BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Rick

arry, I won't argue that we have acted racially and illegally in the
past. This does not give us the right to do so in a time when the US is
NOT even at war with the "country" (if you can say that about this
situation) which has motivated us to implement these first steps toward

marshal law

None of these acts were illegal, they passed laws to make them legal and the
constitution definitely gives the President the right to suspend Habeas Corpus
in times of "National Emergency". We even had a plan to "compensate" the
Japanese internees for lost property. The only reason I would even say it was
racist is we didn't do the same thing to German and Italian residents.

My point of this is the the Homeland Security Act is a long way from being
Marshell Law, it doesn't even hold a straw to some of the older legislation
like the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The unlawful detaining of foreign nationals, without
charge, without proof of their involvement in any plot against the US,
for over a year is either a fine example of racial profiling and a
violation of our constitution, or a fine example of a country that is

Wait, are foreign nationals, especially if apprehended outside of the US,
subject to the Constitution? While we extend these rights to criminal charges
in the US, we have never applied them to POW's or Enemy Combatants.

Again, we have held people without charges, both citizens and non-citizens,
under the Material Witness laws for year
in criminal and drug cases. I find this domestic abuse of power a greater
threat than holding suspected terrorist.

Either
way, this type of behavior is unprecedented. Note also that all of the
reasons that Bush cited for going to war were proven, later, to be

bald-faced lies to congress, making the case (and process) for going to
war illegal. Not, personally, that I had any problem with ousting
Hussain (and would have been more supportive, grudgingly, had that
reason been given). My problem is that the processes have been
subverted. This, along with the clauses that seem to keep popping up in
the name of "homeland security" (nice Nazi ring to that, by the way),
lead me to the belief that we are closer, than ever before, to being a
second Weimar republic.

I still like to know what he so bold faced lied about? WMD? The statements made
could have been taken out of the last report from the UN weapons inspectors in
March 2003. They suspected just what everyone else suspected, that Saddam had a
active developement WMD program.
If one reads the most recent report, there was considerable justification for
that idea.
The real question isn't whether Saddam was trying to make them, but did he have
the capability to deploy them. The answer to that seems to be no, although he
had 4 years of no inspection to find a place to hide any new stuff he had made.

Congress voted approval and funding, they have their own intelligence commitee
that feeds them information. So if they had different information, they didn't
choose to act on it.

SYOTR
Larry C.