Colbert: Obama Denies Habeas Corpus

evansays...

If I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong (I know and hope you will)...but the right to habeas corpus under what legal document, exactly? As far as I'm aware, that only applies to Americans.

I'm all for granting POWs and "detainees" habeas corpus, but if what I think I know is true, there's no legal basis for it, and the DOJ might be fighting it on purely legal grounds. Of course, if they're doing that and Obama's not out front going "yes, but...we're going to grant them this instead", then the criticism, I feel, might be valid.

vairetubesays...

Nope, you're wrong. (talking to rotty but i guess it goes for both above)

Plus ... werent people all pissed that Obama was going to give the detainees like, freedom or something... talk about hypocrisy.. be glad you got what you wanted for once.

That's at least twice now you've tried to coin the phrase "professional poster"...

I believe "Islamocommunigger" took off with very little effort.

ps: they can send me to cuba tomorrow if it'll get us more projects like high speed transit. damn that will be sweet.

Asmosays...

>> ^rougy:
>> ^Memorare:
shhhhh, you're not supposed to point out blatant hypocrisy when it's Bama!

No, man, we do.
We lefties are funny like that.


Aye, I don't think right wingers get the idea that lefties won't cling to someone (even if you disagree with their politics) like they do because they'd rather appear loyal than acting on their conscience.

So, to clarify, if someone promises you good stuff, then doesn't deliver, we'll criticise them. Regardless of patisan bias.

xowlsays...

>> ^evan:
If I'm not mistaken, and correct me if I'm wrong (I know and hope you will)...but the right to habeas corpus under what legal document, exactly? As far as I'm aware, that only applies to Americans


Under the US Constitution. Article I, section 9, expressing limits on what the legislature can do:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Nothing about where or to whom it applies, but there is the "public safety" escape clause (altough rebellion and invasion would be slightly harder arguments). It was certainly intended to apply to non-citizens on US soil, but non-citizens held overseas by a military court in an undeclared* military action are in a grayer zone.

The same section (article I, section 9) also prohibits ex post facto laws, titles of nobility, and duties on goods sent from state to state.

* The military action is not a declared war, but is "authorized" in some manner never described by the constitution

rougysays...

America is past being a laughing stock and deep into the territory of global embarrassment.

We waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in one month.

We stuck his kids into boxes and then put insects into the boxes, or threatened to, in order to extract information from them, information that--in all likelihood--they did not possess.

Am I the only person in America mad as hell about this?

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More