Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus [View all]soryang
(3,304 posts)273. Links
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/case/us/71/2
this is the link to Ex Parte Milligan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=30433
this is the link to my discussion of the analytic backdrop to the DAA is John Yoo's bizarre and unconstitutional adoption of the wrong headed WWII Quirin decision which ignored Milligan without explanation.
this is the link to Ex Parte Milligan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=30433
this is the link to my discussion of the analytic backdrop to the DAA is John Yoo's bizarre and unconstitutional adoption of the wrong headed WWII Quirin decision which ignored Milligan without explanation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
420 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm astonished so many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus [View all]
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
OP
I would only add that he failed to close the Pandora's boxES that Bush opened. nm
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#344
I'll be there with you. Something has to be done to stop this and it's clear now
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#345
And the fact that American citizens are exempt from indefinite detention without trial.
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#15
It's really weird that you call yourself "Far Left Fist" when you spend most of the time
Ken Burch
Dec 2011
#63
There's really nothing more Left than the truth. Which is all I'm speaking.
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#97
I have noticed that too. But his name is "Far Left Fist", so how can you question his "leftness". nm
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#343
In combat. Zero evidence presented anywhere at any time that Awlaki was a terrorist.
Luminous Animal
Dec 2011
#126
In your example, you use an incident from a "Declared War" against another Nation
bvar22
Dec 2011
#209
And we are still waiting for evendence that there was any combat involved in that killing.
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#223
If that sovereign country gives us permission, then no, it's not a crime.
NutmegYankee
Dec 2011
#364
I read that piece of garbage when it first was voted on, unfortunately by too many
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#408
I do not support Bush policies, the US Government has adapted Bush policies.
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#414
Yet we are not at war. Haven't been in a war since WWII. Congress has issued no declaration of war.
mbperrin
Dec 2011
#276
Naturally no one is going to challenge it. It makes too much money for the right people.
mbperrin
Dec 2011
#360
That was the Bush administration's claims. We elected Democrats to put an end to those
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#370
I refuse to accept the Bush claim that we are at war with the world. Yes, absolutely
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#387
Can you show me where in the Constitution these rights are limited to citizens?
Bjorn Against
Dec 2011
#182
Once again, please read...it's professionally written, and makes a lot of sense...
Richard Charnin
Dec 2011
#230
ProSense, Are you an attorney? Have you researched the precedent, the case law on this?
JDPriestly
Dec 2011
#266
Does that mean you think we still honor habeas corpus? Or does that mean you are ok with not
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#351
The option? We are protected under the Constitution. It even says that in the NDAA, along with
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#33
OK, and I'll side with the Bill itself. If the language changes to be used against us in the future
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#57
US citizens aren't entitled to a trial if detained under the provisions of 1031 a-e
Major Nikon
Dec 2011
#133
If they are "covered persons", involved with the Taliban or Al-qaeda in the war against the US
bhikkhu
Dec 2011
#265
1031 defines "covered persons", who are to be held in the military detention system
bhikkhu
Dec 2011
#286
That's not what 1032 says and you are passing very bad information off as fact
Major Nikon
Dec 2011
#337
You can't tell the difference between a blog at a URL, and a vetted media story?
boppers
Dec 2011
#107
If you are a U.S. citizen then a judge does. And you have to be proven to be planning an attack.
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#36
Al-Awlaki was already convicted by a Yemenite court to be captured dead or alive.
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#44
Wait - did we execute US citizen al-Alwlaki because Yemen wanted him dead,
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
#60
I'm sure the reason was because he was aiding Al-Qaeda, like the NDAA says is allowed.
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#73
No, not if THEY say, if YOU say. He was videotaped waging "jihad" on the U.S.
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#76
Sorry, FarLeftFist, there is no definition for terrorism that is clear and understandable.
JDPriestly
Dec 2011
#264
A terraist is anyone TPTB say is a terraist, even if the supposed connection is
indepat
Dec 2011
#295
Well put. Rethugs have been able to set most of the national agenda since WWII imo
indepat
Dec 2011
#314
You mean like Al Awlaki and his teenage son who were given the death penalty without
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#114
Where does the Constitution say non-citizens don't have the right to trial.
Bjorn Against
Dec 2011
#184
As far as military detention, section 1036 details the rights to trial and recourse
bhikkhu
Dec 2011
#254
IMO it's putting us on a very dangerous path for abuse by someone, eventually. Imagine the
RKP5637
Dec 2011
#9
When you refuse to show up for your trial, you don't get to moan about your defense.
boppers
Dec 2011
#129
None of which is really true, but none of which has anything to do with my point.
PDJane
Dec 2011
#328
I'm not old enough to personally remember, but by the 80's it turned out to be all theater anyways.
boppers
Dec 2011
#357
Not a police state because we do not yet have check points at state border crossings?
RC
Dec 2011
#61
Orwell? I'm surprised we're not getting reports of an earthquake in Philadelphia
dflprincess
Dec 2011
#88
land of the free to keep your mouth shut and home of the airport molesters
leftyohiolib
Dec 2011
#267
Aside from the broad assumption about DUers, how are we ending Habeas Corpus specifically?
pinto
Dec 2011
#22
"Not intended to state a policy which changes anything" except, you see, it does.
