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