Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 11 May 2025, 1:07 am » wrote: ↑

11 May 2025, 1:07 am

No.

If habeas corpus is suspended on the US mainland, it is suspended for everyone.

good as I can think of a few more that need 'rides to the train station'...  
 

Mrkelly » 10 May 2025, 9:13 pm » wrote: ↑

10 May 2025, 9:13 pm

If there is no oversight 

how would we ever know?

there's always oversight after ****'s gone south...well, at least in MN...    
 

Mrkelly » 10 May 2025, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

10 May 2025, 12:19 pm

Problem is

There is no “vagueness” in refusing constitutional rights 

If it is an American that is locked up for being a threat 

And they are denied due process 

they will have no recourse, just like the perceived enemy 

And it is not a slippery slope 

Its a slap in the face of the constitution

Hmmmm. Problem you have is that you can't show us where the Constitution gives ILLEGALS WHO ENTER THIS NATION WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION any "Constitutional rights"!!

In the numbers YOUR BOY Braindead allowed into this nation, ANYONE with half a brain cell calls that an INVASION!! Because he sure the hell FAILED TO STOP THEM FROM CROSSING THAT BORDER!!

 
 

HarperLee » Yesterday, 3:50 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:50 am

Are you ever going to get maineman  to let me suck his dick?

tell him he can bring a friend or two along
 

  No Z09

  you nasty bitch 

ROG62 » Yesterday, 6:02 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:02 am

good as I can think of a few more that need 'rides to the train station'...

Once the rides to the train station start, they don't stop where you want them to.

Whatever line you allow government to form, a loved one will eventually stand in. 
 
The same government you look to for salvation is the one that put us in this position.

*Beekeeper » Yesterday, 6:14 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:14 am

 
Hmmmm. Problem you have is that you can't show us where the Constitution gives ILLEGALS WHO ENTER THIS NATION WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION any "Constitutional rights"!!

In the numbers YOUR BOY Braindead allowed into this nation, ANYONE with half a brain cell calls that an INVASION!! Because he sure the hell FAILED TO STOP THEM FROM CROSSING THAT BORDER!!

 Damn you are stupid 

if they suspend habeas corpus 

that will take away EVERYONES constitutional rights

but but … tRump :LOL:
 

Cannonpointer » 11 May 2025, 4:14 pm » wrote: ↑

11 May 2025, 4:14 pm

Don't take this to mean I am defending suspension of habeas corpus. I'm just saying the pretense upon which that attempt at suspension is based is not all that far-fetched.

I NEVER want to see the suspension of habeas corpus. OTOH, a corrupt judiciary using its powers for evil certainly makes one sympathetic to the argument.

True. This is a case of process vs principle. It would certainly make it easier to and more efficient to suspend habeas corpus. However, sacrificing principle and justice on the basis of an easier process sets a dangerous precedent. There are still 20+ prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that have not received a fair trial in 20+ years. They are just sitting there. When they were captured, they could have been farmers minding their own business. The military used a very broad criteria of who they could identify as terrorists. Basically, if you were male at a certain age, and wore a rag on your head, then that was enough. 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:11 am

 Damn you are stupid 

if they suspend habeas corpus 

that will take away EVERYONES constitutional rights

but but … tRump 

Really?? So you're saying that when FDR suspended Habeus Corpus in Hawaii that everyone lost their Constitutional rights??

Now that's pretty damn funny **** right there!! Bottom line is, you don't have a **** CLUE what that suspension actually does now do you??

What a **** GOOFY **** you are!!

*Beekeeper » Yesterday, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:52 am

Really?? So you're saying that when FDR suspended Habeus Corpus in Hawaii that everyone lost their Constitutional rights??

Now that's pretty damn funny **** right there!! Bottom line is, you don't have a **** CLUE what that suspension actually does now do you??

What a **** GOOFY **** you are!!

