|
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Well, could you please give us the
title, sub-title, and section number of that portion of the bill which provides for: "Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under the Patriot Act, the Executive bran Como se dice, "Jose Padilla"? We can parse the language around for years. Fact is, under the "Patriot Act", a US Citizen *was* arrested on US soil, labeled by the Executive branch as an enemy combatant, and confined without charges or benefit of counsel. Exactly what you claim the Patriot Act does not permit! Actions speak louder than rhetoric. Jose Padilla may well be the scum of the earth. If so, charge his sorry butt with whatever crime the evidence supports and put him in front of a jury of his peers. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Perhaps I'm just not the brightest light in the chandelier, but I don't see
the reason for the implications that we have lost all the rights granted us by the Bill of Rights. But you're more than bright enough to understand that while most of us have not "lost" any rights under the Patriot Act, there is now a mechanism in place to extinguish an individual's rights by Executive order. Right now, you guys think, "No big deal. The right wing has seized control of the country. My interests are going to be advanced by whatever decisions the President and his cabinet make." Imagine how concerned you would be, and will be, when a moderate or liberal politician ascends to the office of POTUS again. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
JohnH won't believe it, though. He just wants to have a nice weekend.
And wear his uniform and pretend he's still a soldier. Lighten up on John, guys. He's one of the few righties who makes a consistent effort to discuss issues rather than break out the flame thrower when his arguments run out of traction. The group should encorage that kind of behavior, IMO. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:52 +0000, DSK wrote:
JohnH wrote: Harry, just what rights have you lost under the Patriot Act. I've asked you this before, but you apparently missed the question. I'm not Harry (not by a long way) but I believe I can answer this. ** from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html ** Bill of Rights Interesting Stuff. Somebody wanna tell the "prisoners" at Guantanamo Bay? Lloyd |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
|
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:18:37 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:12:42 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Mark Browne" wrote in message news:IOIEb.598754$Tr4.1566177@attbi_s03... The most direct answer to your question: http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=11812 Mark Browne J. Edgar would've LOVED this. It codifies things he was already doing. JohnH won't believe it, though. He just wants to have a nice weekend. And wear his uniform and pretend he's still a soldier. From whence came this tidbit, Harry? Why, from this here post of yours: "I, along with other retirees, wore my uniform as a teacher every Veterans' Day." But don't fret, John, I wore my old uniform as a teacher, too. Veterans' Day isn't this weekend, Harry. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
|
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:52 +0000, DSK wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, just what rights have you lost under the Patriot Act. I've asked you this before, but you apparently missed the question. I'm not Harry (not by a long way) but I believe I can answer this. ** from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html ** Bill of Rights Interesting Stuff. Somebody wanna tell the "prisoners" at Guantanamo Bay? Lloyd The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S. Far too rigid. In the court of world opinion, we are judged by how we treat everyone and anyone. It's damned difficult to sell what little remains of our democracy to those in other countries if we don't behave much differently than their leaders we overthrew. For many Muslims, we're not behaving much differently than Saddam. We're mistreating captives, we're shooting civilians and we're profiteering off of misery. Perceptions are damned important. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:54:13 -0800, "Lloyd Sumpter" wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:52 +0000, DSK wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, just what rights have you lost under the Patriot Act. I've asked you this before, but you apparently missed the question. I'm not Harry (not by a long way) but I believe I can answer this. ** from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html ** Bill of Rights Interesting Stuff. Somebody wanna tell the "prisoners" at Guantanamo Bay? Lloyd Not sure if the Bill of Rights applies. Note this amendment: Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger*[emphasis added]; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:20:29 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Lloyd Sumpter wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:52 +0000, DSK wrote: JohnH wrote: Harry, just what rights have you lost under the Patriot Act. I've asked you this before, but you apparently missed the question. I'm not Harry (not by a long way) but I believe I can answer this. ** from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html ** Bill of Rights Interesting Stuff. Somebody wanna tell the "prisoners" at Guantanamo Bay? Lloyd The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S. Far too rigid. In the court of world opinion, we are judged by how we treat everyone and anyone. It's damned difficult to sell what little remains of our democracy to those in other countries if we don't behave much differently than their leaders we overthrew. For many Muslims, we're not behaving much differently than Saddam. We're mistreating captives, we're shooting civilians and we're profiteering off of misery. Perceptions are damned important. Read it for yourself, Harry. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger*[emphasis added]; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
