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.

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.

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.

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

On 19 Dec 2003 23:32:19 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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.


I have made no claims whatsoever about the Patriot Act.

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)

Jose Padilla was not placed in detention under the authority of the Patriot Act.
To say so would be to say that Congress did expressly authorize the detention of
an American citizen as an enemy combatant.

Perhaps we're reading different sources. Where did you see that Padilla was
placed in detention under the Patriot Act?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

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

On 19 Dec 2003 23:38:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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.


This article, provided by Mark Browne, provides an overview of the Patriot Act
and some of its ramifications. I didn't dig it up, Mark did. Therefore, I
shouldn't face an accusation of finding a 'rightie' source of info. The article
provides objective, not panic-stricken, information. Does the act tighten up
some loose ends? Yes. Does it give anyone the right to imprison me for no
reason? No.

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

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.

On 19 Dec 2003 23:38:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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.

I forgot to post the URL for the article Mark provided. He

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

Sorry,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

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