 


FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) never suspended habeas corpus during his presidency. While Presidents have the authority to suspend habeas corpus in situations of rebellion or invasion, FDR never exercised this power
 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 11:55 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:55 am

 

FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) never suspended habeas corpus during his presidency. While Presidents have the authority to suspend habeas corpus in situations of rebellion or invasion, FDR never exercised this power

And THAT is total ****!! He indeed DID suspend habeus corpus in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Not nationwide as did Lincoln, but in HAWAII!!

Your Google AI **** left you naked and a **** MORON, IDIOT!!

Now, run.

Or you COULD tell us what Habeus Corpus means and then you are EDUCATED beyond what your handlers have blown smoke up your ***!!

Tell us again how you lose your Constitutional rights under suspension of habeus corpus. THAT was a HOOT!!

*Beekeeper » Yesterday, 12:00 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:00 pm

And THAT is total ****!! He indeed DID suspend habeus corpus in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Not nationwide as did Lincoln, but in HAWAII!!

Your Google AI **** left you naked and a **** MORON, IDIOT!!

Now, run.

Or you COULD tell us what Habeus Corpus means and then you are EDUCATED beyond what your handlers have blown smoke up your ***!!

Tell us again how you lose your Constitutional rights under suspension of habeus corpus. THAT was a HOOT!!

I guess I misspoke 

Yes, President Franklin D. Roosevelt did suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Hawaii immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. This action was taken by the Governor of Hawaii, Joseph Poindexter, who was authorized to do so under the Hawaiian Organic Act. 


hardly the same as doing it for the whole country 
 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 12:10 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:10 pm

I guess I misspoke 

Yes, President Franklin D. Roosevelt did suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Hawaii immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. This action was taken by the Governor of Hawaii, Joseph Poindexter, who was authorized to do so under the Hawaiian Organic Act. 

hardly the same as doing it for the whole country

And you STILL think that suspending habeus corpus ELIMINATES YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS??

Try to get out of THAT hole you dug for yourself and tell us how THAT WORKS, DICKSUCKER!!

EXPLAIN HOW THAT WORKS if you think your Gogglebot can find an answer.

 
 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 11:55 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:55 am

 

FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) never suspended habeas corpus during his presidency. While Presidents have the authority to suspend habeas corpus in situations of rebellion or invasion, FDR never exercised this power

You should have read the information that was posted previously.  

*Beekeeper » Yesterday, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:19 pm

And you STILL think that suspending habeus corpus ELIMINATES YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS??

Try to get out of THAT hole you dug for yourself and tell us how THAT WORKS, DICKSUCKER!!

EXPLAIN HOW THAT WORKS if you think your Gogglebot can find an answer.

  Stay goofy my friend 

In simple terms, habeas corpus means a prisoner has the right to appear before a judge and challenge the legality of their detention. Essentially, it's a way to ensure someone isn't unjustly imprisoned and requires the government to justify their confinement. 

If an American gets caught up in a sweep, or is detained and thrown into on of these  privately owned, government run prisons 

THEY WONT BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE IT

But, you are never gonna get it

because …. tRump   
 

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 12:30 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:30 pm

  Stay goofy my friend 

In simple terms, habeas corpus means a prisoner has the right to appear before a judge and challenge the legality of their detention. Essentially, it's a way to ensure someone isn't unjustly imprisoned and requires the government to justify their confinement. 

If an American gets caught up in a sweep, or is detained and thrown into on of these  privately owned, government run prisons 

THEY WONT BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE IT

But, you are never gonna get it

because …. tRump 

So where does it say I lose ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS??

GO!!

*Beekeeper » Yesterday, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:35 pm

So where does it say I lose ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS??

GO!!

  OK Cletus … I’ll play your game

you will lose your right to challenge your detention it the government picks you up,  and throws you in prison 

feel better Cletus?   

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 12:42 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:42 pm

  OK Cletus … I’ll play your game

you will lose your right to challenge your detention it the government picks you up,  and throws you in prison 

feel better Cletus? 

