Habeas Corpus

I'm not arguing that these people shouldn't have rights, though I have mixed feelings about that.

What I'm arguing is that the exact same Justices (now there's an abuse of a term) who are so concerned about treatment of these detainees apparently don't think that normal, self-sustaining, perfectly innocent private citizens DO have rights.

Something is seriously wrong with those two positions.

Wait, there people being detained at Gitmo?

Xceler8x wrote:

Duke wrote: How DARE anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle try to claim they are better than Republicans.

~ Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, Stephens - considered left leaning moderate .

It takes a pretty distorted view of things to consider Ginsberg, Stephens, or Breyer "moderate".

slantvaliant wrote: It takes a pretty distorted view of things to consider Ginsberg, Stephens, or Breyer "moderate".

I was trying to use an unbiased website to draw on. Not my own views as I'm most def'ly biased.

To Duke's point...I think he's saying that his opinion is that SCOTUS has given more rights to the detainees and citizen's. A bit of a sidetrack really as we're talking rights to due process and not property rights in this thread.

But hey...Baxter says it's a free forum so we'll roll with whatever.

Baxter says it's a free forum so we'll roll with whatever.

I said that?

Tim Baxter wrote:

Baxter says it's a free forum so we'll roll with whatever.

I said that?

Quiet You.. or we'll deem you a unlawful postbatant and throw you in GRMmo.

Xceler8x wrote: To Duke's point...I think he's saying that his opinion is that SCOTUS has given more rights to the detainees and citizen's. A bit of a sidetrack really as we're talking rights to due process and not property rights in this thread.

It is a bit of a diversion. I was just amazed - and not a little pissed off - to note how precisely the vote casting mirrored the voting in the eminent domain debacle. Especially since the Justices themselves are making such a point about individual rights and the supposed "strength" of the Constitution in THIS case. Here, in the HC case, the rights of the individual are highly ambiguous. The SCOTUS has come out in staunch support of Constitutional due process for them.

Yet in the eminent domain case, where the rights of the individuals concerned were not ambiguous AT ALL, those same jackas... I mean, judges were not in the slightest concerned about crapping all over individual rights and treating the Constitution like toilet paper.

Mark Levin had an interesting comment about the ruling at nationalreview.com:

That “black hole” was neither created yesterday nor by George Bush. It has been the practice and law in this country since its beginning. It was the position of the Supreme Court in Eisentrager 58 years ago. And that “black hole” exists for two primary reasons: 1. to detain unlawful and lawful combatants until the end of hostilities, thereby keeping them off the battlefield where they can kill American soldiers and, in the case of terrorists, kill civilians (as they have extended the battlefield to our cities); and 2. to interrogate the detainees to secure information that might save the lives of American soldiers and civilians. Now, it seems to me that these are very important objectives. At least they were considered as such in past wars.