This article, provided by Mark Browne, provides an overview of the Patriot
Act and some of its ramifications. 18 U.S.C. 3121-3127 (Chapter 206). The government no longer need apply to a court for a search warrant before monitoring the use of a US citizen's phone. All that is necessary is for the government to "certify" that the information collected is "likely to be" revelant to the investigation of a crime (of any kind). So much for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. As far as Jose Padilla's situation and the impact of the Patriot Act, try Googling up "Jose Padilla patriot act." Out of the couple of hundred or so hits, there are some excellent, scholarly, examinations of the case. Most presented far better than I could begin to attempt. http://www.tomorrowsbestseller.com/w...State/book.asp |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On 20 Dec 2003 00:49:56 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
This article, provided by Mark Browne, provides an overview of the Patriot Act and some of its ramifications. 18 U.S.C. 3121-3127 (Chapter 206). The government no longer need apply to a court for a search warrant before monitoring the use of a US citizen's phone. All that is necessary is for the government to "certify" that the information collected is "likely to be" revelant to the investigation of a crime (of any kind). So much for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. As far as Jose Padilla's situation and the impact of the Patriot Act, try Googling up "Jose Padilla patriot act." Out of the couple of hundred or so hits, there are some excellent, scholarly, examinations of the case. Most presented far better than I could begin to attempt. http://www.tomorrowsbestseller.com/w...State/book.asp I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site: "An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit the executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than three decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code. It states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention. Yes, Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act, which says that non-citizens suspected of terrorism can be detained, but only for seven days. After that, they have to be released or charged, unless the attorney general certifies every six months that they present a security risk. Two months earlier, Congress had passed a resolution empowering the president to use all necessary force against the 9/11 terrorists. But that resolution surely did not give the administration unfettered discretion to detain citizens without charge. If it had, then the ensuing PATRIOT Act would have afforded more protection to aliens than to citizens. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, that proposition is incredible." This seems to make it pretty clear that the Patriot Act was not the basis for the detention of Padilla. It also provides an indication of why there are so many hits when googling "jose padilla patriot act" (without the quotes, of course). John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"JohnH" wrote in message The rationale behind the Court of Appeals ruling regarding Jose Padilla was that, "The president's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express congressional authorization." (Washington Post, December 19) John..... Point of accuracy, here, ref your quote above. According to the 2nd Circuit ruling the statement should read "...the detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens *seized on US soil*..." , an important distinction that the Court specified. The Court specifically excepted this ruling from applying to cases of US citizens seized on foreign soil as enemy combatants. Frankly, I'm not surprised that the Post would see fit to overlook this detail. JG |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs04l7$7r3t6 The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S.....Far too rigid. On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply to non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to whatever laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever protections they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration to non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm. ....In the court of world opinion, we are judged ..... We are judged only as we allow ourselves to be judged. The term "International Community" is an oxymoron. I have no regard for any nation not similarly situated that would dictate to us the terms upon which we may determine our own security and defense. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:22:01 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message The rationale behind the Court of Appeals ruling regarding Jose Padilla was that, "The president's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express congressional authorization." (Washington Post, December 19) John..... Point of accuracy, here, ref your quote above. According to the 2nd Circuit ruling the statement should read "...the detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens *seized on US soil*..." , an important distinction that the Court specified. The Court specifically excepted this ruling from applying to cases of US citizens seized on foreign soil as enemy combatants. Frankly, I'm not surprised that the Post would see fit to overlook this detail. JG Thanks for the clarification. I checked the Washington Post again, just to be sure I hadn't misquoted. They did leave that out of what they called the conclusion in the decision. This was on the front page too. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs04l7$7r3t6 The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S.....Far too rigid. On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply to non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to whatever laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever protections they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration to non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm. ....In the court of world opinion, we are judged ..... We are judged only as we allow ourselves to be judged. The term "International Community" is an oxymoron. I have no regard for any nation not similarly situated that would dictate to us the terms upon which we may determine our own security and defense. Wow...now here is a man who parrots reich-wing radio. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0f0c$8b6c1 Wow...now here is a man who parrots reich-wing radio. And this is your only answer? |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0f0c$8b6c1 Wow...now here is a man who parrots reich-wing radio. And this is your only answer? It doesn't require any more of a response, John. Once again, and probably for the 99th time, it is not desire in life to engage the devotees of the extreme right. If, for example, I put up a post that states and documents that George W. Bush is only semi-literate at best, and one of you righties tries to dispute that with 435 posts that rationalize Bush's apparent lack of reading skills, well, that is your windmill, not mine. I don't even glance at most of the posts you righties put up here, let alone read and comment on them. It is not my purpose in life to engage in "dialogue" with you righties. There's not more than one or two of you here with a political idea or concept that goes beyond reich-wing radio, and that sort of pre-programmed thought simply does not interest me. Sorry, Charlie. (Semi-obscure reference to tuna ad.) -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Jack Meholf wrote:
I wonder how he is going to get rid of his lobster boat, maybe it will be sunk by a hurricane. He's already started!! Have you noticed he's been through the google NG archives & deleted most of his lies, especially the "lobster" boat!!!! I mean this sad sack of lying crap is the very lowest of the low, the fact that some loony lefties here still defend him is the real query???; are they just so used to supporting lies no matter what, that they can't help themselves??? Or is it possibly the sellers' syndrome, a lie isn't really a lie if a sale still results:-) Good thing is.................. I've got his lies. Can you imagine the lobster boat lie??? it even surpasses the current Parker lie. I am rather chuffed though I have to admit, the lying coward has surrendered!!! needless to say boat mr 10% Chucky tagged along on the end of his lead:-) He can't even risk answering because when he tried denying he'd posted the lies (lying again!!) I just pasted his own words, which of course his bum buddy supporter Chuck immediately called paragraphs of hate, given they're ALL Harry's own words I might even agree with chuckles on this, were agreeing with him meaning I'd have suffered a severe blow to the head:-) K Here's just a tiny taste (I'll save the really good ones for after his denials); Sure. I'm in the market for a new marine diesel of 420-480 shp. I'm especially interested in Volvo's TAMD74P EDC, because Volvo has had a lot of experience with electronic controls in that size diesel. I've dismissed getting a Cat 3208 TA because the technology is so old and because a couple of commercial fishermen I know who have had 3208's have, basically, burned them out. Thanks. Yes, Cummins is talked about favorably by some of the guys I've been talking to. Most of them have had experience with Cats, especially the 3208, and in recent years some have moved to Volvos. These are commercial fishermen, mostly, running hulls somewhat similar to what we're doing. No, the diesel is for a new boat we're having built. Hmmm. A fishing/day cruising boat with some range, nice speed, a real soft ride, offshore capabilities and sleeping/full head(with standup shower enclosure)/galley accommodations. Fiberglass, although the architect did try to convince me to go with cold-molded wood, which I do like. More specifically, I suppose, a lobsta' boat, sort of, if that brings up a mental image for you. She'll measure 36' sans a bowsprit x a little more than 12' in beam. The hull buttom is built down to the keel. There are no chines. The hull is efficient at displacement and planing speeds. According to the hull builder, if we keep the weight within certain limits, we'll achieve a WOT of about 37-38 mph, and a very easy cruise of 30-32 mph on a single diesel of about 420-450 hp. She'll cruise slow and economically, too. We expect a very smooooooooooth riding boat, able to take on a big headsea at a pretty good clip without beating up the folks inside. Fitting out a boat like this is going to be an interesting and stimulating experience. Basically, we get to spec everything and we end up with a custom boat It's Lou Codega. He's a widely known and respected naval architect. He does Regulator's hulls, too. He's done the Navigator 37. I believe he's also done designs for Carolina Classic. Cummins faxed me a bunch of computer generated data today on engine choices for the new boat. On the 36-footer, 16,000 pounds displacement: QSM11 635 hp, 36.3 mph WOT, 32.1 mph at sustained cruise, marine gear ratio of 1.77, turning a four blade 26x35 prop on a 2.50 inch Aquamet 22 shaft. Too much engine. QSM11 535 hp at 2300 rpm, 33.3 mph WOT, 29.5 mph at sustained cruise of 2100 rpm, same gear ratio, 24x34 prop. Right on the money. 