|
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Well, apparently you liberals will get your wish. Apparently, the 2nd US
Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that the Patriot Act can't be used to detain Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant. When the guy starts talking to his accomplices via his attorney, and the dirty nuke attack eventually *does* takes place, won't you be glad you got what you wished for? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031218/D7VGT6E00.html The ironic thing is...those who most strongly oppose the Patriot Act live in or near the large cities that are most likely to be targeted by the terrorists who will be released by today's ruling. Merry Christmas... Oh yeah...one more thing... Don't look directly at the light. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
How long did you think he should've been held as an enemy combatant?
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... Well, apparently you liberals will get your wish. Apparently, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that the Patriot Act can't be used to detain Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant. When the guy starts talking to his accomplices via his attorney, and the dirty nuke attack eventually *does* takes place, won't you be glad you got what you wished for? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031218/D7VGT6E00.html The ironic thing is...those who most strongly oppose the Patriot Act live in or near the large cities that are most likely to be targeted by the terrorists who will be released by today's ruling. Merry Christmas... Oh yeah...one more thing... Don't look directly at the light. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Well, apparently you liberals will get your wish. Apparently, the 2nd US
Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that the Patriot Act can't be used to detain Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant. When the guy starts talking to his accomplices via his attorney, and the dirty nuke attack eventually *does* takes place, won't you be glad you got what you wished for? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031218/D7VGT6E00.html The ironic thing is...those who most strongly oppose the Patriot Act live in or near the large cities that are most likely to be targeted by the terrorists who will be released by today's ruling. Merry Christmas... Oh yeah...one more thing... Don't look directly at the light. So we should let George Bush "nuke" the Bill of Rights to try and preserve the American way? Sorry, makes no sense to me at all. But, it is nice to know that there was only *1* (one, as in singular) person in the US who would ever consider a sick, criminal, terrorist activity like setting off a deadly bomb. I guess the whole country was completely safe as long as this sole, nut case, US citizen was locked up indefinitely without being charged with a crime and without access to counsel. If he is suspected of a crime, let him be charged with a crime and prosecuted. If it's a serious crime, he can be kept in jail without bail at the judge's option- just like any other criminal suspect. Meanwhile, there are risks associated with freedom. Some people will use or abuse our social freedoms to commit crimes. The solution is not to curtail the rights of a free society, but rather to vigorously prosecute the criminals. If Jose Padilla is a threat to the United States, I don't care if he never emerges from prison again....but it has to be done according to the Constitution. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Forever.
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... How long did you think he should've been held as an enemy combatant? "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... Well, apparently you liberals will get your wish. Apparently, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that the Patriot Act can't be used to detain Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant. When the guy starts talking to his accomplices via his attorney, and the dirty nuke attack eventually *does* takes place, won't you be glad you got what you wished for? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031218/D7VGT6E00.html The ironic thing is...those who most strongly oppose the Patriot Act live in or near the large cities that are most likely to be targeted by the terrorists who will be released by today's ruling. Merry Christmas... Oh yeah...one more thing... Don't look directly at the light. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Well, apparently you liberals will get your wish. Apparently, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that the Patriot Act can't be used to detain Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant. When the guy starts talking to his accomplices via his attorney, and the dirty nuke attack eventually *does* takes place, won't you be glad you got what you wished for? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031218/D7VGT6E00.html The ironic thing is...those who most strongly oppose the Patriot Act live in or near the large cities that are most likely to be targeted by the terrorists who will be released by today's ruling. Merry Christmas... Oh yeah...one more thing... Don't look directly at the light. So we should let George Bush "nuke" the Bill of Rights to try and preserve the American way? Sorry, makes no sense to me at all. But, it is nice to know that there was only *1* (one, as in singular) person in the US who would ever consider a sick, criminal, terrorist activity like setting off a deadly bomb. I guess the whole country was completely safe as long as this sole, nut case, US citizen was locked up indefinitely without being charged with a crime and without access to counsel. If he is suspected of a crime, let him be charged with a crime and prosecuted. If it's a serious crime, he can be kept in jail without bail at the judge's option- just like any other criminal suspect. Meanwhile, there are risks associated with freedom. Some people will use or abuse our social freedoms to commit crimes. The solution is not to curtail the rights of a free society, but rather to vigorously prosecute the criminals. If Jose Padilla is a threat to the United States, I don't care if he never emerges from prison again....but it has to be done according to the Constitution. I don't care if they try him through the usual court system. However, he needs to be held incommunicado...and his attorney needs to be screened thoroughly for any potential links to fundamentalist Islam. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Forever.
