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]Javaman
(62,848 posts)412. Perhaps we are just arguing about the same thing and don't
realize it.
Cheers.
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
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
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