6CTA8.3 450 hp, 30.6 mph WOT, 27.5 mph at sustained cruise, 2.00:1 gear ratio, 24x31 four blade prop on Aquamet 22 2" shaft. Cummins tells me its program is "about 8% too conservative." Looks like the QSM11 535 will be the right engine. Its fuel use is only a little more than the 450's and a lot less than the 635 hp engine. What I want is a 30 mph sustained cruise speed, and 535 hp will do it. Cummins also figured the boat at 1000 pounds heavier than our target, which is probably the smart thing to do. Besides, the QSM is a new, all computerized design. The hull form is what got to me. The boat has a substantial keel and it is a built-down keel, right to its bottom, not just "tacked" on. It backs down beautifully. And it seems to roll one heck of a lot less in a beam sea than the semi-vee 36 footers I've been on, and especially some large deep vee fishing boats of about the same size its been my pleasure to fish aboard. I believe it is a function of the keel and the really low center of gravity. Amazing, for a boat that is round bilged and fairly flat under the transom. No chines. Just splash rails forward and aft. A soft, soft ride...which is what I wanted. "WaIIy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:34:03 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Harry doesn't like to answer direct questions...'cause honesty makes him uncomfortable. What rights have *you* lost Harry? He lost the right to drive his lobster boat. Oh wait.......... nevermind. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:38:10 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs04l7$7r3t6 The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S.....Far too rigid. On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply to non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to whatever laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever protections they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration to non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm. On what legal basis would you not? The Constitution doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. Nor does the Bill of Rights grant us civil liberties. It specifically limits the government from infringing on our rights. Or did you forget this line from the Declaration of Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men are created equal..." |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:06:19 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:38:10 -0500, John Gaquin wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs04l7$7r3t6 The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S.....Far too rigid. On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply to non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to whatever laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever protections they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration to non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm. On what legal basis would you not? The Constitution doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. Nor does the Bill of Rights grant us civil liberties. It specifically limits the government from infringing on our rights. Or did you forget this line from the Declaration of Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men are created equal..." Thunder, could you imagine us going into France and telling them they must live under the provisions of *our* constitution? If you read the constitution, you will find the Preamble to read: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." You'll have noted that the Constitution was ordained and established for the United States of America. We can't just arbitrarily put the name of any country at the end of the Preamble. Look also at: Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger*[emphasis added]; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. It's not that the "righties" are making up all this stuff to enable the trouncing on the rights of bad guys. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:13:45 -0500, JohnH wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:06:19 -0500, thunder wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:38:10 -0500, John Gaquin wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs04l7$7r3t6 The righties make the argument that the U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens in the USA or, at best, to some foreigners living in the U.S.....Far too rigid. On what legal basis would you hold that the US Constitution must apply to non-citizens? US citizens in foreign countries are subject to whatever laws apply in the host country, with no regard to whatever protections they may enjoy at home. We owe no benefit or consideration to non-citizens, particularly to non-citizens doing us harm. On what legal basis would you not? The Constitution doesn't distinguish between citizens and non-citizens. Nor does the Bill of Rights grant us civil liberties. It specifically limits the government from infringing on our rights. Or did you forget this line from the Declaration of Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men are created equal..." Thunder, could you imagine us going into France and telling them they must live under the provisions of *our* constitution? If you read the constitution, you will find the Preamble to read: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." You'll have noted that the Constitution was ordained and established for the United States of America. We can't just arbitrarily put the name of any country at the end of the Preamble. I wouldn't disagree, if that is what John meant. As I read his post, I perhaps incorrectly assumed, that he would limit civil liberties to American citizens. In point of law, they are extended to anyone on American soil, citizens and non-citizens, and I personally think they should be extended to anyone under American control, e.g. Guantanamo. If my assumption was in error, my apologies. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"thunder" wrote in message
