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.