NOYB, you were born 150 years too late. Get thee down to a library and do a bit of research on the Lincoln Assassination. You will discover that the suspects, (yes there were quite a number beyond JWB), were held in prison under conditions you would applaud. They were individually and solitarily confined, wearing canvas hoods with tiny air holes. They were gagged except when eating, and never allowed to speak to *anybody*. You'd think their military trial was a real hoot, as well. Most likely, all were guilty as hell. Trouble was, there were some *very* nervous public officials who didn't get a good night's sleep until the lot of them were finally hanged and silenced forever. *That's* one of the dangers of your Patriot Act. It can be used to silence people who are guilty of knowing too much about particular parties. Not saying that is the situation in Padilla's case, but it is a possibility any time the POTUS can unilaterally order an individual held "forever" without charges, trial, or access to an attorney. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"NOYB" wrote in message
et... Forever. If your kid was a captured POW and the enemy said "forever", you'd be whining ad infinitum about the Geneva Convention, you pansy. :-) |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
NOYB wrote:
I don't care if they try him through the usual court system. However, he needs to be held incommunicado... Why? What are you afraid of hearing? What are you afraid he might say? and his attorney needs to be screened thoroughly for any potential links to fundamentalist Islam. But you wouldn't mind if he has "real" links to fundamentalist "Christianity"? If his lawyer is licensed to practice wherever the proceedings are held that is all that matters. When the government starts screening lawyers through some patriotic filter we are all in very serious trouble. We will have done to ourselves more than a world of foreign terrorists could ever do. You were just born a few years too late to live under the system you seem to desire. Your version of a judicial system has already been tried, it was the Sondergerhte. You and your ilk are the threat that needs to be watched. Rick |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"Rick" wrote in message
ink.net... You were just born a few years too late to live under the system you seem to desire. Your version of a judicial system has already been tried, it was the Sondergerhte. You and your ilk are the threat that needs to be watched. More recent: J. Edgar Hoover, the guy who wanted to be reincarnated as Josef Stalin. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Gould 0738 wrote:
Get thee down to a library and do a bit of research on the Lincoln Assassination. NOYB and his ilk are intellectually incapable of applying history to the present or future. They must honestly believe that if something did not occur since they obtained their first television then it can not occur in their lifetime. They are incapable of relating historical events to current political expedients. Like gluttons, they prefer to delight in the feast and turn their backs to the inevitable cost of such indulgence. They are truly frightening in their ignorance. They are the flagbearers for political evil and social disintegration. Rick |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Doug Kanter wrote:
More recent: J. Edgar Hoover, the guy who wanted to be reincarnated as Josef Stalin. Yeah, but, no thanks to him, he could come back as Josephine 8-) Another hypocritical rightwing piece of s..t who would have taken the country into the social and political Hell NOYB and his ilk so desire for all but themselves. Rick |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
My kid doesn't try and take on the World's most powerful nation. Padilla
did...and got caught. If his side wins the war, then he'll be freed. If his side loses (which they will), he'll remain behind bars forever. The same would be true about my son. If he were a POW, he'd be freed as soon as his country opened up a can of whoop-ass on his captors. BTW--I'm not for the death penalty, so I don't want to see the guy hanged. If it's possible to subdue a threat through non-lethal means, and lock them up permanently, than killing someone is not necessary. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message et... Forever. If your kid was a captured POW and the enemy said "forever", you'd be whining ad infinitum about the Geneva Convention, you pansy. :-) |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"Rick" wrote in message ink.net... Gould 0738 wrote: Get thee down to a library and do a bit of research on the Lincoln Assassination. NOYB and his ilk are intellectually incapable of applying history to the present or future. They must honestly believe that if something did not occur since they obtained their first television then it can not occur in their lifetime. They are incapable of relating historical events to current political expedients. Like gluttons, they prefer to delight in the feast and turn their backs to the inevitable cost of such indulgence. What do *you* feel is the "inevitable cost of such indulgence"? I know the cost of *recent history*. I know the cost of allowing criminals and terrorists to use our civil liberties and open society as loopholes to wage war against us. I also know the cost of history from 60+ years ago...the cost of letting a brutal tyrant go unchecked. I know the cost of thousands of years of religious strife in which one religion has tried to exterminate other religions. I also know that this is the current goal of the modern Muslim fundamentalist...our extermination They are truly frightening in their ignorance. They are the flagbearers for political evil and social disintegration. Your fear is directed in entirely the wrong direction. It'd be sad, if it weren't so scary. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net... I know the cost of *recent history*. How about the cost of letting a very small group of men wage ware, while Congress waffles about, afraid to object much because they're afraid of disagreeing with the president because they're from his political party? Examples: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... I know the cost of *recent history*. How about the cost of letting a very small group of men wage ware, while Congress waffles about, afraid to object much because they're afraid of disagreeing with the president because they're from his political party? Examples: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. I guess you missed the TWO votes Congress made on Iraq. Man, you are clueless. Votes like that are for the benefit of the voting public, Wally boy. Proof: They impressed YOU. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:06:04 +0000, Rick wrote:
When the government starts screening lawyers through some patriotic filter we are all in very serious trouble. We will have done to ourselves more than a world of foreign terrorists could ever do. We already have. Remember John Gotti and Bruce Cutler? I am not defending either, but Cutler wasn't allowed to defend Gotti. http://www.ganglandnews.com/column14.htm |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"WaIIy" wrote in message
... On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:07:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "WaIIy" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... I know the cost of *recent history*. How about the cost of letting a very small group of men wage ware, while Congress waffles about, afraid to object much because they're afraid of disagreeing with the president because they're from his political party? Examples: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. I guess you missed the TWO votes Congress made on Iraq. Man, you are clueless. Votes like that are for the benefit of the voting public, Wally boy. Proof: They impressed YOU. That's your answer? Congress voted TWICE for authorization and you dismiss them as "benefit of the voting public". Anyway, of your premise is true, that's what they are elected for. Holy smokes, you really can't admit when you're wrong. Cheesey. When votes occur with a wink and a nod, they're for the cameras, Wally boy. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
NOYB wrote:
Well, apparently you liberals will get your wish. Apparently, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that the Patriot Act can't be used to detain Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant. When the guy starts talking to his accomplices via his attorney, and the dirty nuke attack eventually *does* takes place, won't you be glad you got what you wished for? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031218/D7VGT6E00.html The ironic thing is...those who most strongly oppose the Patriot Act live in or near the large cities that are most likely to be targeted by the terrorists who will be released by today's ruling. Merry Christmas... Oh yeah...one more thing... Don't look directly at the light. And it is a good thing, too, since the so-called Patriot Act is the most unAmerican piece of crap perpetrated by the right-wing loonies since Joe McCarthy. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:59:07 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
snip And it is a good thing, too, since the so-called Patriot Act is the most unAmerican piece of crap perpetrated by the right-wing loonies since Joe McCarthy. Harry, just what rights have you lost under the Patriot Act. I've asked you this before, but you apparently missed the question. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:59:07 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: snip And it is a good thing, too, since the so-called Patriot Act is the most unAmerican piece of crap perpetrated by the right-wing loonies since Joe McCarthy. Harry, just what rights have you lost under the Patriot Act. I've asked you this before, but you apparently missed the question. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD No man is an island, John. There; it is Donne. Got it? When civil liberties are attacked by the US government, we're all under attack. The Bush Administration is hell-bent on eroding civil liberties. Perhaps the courts are finally waking up to the erosions being perpetrated by the fascists running the Bush Administration. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:27:18 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:59:07 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: snip And it is a good thing, too, since the so-called Patriot Act is the most unAmerican piece of crap perpetrated by the right-wing loonies since Joe McCarthy. Harry, just what rights have you lost under the Patriot Act. I've asked you this before, but you apparently missed the question. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD No man is an island, John. There; it is Donne. Got it? When civil liberties are attacked by the US government, we're all under attack. The Bush Administration is hell-bent on eroding civil liberties. Perhaps the courts are finally waking up to the erosions being perpetrated by the fascists running the Bush Administration. Apparently I wasn't clear. What civil liberties have you lost under the Patriot Act? This is the act that 98 Senators voted for, yes? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