...Or did you forget this line from the Declaration of Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all* men are created equal..." No, I don't think I have forgotten what is arguably one of the most famous sentences ever put to paper, but I do, apparently, need to point something out to you. The Declaration is an unparalleled source and foundation document that clarifies and defines the political, moral, and ethical philosophies that led us to revolution and independence, much like the Federalist explores and analyses the political and logical underpinnings and implications of the Constitution itself, by people of the time who were closely associated with both the framing and the framers. But neither document, fine as they may be, carries the force of law. Only the Constitution is law. And the Constitution says, in part, before any other statement, "We the people of the United States, .... do ordain and establish this Constitution *for* the United States of America." [my emphasis added] JG |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"thunder" wrote in message .....that he would limit civil liberties to American citizens. In point of law, they are extended to anyone on American soil, citizens and non-citizens, and I personally think they should be extended to anyone under American control, e.g. Guantanamo. If my assumption was in error, my apologies. No apology necessary, we deal here with a great deal of personal opinion and interpretation. While true that we have, under law extended general constitutional protections to anyone on our soil, I believe we have done so at our discretion. In truth, I don't know any courts' holdings on the subject, but my readings do not show me that we need *guarantee* constitutional protections to non-citizens. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:16:23 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message .....that he would limit civil liberties to American citizens. In point of law, they are extended to anyone on American soil, citizens and non-citizens, and I personally think they should be extended to anyone under American control, e.g. Guantanamo. If my assumption was in error, my apologies. No apology necessary, we deal here with a great deal of personal opinion and interpretation. While true that we have, under law extended general constitutional protections to anyone on our soil, I believe we have done so at our discretion. In truth, I don't know any courts' holdings on the subject, but my readings do not show me that we need *guarantee* constitutional protections to non-citizens. I'm not a lawyer, and you may be right. That discretion may be close to precedent, but I couldn't find anything definitive searching the net. I did find this debate: http://www.generationvote.com/vnews/.../3ce1ce2357bd7 |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"thunder" wrote in message .....I couldn't find anything definitive searching the net. I did find this debate: http://www.generationvote.com/vnews/.../3ce1ce2357bd7 I would like to have been there for that debate. I give Buchanan points for traveling to Williams, which is somewhat akin to Ariel Sharon visiting an al Qaida camp. The article was good, except for the author's final interpretation, wherein he claimed that Strossen based her position on points of law (by referring to the Declaration and positing that the Bill of Rights was *intended* to apply to guarantee the human rights of all persons on US soil [see my other post].) and Buchanan based his position only on fears and prejudices (by referencing specific constitutional guarantees and provisions). Seems to me that the author got it backwards. Of course, Williams College is hardly an impartial venue. :-) |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
JohnH wrote: Read it for yourself, Harry. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger*[emphasis added]; I agree. The case of the Gitmo prisoners is far from clear cut. However, if they are 'enemy combatants' then they are POWs and have certain rights, or they are citizens of some country which presumably endows them with some legal rights. The US has simply grabbed them and is holding them, for any or no reason, and apparently is going to continue to do so as long as somebody in this or any future administration finds it convenient. That is not showing respect for rule of law. Personally, I think we *had* every right to send those people to Gitmo, and hold them. But for how long? At some point, it gets ridiculous. And IMHO that point is fast approaching. In the other cases of the Patriot Act extinguishing constitutional rights, answer me this John- if a gov't agent can search your home, or confiscate your property, or slam you into a 'detainment facility' with no prior justification to a judge or grand jury, and whence you have no recourse.... what friggin' rights do you actually have? DSK |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
DSK wrote:
JohnH wrote: Read it for yourself, Harry. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger*[emphasis added]; I agree. The case of the Gitmo prisoners is far from clear cut. However, if they are 'enemy combatants' then they are POWs and have certain rights, or they are citizens of some country which presumably endows them with some legal rights. One real problem with this methodology is that it lowers us down to the level of those we are trying to combat. The US has simply grabbed them and is holding them, for any or no reason, and apparently is going to continue to do so as long as somebody in this or any future administration finds it convenient. That is not showing respect for rule of law. The Attorney General of the United States has no regard for law or procedure, and the current POTUS is too stupid to know any better. In the other cases of the Patriot Act extinguishing constitutional rights, answer me this John- if a gov't agent can search your home, or confiscate your property, or slam you into a 'detainment facility' with no prior justification to a judge or grand jury, and whence you have no recourse.... what friggin' rights do you actually have? DSK Well, John can always put on his old uniform. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:37:49 -0500, DSK wrote:
JohnH wrote: Read it for yourself, Harry. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, *except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger*[emphasis added]; I agree. The case of the Gitmo prisoners is far from clear cut. However, if they are 'enemy combatants' then they are POWs and have certain rights, or they are citizens of some country which presumably endows them with some legal rights. The US has simply grabbed them and is holding them, for any or no reason, and apparently is going to continue to do so as long as somebody in this or any future administration finds it convenient. That is not showing respect for rule of law. Personally, I think we *had* every right to send those people to Gitmo, and hold them. But for how long? At some point, it gets ridiculous. And IMHO that point is fast approaching. In the other cases of the Patriot Act extinguishing constitutional rights, answer me this John- if a gov't agent can search your home, or confiscate your property, or slam you into a 'detainment facility' with no prior justification to a judge or grand jury, and whence you have no recourse.... what friggin' rights do you actually have? DSK Afghanistan doesn't seem to care a whole lot. If they're Saudi's, that country isn't doing a lot of crying either. In fact, the folks doing all the complaining about the Gitmo detainees seem to be those who are anti-administration. I think your last paragraph gives the Patriot Act a little more credit than it's due. But I'm no lawyer. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"JohnH" wrote in message
... The administration's rational for Padilla, to the best I can understand, was that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were conducted on American soil, Congress authorized the war on terror (but not with the Patriot Act), the US is a 'combat zone', and therefore a citizen can be detained as a combatant. Do I agree with the idea of the USA being a combat zone? I don't know for sure, but I lean against it. I don't like the idea that the President, by virtue of the USA being a combat zone, could perhaps declare martial law and do anything he desires. (I don't know that combat zone and martial law go together so easily, but you get my drift.) John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD If I recall, the cops can hold you for 48 hours without charging you with a crime. While I'm sure they may stretch this occasionally, Padilla was held for what...months? Wake up, John. That's illegal, unless the Patriot Act or some other legislation makes it otherwise. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"JohnH" wrote in message
... I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site: "An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit the executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than three decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code. It states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention. Well, John, no matter what the unambiguous statute says, the executive branch DID it to Padilla. Any thoughts on why the executive branch should be able to do illegal things to citizens? |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Doug Kanter wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message ... I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site: "An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit the executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than three decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code. It states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention. Well, John, no matter what the unambiguous statute says, the executive branch DID it to Padilla. Any thoughts on why the executive branch should be able to do illegal things to citizens? Because he spent his career in the military. And that's not a flip answer. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:02:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . The administration's rational for Padilla, to the best I can understand, was that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were conducted on American soil, Congress authorized the war on terror (but not with the Patriot Act), the US is a 'combat zone', and therefore a citizen can be detained as a combatant. Do I agree with the idea of the USA being a combat zone? I don't know for sure, but I lean against it. I don't like the idea that the President, by virtue of the USA being a combat zone, could perhaps declare martial law and do anything he desires. (I don't know that combat zone and martial law go together so easily, but you get my drift.) John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD If I recall, the cops can hold you for 48 hours without charging you with a crime. While I'm sure they may stretch this occasionally, Padilla was held for what...months? Wake up, John. That's illegal, unless the Patriot Act or some other legislation makes it otherwise. I did not address the legality of what transpired with Padilla. Several comments tied Padilla's predicament to a loss of rights allegedly occurring with the Patriot Act. The fact is that Padilla's detention, whether legal or not, was not predicated on the Patriot Act. Please read the relevant posts before telling someone else to "wake up." John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:02:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. The administration's rational for Padilla, to the best I can understand, was that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were conducted on American soil, Congress authorized the war on terror (but not with the Patriot Act), the US is a 'combat zone', and therefore a citizen can be detained as a combatant. Do I agree with the idea of the USA being a combat zone? I don't know for sure, but I lean against it. I don't like the idea that the President, by virtue of the USA being a combat zone, could perhaps declare martial law and do anything he desires. (I don't know that