84
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 470:
Line 470: + +
→Gonzales statement is not controversial
Habeas Corpus was such an important individual "right" (really, specified as ''privilege'' in the constitution) that it is one of the few individual rights/privileges mentioned in the Constitution. Personally, as a conservative who believes in the rule of law, I ''do'' think the Gonzales's implication is controversial, but this is my opinion, and you were right to revert it. (Mind you, I am not one to think that Habeas Corpus applies to enemy combatants held in Cuba--rather, I do fear the day they take away the right to petition for habeas corpus of U.S. citizens held by U.S. officials)...Could you imagine if Hillary decides to make use of or expand upon Gonzales's statements? [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big><sub><small>HeartOfGold</small></sub>]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|<sup><small>talk</small></sup>]] 23:07, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Habeas Corpus was such an important individual "right" (really, specified as ''privilege'' in the constitution) that it is one of the few individual rights/privileges mentioned in the Constitution. Personally, as a conservative who believes in the rule of law, I ''do'' think the Gonzales's implication is controversial, but this is my opinion, and you were right to revert it. (Mind you, I am not one to think that Habeas Corpus applies to enemy combatants held in Cuba--rather, I do fear the day they take away the right to petition for habeas corpus of U.S. citizens held by U.S. officials)...Could you imagine if Hillary decides to make use of or expand upon Gonzales's statements? [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>HG</big><sub><small>HeartOfGold</small></sub>]] [[User_talk:HeartOfGold|<sup><small>talk</small></sup>]] 23:07, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::You're a bit late for that--just ask Jose Padilla. Habeas Corpus is now obsolete in the USA, and the Democrats aren't too likely to be inclined to put the toy away when they get to play with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:10, 21 May 2007 (EDT)