Here is Keith's comment on Habeas Corpus

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
"In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law."

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

Shit, even Democrats bitched back then about presidents abusing the Constitution, and Abe was probably the greatest president ever.

It just means one thing. Don't trust a Democrat's judgement.

Another completely irrelevant historical post by Captain clueless. Um, Republicans were the "liberals" back then. You can't even compare them to today's parties. Nice try though fool. That's why they called them the "Radical Republicans." And what the fuck does the Civil War have to do with today?

And again, reading comprehension, you completely avoided the actual facts, which is Lincoln temporarily suspended Habeas Corpus under martial law, whereas Bush just chooses to ignore the laws, by not signing them and seeking ass-covering immunity from his GOP cuntrolled congress.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
So when Abraham Lincoln officially suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, did he shred the Constitution?

Your "historical references" lack nuance and context.

This time the civil war is taking place in another part of the world.

[Soul Reaper]

so basically, Chimpy and the government decides who the 'terroists' are...anyone who opposes his own 'law'....

I bet most of America doesn't even know about what Chimpy is really doing....

next he'll probably take away the right to vote, just so he can carry on 'fighting terroism' and brainwashing Americans....

[scamper]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL Which puts him far and above the people you jerk off too in terms of brilliance. It's pretty funny that you make fun of Olbermann for being one of the most popular sports' journalists and editorialists ever. O'Reilly was a former tabloid cunt, Limbaugh doesn't even have a college degree and has no formal training whatsoever, which is why no facts or truths will stop him since he has no integrity. And I'm pretty sure I can find that most of the pseudo-journalists on Fox were hired for their breast or for their infallibility at only reporting what people want to hear, and not what actually took place.

Again, Warham attacks the message bearer, but cannot speak of the message.

They're all a bunch of agenda drivin puppets. If you listen to talk radio on either side for an informative view you're lost.

[scamper]

Originally posted by scamper
They're all a bunch of agenda drivin puppets. If you listen to talk radio on either side for an informative view you're lost.

Or any sort of media. Think for yourselves.....

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And BTW, you're the one voting for the "loser" party right now, and don't you live in a "Blue State?" So does that make you a loser? No wonder you vote for the party of repressed gays and drug addicts...

Loser? Who have you voted for the last fifteen years? Gore? Kerry? No, I think you are the one who's been out the outside looking in the last few years.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Limbaugh doesn't even have a college degree and has no formal training whatsoever, which is why no facts or truths will stop him since he has no integrity.

You are saying here that Limbaugh has no integrity because he doesn't have a college degree.

Why don't you try to defend that college professor out in Colorado, Nick? Ward Churchill? He's had at least six years of 'formal training', so he's full of integrity!

[stringfelowhawk]

So when Abraham Lincoln officially suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, did he shred the Constitution?

I guess actually reading Habeas Corpus would be to much work so instead of trying to find a basis for your side of the debate you just throw something out there thinking it will be sufficient enough or that you can verbally spar your way out of a subject you are clearly clueless about.

Though I respect everyone's opinion and have avoided many personal attacks that have nothing to do with what I have stated in the post that drew the response, I feel that I had to respond to this in a quasi-respectful way.

For the sake of further duress, lets put into context the biggest differences between what you are claiming Lincoln did to Habeas Corpus and what Bush really has done:

1. The civil war was fought on American soil with a real agenda and it wasn't slavery. It was about keeping the south from splitting away from the north.

2. The civil war wasn't fought for personal gain and corporate interests or to take control of another countries natural resources. It was fought for the greater good of this country and its future.

3. While it may have seemed to take longer than originally thought it had a plan to rebuild allowing the southern fighters to return to their homes without repercussions. Rummy made sure no one planned for an exit or rebuilding strategy because this administrations plans were to stay indefinately.

4. Lincoln listened to his commanders and advisors and used their counsel wisely.

5. He never lied to lead this country into an unecessary war.

And perhaps the brightest sign in the whole Habeas Corpus act that negates your entire argument would be this little nugget right here; (I'll paraphrase for ya)

6. "Habeas Corpus may be SUSPENDED in times of invasion or REBELLION!" Take extra care in reading that last word. The war on "terra" including this Bushfuck that is Iraq is not so much about securing this country as it is about monopolizing power for the executive branch using fear as the springboard while manipulating the public into allowing him to do so without serious resistance. Lastly, neither the war on "terra" or in Iraq is an invasion or rebellion inside the borders of the United States of America for which the Habeas Corpus act covers. The civil war was by definition a rebellion inside our borders and could legally be suspended by President Lincoln.