combat zone and martial law go together so easily, but you get my drift.) John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD If I recall, the cops can hold you for 48 hours without charging you with a crime. While I'm sure they may stretch this occasionally, Padilla was held for what...months? Wake up, John. That's illegal, unless the Patriot Act or some other legislation makes it otherwise. I did not address the legality of what transpired with Padilla. Several comments tied Padilla's predicament to a loss of rights allegedly occurring with the Patriot Act. The fact is that Padilla's detention, whether legal or not, was not predicated on the Patriot Act. Please read the relevant posts before telling someone else to "wake up." John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD The Patriot Act is a pile of crap and needs to be repealed. Have you seen the news articles that show that just before it was shoved down the throats of Congress, the Bush Administration was making claims that Iraq had the ability to launch directly against the United States? More Bush Administration bullship. The best hope for the future of this country is for the Democrats to stop attacking each other in preparation for the primary season and instead to concentrate solely on the failures of the Bush Administation and the steps *they* would take to restore democracy and a strong economy to the United States. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:05:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site: "An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit the executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than three decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code. It states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention. Well, John, no matter what the unambiguous statute says, the executive branch DID it to Padilla. Any thoughts on why the executive branch should be able to do illegal things to citizens? The executive branch should bot be able to do illegal things to citizens. Did I say somewhere that it should? I simply presented the rationale used for Padilla's detention. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. If you are looking for an argument, based on reading only part of the posts, look elsewhere. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:07:05 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... I did as you suggested. Here is an excerpt from the CATO Institute's site: "An unambiguous federal statute and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit the executive branch from doing to Padilla what it is now doing. More than three decades ago, Congress passed Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code. It states, "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." Today, we have not had from Congress any statute that authorizes Padilla's detention. Well, John, no matter what the unambiguous statute says, the executive branch DID it to Padilla. Any thoughts on why the executive branch should be able to do illegal things to citizens? Because he spent his career in the military. And that's not a flip answer. Typical. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:37:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:02:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... The administration's rational for Padilla, to the best I can understand, was that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were conducted on American soil, Congress authorized the war on terror (but not with the Patriot Act), the US is a 'combat zone', and therefore a citizen can be detained as a combatant. Do I agree with the idea of the USA being a combat zone? I don't know for sure, but I lean against it. I don't like the idea that the President, by virtue of the USA being a combat zone, could perhaps declare martial law and do anything he desires. (I don't know that combat zone and martial law go together so easily, but you get my drift.) John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD If I recall, the cops can hold you for 48 hours without charging you with a crime. While I'm sure they may stretch this occasionally, Padilla was held for what...months? Wake up, John. That's illegal, unless the Patriot Act or some other legislation makes it otherwise. I did not address the legality of what transpired with Padilla. Several comments tied Padilla's predicament to a loss of rights allegedly occurring with the Patriot Act. The fact is that Padilla's detention, whether legal or not, was not predicated on the Patriot Act. Please read the relevant posts before telling someone else to "wake up." John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD The Patriot Act is a pile of crap typical John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0hjn$81av2 I don't even glance at most of the posts you righties put up here, We can assume, therefore, that the bulk of your posts are in response to posts you have not read. And this is sensible because....... ?? The only consistent aspect of your postings is the use of HS freshman debating tactics -- ad hominem insults, and the '...I refuse to engage in this discussion because it is beneath me...' sort of evasion. It may have worked for you in HS, Harry, and may still be effective in union halls, but it doesn't float in the real world. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:bs0hjn$81av2 I don't even glance at most of the posts you righties put up here, We can assume, therefore, that the bulk of your posts are in response to posts you have not read. And this is sensible because....... ?? Your assumption would be wrong. You *still* don't get it. The only consistent aspect of your postings is the use of HS freshman debating tactics -- ad hominem insults, and the '...I refuse to engage in this discussion because it is beneath me...' sort of evasion. Wrong again. -- Email sent to is never read. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com