IN relation to:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=7715&comments=1
Exactly, what rights of ours are being ‘trampled’ on???
How about you start; tell us what’s been alleged, by whom, and exactly what it is that you want to debate.
No, how about you start?
But since I must I will say that none of our rights have been “trampled” on or even lost.
Umm…Kucinich doesn’t use that phrase in the video you linked. Did you mean to link to something else?
I actually meant something else…but I can’t edit my OP.
But anyways what the heck is Kookinich talking about?
I see what you did there. Very clever.
He is clever, eh? Maybe he’ll call you “blameless” next.
You know, if you have the sense to agree with him.
-Joe
Seems like a topic for GQ or The Pit.
Well, if you really want to know, I’m sure the articles of impeachment (is that the right phrase?) that Kucinich was trying to have passed are in the public domain and could be dug up with a little searching.
Or if you just want us to start randomly listing Cheney’s faults as a VP, I imagine we could probably go on at great length. Would probably be more of a Pit thing though.
Here you go. Looks like a page turner. Now you can tell us about what he meant when your done reading it:)
Malodorous’s link talks about impeaching Cheney due to lies regarding the Iraq WMD and al Qaeda links, as well as his sabre rattling regarding Iran. Neither of which seem to be rights issues, so I have no idea what this thread is about
Wanna talk trampled rights? My pinky toe (yes, the right one).
Well, although I dunno what Kucinich might be talking about, I’d say the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus is being weakened substantially. Which, as they often assert, is the right from which all others flow. If a government can legally hold you indefinitely without charge, ain’t no court to argue in about your other rights being infringed.
Why would the constitution apply to a non citizen?
Enemy combatants don’t get jack squat.
Which works out great for you when you’re the one who gets to declare who’s an “enemy combatant”.
And until the “enemy combatants” in question gets the chance to apply your own “anything goes if they aren’t our people” attitude to you and yours. “Torture is bad unless we do it” isn’t an attitude that’s going to do anything but make you look like an idiot and a thug.
I give you Dennis Kucinich & his wife Elizabeth!
Amazing what one can stumble across while Googling. I’m stunned. Hell, I’d almost vote for him just to be able to watch her for the next four to eight years. 
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla where the U.S. government fought for two years in order to maintain the right to hold a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. Freakin’-A! Even folks charged with espionage and high treason (one of the most heinous crimes) get a trial. For heaven’s sake, even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the folks who helped ensure the Soviet Union got nuclear technology, received some sort of public trial and sentencing.
As well, enemy combatants get a lot more than “jack squat”. We cover anyone fighting against the United States under the conventions for how to treat Prisoners of War. Except, according to this President, we don’t. They’re enemy combatants, but apparently not considered soldiers. So maybe they’re spies? Except, as covered above, spying is the crime of espionage and should be treated as such. Unless maybe they’re the ever-popular “Enemies of the State”? Or is that too Orwellian?
I dunno - maybe because it says it does:
Perhaps holding prisoners outside of the USA complies with the letter of this - I guess the courts seem to think so.
Here and here and here are a few articles to get you started. And, here is the website of the Center for Constitutional Rights, where you can see the issues that they are focussing on.
And, no post is complete without The Onion’s take on things.