Bush didn't simply suspend it. He took one of our basic rights away altogether. One guaranteed by our Constitution and practiced long before we even had an Independence Day.

[Warham]

Except that this bill has nothing to do with citizens of the United States, and is solely to be used for ALIEN or FOREIGN prisoners.

"The measure approved by the Senate on Thursday would close that door. The legislation says, "No court, justice or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States [who] has been determined … to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-detain29sep29,1,6381532,full.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Warham
Except that this bill has nothing to do with citizens of the United States, and is solely to be used for ALIEN or FOREIGN prisoners.

Please verify your "solely to be used for ALIEN or FOREIGN prisoners" statement.

Your tiny excerpt from the L.A. Times is not that specific.

And what defines "properly detained as an enemy combatant"?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Loser? Who have you voted for the last fifteen years? Gore? Kerry? No, I think you are the one who's been out the outside looking in the last few years.

I've also voted for Chuck, Bill & Hillary, Brian Higgins. And Tom Reynolds will soon be collecting $405 a week in unemployment, as Jack Davis pawns his pedophile-hidin' ass.

And Gore won, so what's your point? I sense Warpig will now go into his partisan cherry-picking the facts of elections past to show how Republicans have always been in power and always dominate and win by landslides. You know, his typical smarmy lies of omission and decontextualisation.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
You are saying here that Limbaugh has no integrity because he doesn't have a college degree.

No. What I'm saying is that your dismissal of Keith Olbermann as a jock reporter in over his head is just borderline retarded, when you an avid listener to that bloated uneducated windbag. Maybe someday you figure out what "nuance" means?

Why don't you try to defend that college professor out in Colorado, Nick? Ward Churchill? He's had at least six years of 'formal training', so he's full of integrity!

Who the fuck said anything about Ward Churchill here, except you? Is he a journalist? Who does he write for?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by stringfelowhawk
So when Abraham Lincoln officially suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, did he shred the Constitution?

I guess actually reading Habeas Corpus would be to much work so instead of trying to find a basis for your side of the debate you just throw something out there thinking it will be sufficient enough or that you can verbally spar your way out of a subject you are clearly clueless about.

Though I respect everyone's opinion and have avoided many personal attacks that have nothing to do with what I have stated in the post that drew the response, I feel that I had to respond to this in a quasi-respectful way.

For the sake of further duress, lets put into context the biggest differences between what you are claiming Lincoln did to Habeas Corpus and what Bush really has done:

1. The civil war was fought on American soil with a real agenda and it wasn't slavery. It was about keeping the south from splitting away from the north.

2. The civil war wasn't fought for personal gain and corporate interests or to take control of another countries natural resources. It was fought for the greater good of this country and its future.

3. While it may have seemed to take longer than originally thought it had a plan to rebuild allowing the southern fighters to return to their homes without repercussions. Rummy made sure no one planned for an exit or rebuilding strategy because this administrations plans were to stay indefinately.

4. Lincoln listened to his commanders and advisors and used their counsel wisely.

5. He never lied to lead this country into an unecessary war.

And perhaps the brightest sign in the whole Habeas Corpus act that negates your entire argument would be this little nugget right here; (I'll paraphrase for ya)

6. "Habeas Corpus may be SUSPENDED in times of invasion or REBELLION!" Take extra care in reading that last word. The war on "terra" including this Bushfuck that is Iraq is not so much about securing this country as it is about monopolizing power for the executive branch using fear as the springboard while manipulating the public into allowing him to do so without serious resistance. Lastly, neither the war on "terra" or in Iraq is an invasion or rebellion inside the borders of the United States of America for which the Habeas Corpus act covers. The civil war was by definition a rebellion inside our borders and could legally be suspended by President Lincoln.

Bush didn't simply suspend it. He took one of our basic rights away altogether. One guaranteed by our Constitution and practiced long before we even had an Independence Day.

Excellent post.

[DEMON CUNT]

This could be you:

One man still locked up from 9/11 sweeps
Detainee has not been charged, not seen as a threat, but is behind bars

AP - Updated: 3:31 p.m. PT Oct 14, 2006
In a jail cell at an immigration detention center in Arizona sits a man who is not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not considered a danger to society.

But he has been in custody for five years.

[sadaist]

Watching that video, isn't Keith Olbermann excercising his 1st amendment right to free speech, which he crossed off the list as non-existent?