Comments:US Senate votes no to expanding detainee rights
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
I can't see how removing HB makes it so they are no "longer be able to protest" their (the alleged captured terrorists) detainment. It just means that they MAY not be able to challenge their detainment in court. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are still able to see their day in court at the government's discretion.
No doubt there are some examples of some detainees whose capture is questionable have been tried in court, with approval, and some said detainees have been released and compensated because of which. I would like such examples included in this article.
This wouldn't happen if Obama was president! Contralya 20:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it would. There still wouldn't be enough votes to overcome the filibuster in the senate.Tuoder 22:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
i hoped that a few more libertarian Republicans would side with the democrats for habeus corpus. Democrats are too weak to withstand the filibuster, anyway. This just sucks. Tuoder 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, what happens to POW's held by the U.S. after a war (as compared to other nations)? ... These people are given extra liberties as it is, as they would have otherwise been SHOT DEAD on the battlefield. Again, referring to the first question, I'm sure those few who may be innocent, say some U.S. citizens declared enemy combatants, will see their day in court.
(Hopefully this isn't too inflammatory to most readers:) I wouldn't worry much about comments made by those who seem to believe that W. is listening in on phone sex (which would have to be international, by the way), and was actually behind 9-11. Again, citizens, who may (innocent until proven) have committed crimes, have no risk of losing HB. As for those who are KNOWN to have conspired to do or have committed (guilty until danger passes) acts of war... well...
O....k... I know they will get better treatment than the people that died in Vietnamese prisons long after they official handed over all of the prisoners! People forget how high the standards are compared to N Korea, Iran and Cuba. Contralya 14:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)