This story is archived

War, Atrocities, Jurisdiction and Habeas Corpus »

Posted by: populist 2 years, 6 months ago

Archived 86 0 drops

it doesn't matter if the US is at war. It doesn't matter if the politicians tell us someone is a terrorist. It doesn't matter if atrocities have been committed, or if a person is being held "outside" jurisdiction. Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended Ã¢â;¬" except in cases of "rebellion or invasion.&qu

Read Full Story at tenthamendmentcenter.com »

Submitted By:

populist

The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...

Who Also Submitted:

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 182

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
populist
May 4, 2007, 6:50 p.m.
another good read on this important issue:
"To Whom Does the Bill of Rights Apply?"
http://www.populistamerica.com/to_whom_does_the...
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
endtyranny
May 4, 2007, 6:56 p.m.
They were at war when they wrote the Constitution, if they wanted to make special provisions for war, they would have made them.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
berkeley
May 4, 2007, 8:23 p.m.
how many members of congress are lawyers?
how many can remember past last week?
congress is, and has been, a complete disgrace in their attention to the basic principles of law and our constitution. their oath of office seems to mean nothing.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
buddyb
May 4, 2007, 8:45 p.m.
Here is my question: If GWB isn't smart enough to find his a$$ with both hands (which he isn't), what person or group is behind this slaughter of the individual's rights? There are many theories. Does anyone really know?
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
miklkit
May 4, 2007, 9:08 p.m.
My question is why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled on the patriot act and the military commissions act?
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
miklkit
May 4, 2007, 9:25 p.m.
Ok, what's to keep someone from forcing the issue by bringing it up through the court system to the supreme court? Someone like the ACLU, for example? It has been a while since those "laws" were passed.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
rickcb
May 4, 2007, 10:56 p.m.
"It is easy for us to follow the Constitution, and the principles it embodies in times of peace, but it is far more telling how we hold the Constitution in times of war." - Me (lol)
Avg rating: (+10/-1 9)
rickcb
May 4, 2007, 11:08 p.m.
It seems these days we are not so much a nation founded on Democracy as we are founded on capitalism. Greed and glutony...wealth at any cost of principles is the driving force in the country today. This administration particularly will get away with ANY breech of principles...not to mention our Constitution.
The 08 election is coming up fast...remember these things when you are shopping for your candidate people! Don't be fooled by sound bytes.
We need a candidate who will hold the Constitution in higher regard than they hold themselves!
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
rickcb
May 4, 2007, 11:15 p.m.
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
-- Harry S Truman
Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)
Obaku
May 5, 2007, 2:45 a.m.
It seems this is a good time for my standard advice:
Buy gold and silver.
Buy ammunition.
Know who your friends are.
Be prepared for the worst disaster you can imagine.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
blowback
May 5, 2007, 4:13 a.m.
Habeas Corpus is to determine the legitimacy of holding a civilian in custody. Introduced as an Act in England in 1679 it did two things (1) the first recognition of the rights of the individual and (2) limit of the powers of the King. It still does and should.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
Obaku
May 5, 2007, 5:07 a.m.
It is not just habeas corpus, it is the whole 6th Amendment under attack.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
GLee
May 5, 2007, 9:17 a.m.
The captured 'Terrorist' are prisoners of war, not like breaking a law here in the States.
Avg rating: (+10/-1 9)
icono1
May 5, 2007, 11:20 a.m.
Good point.
Avg rating: (+9/-0 9)
Ruggaboo
May 5, 2007, 2:32 p.m.
Sounds like another Populist pizza party tirade.
The slathering mad dogs of the left and their hate America agendas continue to foster discontent.
The bottom line is catering to terrorists and their propanganda is a crime. Those who indulge themselves in it have no banner to hide behind. They will be served in due time.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
EvilConservative
May 5, 2007, 2:54 p.m.
You realize ,of course,your opinion means nothing and you infulence nobody.
Avg rating: (+3/-2 1)
donald51
May 5, 2007, 3:30 p.m.
Evil, please explain why our government thought they could incarcerate a US Army Captain for 76 days of solitary confinement, all resulting in no charges and his divorce. Look up the case of West Pointer, Cpt Yee!
No sane American should be happy that the president can define what torture to apply to whomever he considers a terrorist! Particularly a president who has shown himself to be so incompetent at everything he has done and has lied or deceived Americans so much already!
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
caneher
May 5, 2007, 5:47 p.m.
While I would have to agree that there are abuses going on. There are several strong argument that do require clarification. Since it can be suspended in times of invasion it can be argued that the terrorist are invader hence it does not apply to them. That will have to be settled by the Supreme Court.
In more than one place in the constitution congress is given the power to make rules for what our government can do outside the United States. Constitutional Scholars and Lawyers differ about the meaning of such and it will again require the Supreme Court to make a clear decision. However what is also clear is that the Supreme Court can choose not to decide. The Supreme Court only hears cases that it chooses to.
Avg rating: (+7/-1 6)
caneher
May 5, 2007, 6 p.m.
One other comment for those that say that the, right, left, center or any other positions taken her is un-American. These people are doing the most American thing you can do, standing up to be counted.