how these sheep came to be led like cows with nose rings to elect Bush. I despise that the religions are operating from foreign shores and invoking their policies in our nation in the name of religion. I despise that the sheep 'just don't get it'. And I do believe there is a higher power, just not the ones found in churches that were contrived by rich elitists for their own purposes. If you're really interested in what I think then click on my username and read my past posts.

From your post addressing me above it sounds as though you're saying it's O.K. to not believe in a higher power (God), but church is great bacause of its social value and humanitarian agenda. That sounds hypocritical, no?

Are you saying that, without religion (Christianity in particular), there would be no humanity? Pray tell how the human race existed all those eons without the Holy Roman Empire forcing it upon all of Europe using the most horrific forms of terrorism imaginable. This horror may have been what your and my ancestors had to live with for centuries, but we wouldn't know it because it was not allowed to be spoken of. In fact, during the rise of Christianity under the Holy Roman Empire, everyone had to abandon their heritage, their religion, their culture. . . everything that was 'them', their true identity, was abandoned in order that they not be killed as their neighbors, friends and family members already were. It was a time when everyone was afraid of everyone else because anyone could cast dispersions upon anyone and the church would simply put them to death . . . no trial, just death. Neighbor feared neighbor, family member feard family member, it was a nightmare of constant paranoia and dread. Imagine the horror our ancestors had to go through.

But the Empire didn't leave a void . . . they gave our ancestors a surrogate heritage of another people, the Jews, in the form of the bible, and a new religion, Roman Catholicism, to live with. So, as a survival tactic, everyone raised their babies to believe the lie, generation after generation, until it became the norm, and everything of the past was gone forever. Can you recall anything about your heritage from the Old World (if you're of European ancestry)? Probably not. Is that fair? Is that a value America is based on? Some will have you believe it is a good thing, but why would they tell you that?

Posted by edrule3 (anonymous) on July 2, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Understand, Christianity is an evolved religion. It is a mixture from many that preceeded it. If you can get this link to play you can learn a lot form it (you may have to keep trying. It is either busy or YouTube removes it and someone then puts it back). But, you have to have an open mind (an American value), to do that. But the fact is: The lower a person's IQ - the less they are capable of having an open mind. You sound intelligent enough though:

http://ftp.youtube.com/watch?v=2aW2N46vf...

Religion is nothing more than a way to control people. The Roman aristocracy saw the Jews controlling their masses without the need for legions of expensive soldiers and decided to do the same. Except the Empire was in a hurry and there was resistance, hence the centuries of the church's brutal terrorist rampage known as: The Dark Ages.

All religions begin as nothing more than an attempt to explain the unexplainable. They are attempts to answer the eternal questions: 'Why mam I here' and 'Is there something after this life?'. More than that, they evolve into businesses. And they are in eternal competition with each other for territory and the minds of the multitudes. Do you really believe our God wants us killing each other in his name? Now that's hypocrisy to the hilt.

Posted by Mel (anonymous) on July 3, 2008 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Religion is nothing more than a way to control people" edrule3.
So is politics, but without the moral standard.