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 Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 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; 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. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Harry doesn't like to answer direct questions...'cause honesty makes him
uncomfortable. What rights have *you* lost Harry? "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:27:18 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:59:07 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: snip And it is a good thing, too, since the so-called Patriot Act is the most unAmerican piece of crap perpetrated by the right-wing loonies since Joe McCarthy. Harry, just what rights have you lost under the Patriot Act. I've asked you this before, but you apparently missed the question. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD No man is an island, John. There; it is Donne. Got it? When civil liberties are attacked by the US government, we're all under attack. The Bush Administration is hell-bent on eroding civil liberties. Perhaps the courts are finally waking up to the erosions being perpetrated by the fascists running the Bush Administration. Apparently I wasn't clear. What civil liberties have you lost under the Patriot Act? This is the act that 98 Senators voted for, yes? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Apparently I wasn't clear. What civil liberties have you lost under the
Patriot Act? This is the act that 98 Senators voted for, yes? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD You do a disservice to the right wing when you ask this question, as does NOYB when he repeats it. It's a stupid question. I guess the problem is that your talk radio gurus haven't really addressed this, so as an early Solstice Holiday Gift I will fill in for them. The Patriot Act reduces inalienable individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States to provisional rights subject to the whim of the Chief Executive. Read that paragraph again, slowly, if it didn't register the first time through. Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under the Patriot Act, the Executive branch can strip any citizen of the United States of any and all civil rights. Each citizen of the US is entitled to a full spectrum of civil rights until *convicted* (not merely accused of) a serious crime. Under the Patriot Act, there is no appeals process if the Executive Branch decides to label you a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant." You are simply locked up and the key is thrown away. Now, if you cannot see how having your individual, inalienable rights guaranteed by the constitution is a better situation than having whatever politician currently elected POTUS making (possibly politically motivated) decisions about who is going to be protected under the Bill of Rights and who is not, then you will surely keep asking your same silly question until hell freezes over. Just because the hate mongers on right wing radio pose the rhetorical question, "What do these liberal, left wing, communist, traitor, Democrat *******s think they have given up as a result of the Patriot Act"..doesn't mean the question has any legs at all in the real world. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
I wonder how he is going to get rid of his lobster boat, maybe it will be
sunk by a hurricane. "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
"Gould 0738" wrote in message Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under the Patriot Act, the Executive branch can strip any citizen of the United States of any and all civil rights. ..... Under the Patriot Act, there is no appeals process if the Executive Branch decides to label you a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant." You are simply locked up and the key is thrown away. Blatantly overstated and wrong on both counts, Chuck, and the recent decision by the 2nd Circuit Appellate would seem to support me; would seem to indicate that our system of checks and balances does, in fact, work; that we can, in times of national need, tighten down the screws a bit in particular places as long as we're careful to ensure that the tightened screw does not pinch where it does not need to. JG |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
|
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Please....these amendments are a bunch of crap and you know it. Left-wing
drivel. Where did you find them? New York Times? "DSK" wrote in message ... 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 Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 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; 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. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Blatantly overstated and wrong on both counts, Chuck,
