Fairweather

My post is wholly relevant and meant to temper the conspiratorial spew that you are simultaneously ejecting and swallowing. God forbid (!) anyone post context or attempt to inform. This might interfere with the misinformation vetted here on this site. Now go back to your self indulgent trust-fund travels. Run along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus Suspension during the Civil War and Reconstruction Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to riots, local militia actions and the threat that the Southern slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., in the south. He was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession. In 1864, Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. In Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 1866 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the suspension of the writ did not empower the President to try and convict citizens before military tribunals. The trial of civilians by military tribunals is allowed only if civilian courts are closed. This was one of the key Supreme Court Cases of the American Civil War that dealt with wartime civil liberties and martial law. In the early 1870s, President Grant suspended habeas corpus in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan under the 1870 Force Act and 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. [edit] Suspension during the War on Terrorism This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. The November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order gives the President of the United States the power to detain certain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as enemy combatants. As such, that person can be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contend that these provisions are in direct opposition to habeas corpus, and the United States Bill of Rights. Specifically, American citizens declared enemy combatants by the President may be denied their constitutional rights as set forth in Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8. One recent example is the José Padilla case. In the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, argued before the United States Supreme Court in March 2006, Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan to try him for alleged war crimes before a military commission convened under special orders issued by the President of the United States, rather than before a court-martial convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On June 29, 2006, in a 5-3 ruling the Supreme Court of the United States rejected Congress's attempts to strip the court of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay, although Congress had previously passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which took effect on December 30, 2005: "[N]o 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 Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742. As of 26 September, 2006, the U.S. Congress was debating a bill which would suspend habeas corpus for all non-U.S. citizens detained on foreign soil.[1]

Glug, glug, glug.....Crux, you need a Kool-Aid bong just to get it all down! History is being rewritten as we speak, and you're just one of the messenger boys. What a tool.

Consider Mount Shasta. All the altitude and no crevasses. Great skiing too.

Well said! His sincerely great contributions aside - his politics and conspiracy rhetoric are truly pathetic and sad. BTW; who's that old Canadian lady on TV that's always showing off the latest and greatest rectal vibrator? Doesn't that violate Gov't Canada's decency laws? Yuk! And the Canadian radio that seeps across the border has aboot as much flavour and variety as ice-milk. Great stuff...if you're trying to fall asleep!

Seem's you're mistaken, Oly. Looks right to me: ...with the specifics of said-limitation defined by you and your chosen political party, of course. ... Maybe being an administrator gives you license to constantly grab the condescension accusation from your small quiver - but it doesn't enable you to change the demonstrably correct into the incorrect, or render you innocent of the same.

I believe he is referring to a certain DNC Kool-Aid guzzler named Crux - who just recently proposed putting network executives in prison for an ABC docu-drama written and produced under the protections of the first amendment. Post #601332 - written by Crux: Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes. Any modicum of respect I had for the guy evaporated with this paragraph. True colors revealed - and I don't think Crux is alone in his interpretation of what 'free speech' really means. Scary shit if the Dem's take charge. Really.

I haven't heard Clinton so angry since the last time he.....lied. ...but I'll admit; the question was politically loaded. And it's always nice to see someone show some spine.

2100? You're presumptively assuming he'll have passed-on by then!

At first I was encouraged by their comments, but then I remembered......it's almost November, and the Dem's have to appear "tough".

To save $1000 in Club Denali NPS membership dues I would do just that.

Huh?? It already costs $425 to fly into Kahiltna Base! Subtract this from your $650 figure and you're left with + $225. That is only $25 more than the current park fee! Your $650 figure is an average, I realize, but a fly in to Sanford or Drum will be less. Your attempt to omit the Denali fly-in cost is noted. If you want to charge an outrageous fee to climb in DNP, then assign it to foreigners who don't pay taxes to support the park. It's fair play in Nepal, China, and Pakistan - why not here? http://www.flyk2.com/52.cfm

McKinley climb planned for 2008....but if the fee goes this high I'll just head to South America or stick to one of the low-income parks like Wrangell-St Elias or Glacier Bay. I'm not going to pay $500 (much less $1000!) to climb a mountain that was around for millions of years before the creation of the NPS. The current fee seems like a reasonable rate insomuch as it covers the costs of the "program". I would rather see the program just go away if it means paying country club membership rates.

I can think of only one serving legislator who's donned the cowardly sheets of the KKK - and he's a Democrat. Often called the conscience of the Democratic Party! (imagine that).....

Wow! You must work very hard. With all that travel I'm surprised you've found time to 'work' at all. Maybe others - taxpayers, mom&dad, coworkers, grandma's inheritance, whatever - are in some way supporting your pointless hobby? And I won't even mention how many thousands of gallons of Jet-A have been pumped into the atmosphere of this planet during your recent wanderings. Maybe I should search out some of your thoughts on global warming to see if there's any hypocricy afoot.

Actually, I wasn't making comment on the validity of the program, just stating the fact that it's a political loser for Dem's trying to regain the House via some kind of fear campaign. BTW, I was just as upset as liberals when Clinton's white house staff was illegally sorting through the FBI files of political opponents on the floor of the oval office.

I'm impressed. Mommy and Daddy must have a really big checkbook!

Isn't this the part where you go off-topic by posting some mediocre pics of a trip you didn't actually take?

Ahhh, yes. More love from the left. Thanks for yet another illustration, Cj.

Obviously you're a sad casualty of the very hate-filled ignorance you so freely label others with. I don't think the Dalai Lama would like you. Seriously.

I've said it before: For president. As for Hillary, I would not vote for a woman with a hyphenated last name. What can I say?

Given the Republican's lack of fiscal restraint, even I could be talked into supporting Dem's for House races just to restore some balance. But, unfortunately for the D's, their agenda is transparent - two years of non-stop hearings and investigations. I think mainstream America sees the Dem's as too focused on things the average Joe/Jane aren't really concerned about - or wholly support...like wiretapping of overseas calls and monitoring of secret banking transactions.

Good TR, Pope. I've always wondered about this peak. It looks like an old cinder cone covered by forest - although I know it's non-volcanic. This is the kind of stuff good memories are made of. Dad comes home tired, happy, and alive.