NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



NOYB wrote:



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...




NOYB wrote:




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...





http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html


"If the law in its current state is found by the president to be
insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as
the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon
Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote.



Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States
citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit
Congressional authorization."




This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into
enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary
powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a
US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day
anytime soon.


Hahahahohohohehehe.

Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt
about that.

I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers
in the area under discussion.


I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a
Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige.

Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights:


That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own
rule of law.

The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set
him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy
trial, represented by counsel. Period.
Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than
anything Padilla did or could do.

I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are
not there yet.


You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The
Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it
resulted in the 2001 attack.




So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of
Rights?


I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida
terrorists.




"al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom?


The DoD.


So then we will have a military dictatorship --- they don't like you,
declare you al Qaida and you "disappear" -- Just like Chili a few years
ago -- as I recall the CIA was advising them at the time under Bush the
first. Argentina had a similar process under Perone (or was that before
your time?)

"Jim," wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



NOYB wrote:



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...




NOYB wrote:




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...





http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html


"If the law in its current state is found by the president to be
insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such
as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon
Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote.



Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States
citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit
Congressional authorization."




This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into
enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary
powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a
US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of
day anytime soon.


Hahahahohohohehehe.

Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no
doubt about that.

I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new
powers in the area under discussion.


I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and
a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige.

Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights:


That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own
rule of law.

The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then
set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a
speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period.
Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country
than anything Padilla did or could do.

I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are
not there yet.


You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The
Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it
resulted in the 2001 attack.




So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of
Rights?


I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida
terrorists.




"al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom?


The DoD.


So then we will have a military dictatorship --- they don't like you,
declare you al Qaida and you "disappear" -- Just like Chili a few years
ago -- as I recall the CIA was advising them at the time under Bush the
first. Argentina had a similar process under Perone (or was that before
your time?)

I don't have to worry. You, Gould, DSK, and Harry should be afraid. Be
very, very afraid.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:



"Jim," wrote in message
...



NOYB wrote:



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...




NOYB wrote:




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...





NOYB wrote:





"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..






http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html


"If the law in its current state is found by the president to
be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots,
such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail
upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote.



Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States
citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit
Congressional authorization."




This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into
enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary
powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to
a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light
of day anytime soon.


Hahahahohohohehehe.

Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no
doubt about that.

I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new
powers in the area under discussion.


I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for
this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige.

Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights:


That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its
own rule of law.

The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then
set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a
speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period.
Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country
than anything Padilla did or could do.

I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we
are not there yet.


You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The
Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it
resulted in the 2001 attack.




So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill
of Rights?


I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida
terrorists.




"al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom?


The DoD.



So then we will have a military dictatorship --- they don't like you,
declare you al Qaida and you "disappear" -- Just like Chili a few years
ago -- as I recall the CIA was advising them at the time under Bush the
first. Argentina had a similar process under Perone (or was that before
your time?)


I don't have to worry. You, Gould, DSK, and Harry should be afraid. Be
very, very afraid.




Frankly, if we go down that road, then the sitting US government should
tossed out.

We either have a viable Constitution here and the rule of law, with the
same laws for everyone, or we don't have anything at all.

I lost two uncles in WW II who fought to defend the United States against
the kind of thinking you are espousing.

There are 3000 families who lost a relative on 9/11 because of the thinking
you are espousing.

Suppose Padilla is released and decides to settle in your neighborhood.
Would you be OK with that?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


"Jim," wrote in message
...



NOYB wrote:




"Jim," wrote in message
...




NOYB wrote:




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...





NOYB wrote:





"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..






NOYB wrote:






"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..







http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html


"If the law in its current state is found by the president to
be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots,
such as the one alleged here, then the president should
prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote.



Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United
States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit
Congressional authorization."




This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress
into enacting legislation that will give the President the
necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be
appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna
see the light of day anytime soon.


Hahahahohohohehehe.

Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no
doubt about that.

I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new
powers in the area under discussion.


I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for
this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige.

Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights:


That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its
own rule of law.

The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and
then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his
right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period.
Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country
than anything Padilla did or could do.

I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we
are not there yet.


You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws.
The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack,
and it resulted in the 2001 attack.




So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill
of Rights?


I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al
Qaida terrorists.