Pamela Troy
Dec 2011
#296
I agree with you, Manny. I think the complacency here is due to confusion about what
JDPriestly
Dec 2011
#26
+1, I'm surprised how many seem to treat it as a joke. while others demand evidence but then ignore
limpyhobbler
Dec 2011
#29
I agree and will add that I think that most likely a President Obama will not abuse this power - But
Douglas Carpenter
Dec 2011
#34
Where in the bill is habeas suspended? The writ is guaranteed by plain language of
struggle4progress
Dec 2011
#56
No one will subscribe to the legal theory that Congress has the power to override the Constitution;
struggle4progress
Dec 2011
#83
Habeas corpus was suspended for foreigners in 2006. Having lived Overseas, I have been waiting for
Overseas
Dec 2011
#195
But our protections AREN'T diminished. We are still protected by the Constitution. It even says that
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#47
but we all watched as Dimsun 'misunderstood' his way to robust presidential power...
StarsInHerHair
Dec 2011
#70
This is getting very fringe. Lets talk about jobs, the environment, economics.
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#84
The Constitution is only as strong as the current courts inforcement. The courts ruled
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#346
We should all be concerned for the potential Administrative abuse of power ...
AnotherMcIntosh
Dec 2011
#67
Too many uppity serfs made the powers-that-be take off the velvet gloves to show us their steel fist
phasma ex machina
Dec 2011
#69
I second that. I remember how people went crazy when this type of law was brought up during the
Justice wanted
Dec 2011
#77
Thats because Habaeus Corpus actually WAS dropped under Bush. This bill doesn't do that.
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#86
It doesn't restore it either. It basically drop what few part of Habaeus Corpus we had left.
Justice wanted
Dec 2011
#92
the bill codifies the power of the president to designate who gets detained indefinitely
Fiendish Thingy
Dec 2011
#122
I read the bill, 6x already. It EXEMPTS U.S. citizens. UNLESS they are proven to work for Al-Qaeda.
FarLeftFist
Dec 2011
#138
Not aware of the level of concern during Bush Regime.. got to be inside a the DC bubble
2banon
Dec 2011
#255
I can only imagine what those on this board who support this bill would be saying
dflprincess
Dec 2011
#82
I've yet to see a cogent explanation of why the ominous legal gibberish in this bill is necessary.
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2011
#87
Aww, Manny, what'cha complainin' about? Habeas Corpus, Posse Comitatus, the Geneva Conventions - all
kath
Dec 2011
#90
War, Constitution shredding, universal surveillance are OK if Democrats do them
kenny blankenship
Dec 2011
#99
I know. I was making a joke, like if "Habeas Corpus" were a band. I used a picture of The Clash
Warren DeMontague
Dec 2011
#120
Senator Merkley Explains How YOU Could Be Indefinitely Imprisoned With No Trial thanks to NDAA 2012
limpyhobbler
Dec 2011
#115
You are mistaken about how the bill is applied to US Citizens. The Feinstein amendment specifically
BzaDem
Dec 2011
#118
Yes -- that Supreme Court decision specifically applies to detainees in Guantanamo.
BzaDem
Dec 2011
#176
I challenge you to link one post where a DUer, who believes Habeas Corpus is ending...
joshcryer
Dec 2011
#134
I think folks would need to be mental to support the ending of Habeas Corpus
MichaelMcGuire
Dec 2011
#150
For those thinking some of us are interpreting NDAA wrong, please look at
justiceischeap
Dec 2011
#162
All the posts from people saying "If he just had his magic wand" and "You whiners! Just because you
AllyCat
Dec 2011
#167
Republiscams and Birchers won't be able to vote from their detention facility
L. Coyote
Dec 2011
#173
I wouldn't think a single DUer is "cool" with that, Manny. I'm guessing everybody
gateley
Dec 2011
#175
There are some, who will defended the president, and their party, no matter what they do.
got root
Dec 2011
#181
I'm not astonished at all. Something pernicious is going on here (at DU)....
truth2power
Dec 2011
#183
It is like living in a surreal nightmare inhabited by brain dead pod people.
Dragonfli
Dec 2011
#200
Under Hamdi, a plurality of SCOTUS Justices said that Habeas Corpus can be suspended if
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
#207
Aw c'mon. Using the Bill of Rights for toilet paper is OK if the person has a "D" after their name..
abq e streeter
Dec 2011
#204
I'm disheartened but not surprised. I've been reading DU for a long time. /nt
yardwork
Dec 2011
#221
I fear both parties in Congress love to have the power to keep the "little people" under control...
spin
Dec 2011
#236
Not in favor of Habeas Corpus, but you have to have a CONGRESS who believes in DEMOCRACY
CarmanK
Dec 2011
#224
I've been astonished that DUer's have accepted the constant shift to the right ever since Obama took
slay
Dec 2011
#228
you really should post when habeas corpus ended and how many du'ers are cool with it
spanone
Dec 2011
#249
Count me out on this one too. Giving up our liberty for security is unacceptable.
ScottLand
Dec 2011
#259
I'm astonished so many DUers think they know precisely what so many other DUers think.
patrice
Dec 2011
#275
some will kiss obama's butt even as they are loaded on the trucks. consider
roguevalley
Dec 2011
#292
Yes, if you apologize and delete your posts, I'd be happy to answer your questions.
MannyGoldstein
Dec 2011
#329
This was so disappointing after the great speech of the previous week that I'm left speechless
diane in sf
Dec 2011
#320
Where's the link that shows many DUers are cool with ending Habeas Corpus? Sounds fishy to me. nt
valerief
Dec 2011
#324
I am astonished that someone would make such a claim without any evidence.
yellowcanine
Dec 2011
#334