Hmmm. That's a FAR CRY from your ORIGINAL ****!!

Imagine that. You IDIOTS think you are soooooo **** smart and when CALLED OUT, you have to piss all over yourselves to get to the FACTS AND TRUTH!!

Here's one for you. When you are being held IN JAIL FOR A CRIME, other than a right to challenge your accusers, what OTHER rights do you have that you can freely exercise?? Other than one to have an attorney for representation. Oh and that one to remain silent, not answer any questions.

Go!!

And as a "just so you will know", if you commit NO CRIME and aren't ARRESTED FOR ANY CRIME, Habeus Corpus will NEVER apply to you. What it LITERALLY TRANSLATES TO IS "you have the body", meaning that someone is DETAINED FOR A CRIME they committed. AND that a WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS means that those holding that "body" for that crime must produce that "body" to answer accordingly FOR that crime. And "body" doesn't refer to a dead person in LEGAL TERMS!!

Please stop trying to act like you are "smart". You aren't. You're just another LWNJ MORON that only can regurgitate what your handlers tell you to say.

*Beekeeper » Yesterday, 12:56 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:56 pm

Hmmm. That's a FAR CRY from your ORIGINAL ****!!  

Imagine that. You IDIOTS think you are soooooo **** smart and when CALLED OUT, you have to piss all over yourselves to get to the FACTS AND TRUTH!!

Here's one for you. When you are being held IN JAIL FOR A CRIME, other than a right to challenge your accusers, what OTHER rights do you have that you can freely exercise?? Other than one to have an attorney for representation. Oh and that one to remain silent, not answer any questions.

Go!!

And as a "just so you will know", if you commit NO CRIME and aren't ARRESTED FOR ANY CRIME, Habeus Corpus will NEVER apply to you. What it LITERALLY TRANSLATES TO IS "you have the body", meaning that someone is DETAINED FOR A CRIME they committed. AND that a WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS means that those holding that "body" for that crime must produce that "body" to answer accordingly FOR that crime. And "body" doesn't refer to a dead person in LEGAL TERMS!!

Please stop trying to act like you are "smart". You aren't. You're just another LWNJ MORON that only can regurgitate what your handlers tell you to say.

 You are the goofiest in the bunch

”if you commit NO CRIME and aren't ARRESTED FOR ANY CRIME, Habeus Corpus will NEVER apply to you” :LOL:

what about an American citizen that gets wrongfully arrested and imprisoned by his government?

You are probably one of those dumb **** that said “If you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear from the patriot act” :LOL:




 

Vegas » Yesterday, 9:13 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 9:13 am

True. This is a case of process vs principle. It would certainly make it easier to and more efficient to suspend habeas corpus. However, sacrificing principle and justice on the basis of an easier process sets a dangerous precedent. There are still 20+ prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that have not received a fair trial in 20+ years. They are just sitting there. When they were captured, they could have been farmers minding their own business. The military used a very broad criteria of who they could identify as terrorists. Basically, if you were male at a certain age, and wore a rag on your head, then that was enough.

Which AGAIN proves it was a religious war on our part.

Mrkelly » Yesterday, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:24 pm

 You are the goofiest in the bunch

”if you commit NO CRIME and aren't ARRESTED FOR ANY CRIME, Habeus Corpus will NEVER apply to you” 

what about an American citizen that gets wrongfully arrested and imprisoned by his government?

You are probably one of those dumb **** that said “If you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear from the patriot act” 

You LIE WITH DOGS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET FLEAS!!! Same happens to people "accidentally" arrested. RARELY is someone arrested that isn't in some compromised position or place that they CREATED THEMSELVES!!

And what about the Patriot Act that hasn't been CHANGED already that you don't like? Can't seem to find all that "angst" over things that never happened to be convincing of anything. Got examples you care to share or is it just more of your usual bloviating??