Beyond a declaration by the Justice Department, (reporting to the POTUS), nothing more is required to lock up an individual indefinitely under the Patriot Act. and the recent decision by the 2nd Circuit Appellate would seem to support me; Who brought the suit in the 2nd Court? Surely not the accused- he has had no access to an attorney. When the first citizen is locked up under the Patriot Act, it's a high profile situation. Suppose there were 200, 2000, or 20,000? Would somebody step forward to bring judicial attention to all of the cases of unconstitutional confinement? that we can, in times of national need, tighten down the screws a bit in particular places as long as we're careful to ensure that the tightened screw does not pinch where it does not need to. the "screwing" cannot effect the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. What is the right wing always says, "If you don't like it, move to........"? Gosh, there must be 1000 countries in the world where one doesn't have to put up with that ridiculous Bill of Rights. |
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 Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:39:52 -0500, 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 Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 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; 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. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Can you please show us the title, sub-title, and section numbers of the act which remove those rights? 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
... Each citizen of the US is entitled to a full spectrum of civil rights until *convicted* (not merely accused of) a serious crime." Hey professor - remember yesterday's news? Jose Padilla ***is*** a U.S. citizen, so what happened to HIS rights under the so-called Patriot Act? No due process, professor. Perhaps you have a unusual definition of "each", in your phrase "each citizen". 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 branch can strip any citizen of the United States of any and all civil rights. Perhaps YOU could point out where in the Patriot Act it's written that U.S. citizens can be held incommunicado for indefinite periods of time. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"JohnH" wrote in message
... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Can you please show us the title, sub-title, and section numbers of the act which remove those rights? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD He doesn't need to, John. You've already seen one glaring example of the government's willingness and ability to remove certain rights. Unless, of course, you are claiming that the case of Jose Padilla is a complete fabrication, and that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed something that didn't exist. Is that what you're saying? |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
snip
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Can you please show us the title, sub-title, and section numbers of the act which remove those rights? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD I will give you some pointers to find this out for your self: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla...t_analysis.php http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=12126&c=207 http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf Mark Browne |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
snip
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Can you please show us the title, sub-title, and section numbers of the act which remove those rights? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD The most direct answer to your question: http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=11812 Mark Browne |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:IOIEb.598754$Tr4.1566177@attbi_s03... The most direct answer to your question: http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=11812 Mark Browne J. Edgar would've LOVED this. It codifies things he was already doing. JohnH won't believe it, though. He just wants to have a nice weekend. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:58:31 GMT, "Mark Browne"
wrote: snip The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Can you please show us the title, sub-title, and section numbers of the act which remove those rights? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD I will give you some pointers to find this out for your self: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla...t_analysis.php http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Safe...ID=12126&c=207 http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf Mark Browne Mark, I found none of the 'panic' in the Federation of American Scientists report that is in the ACLU report and the ravings of some of the folks in the NG. Perhaps I'm just not the brightest light in the chandelier, but I don't see the reason for the implications that we have lost all the rights granted us by the Bill of Rights. Yes, I plan to enjoy the weekend. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:12:42 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote: "Mark Browne" wrote in message news:IOIEb.598754$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? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Mark Browne" wrote in message news:IOIEb.598754$Tr4.1566177@attbi_s03... The most direct answer to your question: http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=11812 Mark Browne J. Edgar would've LOVED this. It codifies things he was already doing. JohnH won't believe it, though. He just wants to have a nice weekend. And wear his uniform and pretend he's still a soldier. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:12:42 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Mark Browne" wrote in message news:IOIEb.598754$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. -- Email sent to is never read. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com