"al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom?


The DoD.



So then we will have a military dictatorship --- they don't like you,
declare you al Qaida and you "disappear" -- Just like Chili a few years
ago -- as I recall the CIA was advising them at the time under Bush the
first. Argentina had a similar process under Perone (or was that
before your time?)


I don't have to worry. You, Gould, DSK, and Harry should be afraid. Be
very, very afraid.




Frankly, if we go down that road, then the sitting US government should
tossed out.

We either have a viable Constitution here and the rule of law, with the
same laws for everyone, or we don't have anything at all.

I lost two uncles in WW II who fought to defend the United States against
the kind of thinking you are espousing.


There are 3000 families who lost a relative on 9/11 because of the
thinking you are espousing.

Suppose Padilla is released and decides to settle in your neighborhood.
Would you be OK with that?


If the man is released, it means there is no credible evidence to bring
before a a grand jury.

That's not necessarily true. Criminals get off on technicalities all of the
time.



I don't whether Padilla is guilty of anything. He is entitled to confront
his accusers, to be charged, to have a bail hearing, to have counsel and
to have a speedy public trial. If our government cannot do this, it must
release him.


We're not talking about sex offender here.

What he does after that is his business.

You're really, truly, advocating a "system of law" that more closely
resemles that of Naxi Germany, the Stalin Soviet era, or the mess that was
Chile.


No. I'm advocating a system of law resembling that laid out by the Canadian
"Emergencies Act".

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:



Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists during
Clinton's watch:

NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch? This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government. This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government. You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.

Lee Huddleston

"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:



Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists during
Clinton's watch:

NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?

There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was planned
and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his declaration of war
against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an act.
In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know under what
legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which is why
the Constitution affords special rights to the President under special
circumstances. Most countries do.





This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.

Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it takes is
enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve that the
prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry, Chuck, or you
were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v. Padilla, you guys
already have enough doubt before the case even begins. That's the
fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when politics gets in the way.

This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.

So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's rights?
What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a serial sex
offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the power to hold the guy
under existing law?

You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.


No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


NOYB wrote:
There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was planned
and executed in an 8 month period.

That's not the point.

The point is that Bush & Cheney did nothing... NOTHING! ... to stop the
progress of the Sept 11th plotters, desptite the warnings and intel he
was handed.


Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an act.

Unlike Bush & Cheney, who don't give a flying **** about the Constitution.

In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know under what
legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to hand him over.


Guess what... Sept 11th hadn't happened yet.

You're ignoring the fact that after Sept 11th, which Osama Bin Laden
claimed full credit for, Bush & Cheney gave up looking for him.



This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...

That's simply not true.

*IF* Bush & Cheney had managed their intel & counter-terrorist ops
half-competently, then Sept 11th would not have happened. Instead they
were worried about how to hush up Cheney's oil policy.

It is not a case on inadequate law, it is a case of incompetent leadership.

DSK

NOYB wrote:
"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:



Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists during
Clinton's watch:


NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was planned
and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his declaration of war
against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an act.
In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know under what
legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which is why
the Constitution affords special rights to the President under special
circumstances. Most countries do.






This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.


Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it takes is
enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve that the
prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry, Chuck, or you
were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v. Padilla, you guys
already have enough doubt before the case even begins. That's the
fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when politics gets in the way.


This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.


So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's rights?
What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a serial sex
offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the power to hold the guy
under existing law?


You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.



No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.



I think it was Chief Justice Marshall who said something to the effect
of 'Better 100 guilty men go free, than we execute 1 innocent man"

"Jim," wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:



Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists during
Clinton's watch:


NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was
planned and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his
declaration of war against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to
hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which is
why the Constitution affords special rights to the President under
special circumstances. Most countries do.






This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.


Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it takes
is enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve that the
prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry, Chuck, or
you were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v. Padilla, you
guys already have enough doubt before the case even begins. That's the
fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when politics gets in the
way.


This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.


So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's rights?
What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a serial sex
offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the power to hold the
guy under existing law?


You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.



No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.

I think it was Chief Justice Marshall who said something to the effect of
'Better 100 guilty men go free, than we execute 1 innocent man"

Not when it comes to terrorists.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an act.
In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know under
what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to hand him
over.

Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles?

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html