You’re right, I used Wikipedia. If you don’t like Wikipedia, that’s your business, and you can spend the next hour or so madly scrambling to find a bogus way to bs your way around this too:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/court_sides_with_gitmo_detaine.html
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Kennedy wrote. …Congress responded by passing an act that stripped away those statutory rights. The cases decided Thursday reviewed that act and found that Congress’ act was invalid for constitutional reasons, saying that Congress can only suspend habeas in incidences of rebellion or invasion. …The court also said that the appeals system set up by the congressional act, which gave detainees the right to a limited appeal to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., was an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus rights.
The courts simply gave up on ruling on HC in the Padilla case. But Hamdi relates to Padilla just as it does to any citizen.
You’ve used nothing but your own bellowing asinine self. You’ve proved nothing except that you have the endurance of a jackass at braying the same incongruent point over and over, despite all evidence to the contrary. I have proved your point, you’re right, because you’ve been intent on proving that you’re a dangerously self-made ignoramus and imbecile. You’ve made that point to such an effective degree that I’ll simply retire and crown your argument the winner.
