"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:37:40 +0000, NOYB wrote:


This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who
don't
take up arms against this country. Padilla was an enemy combatant.

Horse****, NOYB. Infringe on the rights of one US citizen, infringe on
the rights of all US citizens. If Padilla was an enemy combatant, charge
him. In my country, a man is innocent *until* proven guilty. There's a
country about 150 miles south of you, that disappears citizens. Perhaps,
you would be more comfortable there.

I'm quite comfortable here. But since you mention Cuba, imagine that *you*
lived there and spoke out against the government like you do here.


And you think that the US is infringing upon your rights...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:



If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you
have no rights.

Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence
because you have been locked up for three years, without charges, without
council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there,
NOYB.

What about the numerous persons that were summarily beheaded over in Iraq.
Do you abhor that kind of justice too?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:



If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you
have no rights.

Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence
because you have been locked up for three years, without charges, without
council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there,
NOYB.

What about the numerous persons that were summarily beheaded over in Iraq.
Do you abhor that kind of justice too?

thunder isn't a bad person. He just happens to live in a fantasy world
where it's desirable to show compassion to your enemy in the hope that they
will do the same to you.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:21:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:



If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you
have no rights.

Ah, guilty until proven innocent. Only you can't prove your innocence
because you have been locked up for three years, without charges,
without
council, without . . . Quite the new Amerika you are working on there,
NOYB.

What about the numerous persons that were summarily beheaded over in
Iraq. Do you abhor that kind of justice too?

thunder isn't a bad person. He just happens to live in a fantasy world
where it's desirable to show compassion to your enemy in the hope that
they will do the same to you.

The problem is that our enemy's only compasionate act is a bullet in our
heads.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:59:23 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I'm quite comfortable here. But since you mention Cuba, imagine that
*you* lived there and spoke out against the government like you do here.

Then why is it that you want to make this country more like that country?

And you think that the US is infringing upon your rights...

NOYB wrote:
This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't
take up arms against this country.

The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and
subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power, who
at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have in
office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars and a
base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental
religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear
with people like you and them in power. Sam

Exactly.

If a person has taken up arms against the government the charge in a
criminal court is treason. Once you have proved your charge in open
court you can subject a person to the penalties perscribed by law.

Take a logical step here.
All persons involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens. So why
are any Suadi nationals allowed any access to the US and why did the US
government put troops into Suadi Arabia to defeat the terrorist
organizations and promote a democratic society. ?

Try which King is good friends with a US president and his oil buddies.

On 10 Sep 2005 08:46:07 -0700, "Sam" wrote:

NOYB wrote:
This ruling did nothing to infringe on the rights of US citizens who don't
take up arms against this country.

The requirements of the charge of "taking up arms" are vague and
subjective, subject to the whims of the political party in power, who
at present are Republicans, which party at present seems to have in
office an overabundance of paranoid, narrow minded, greedy liars and a
base of comparatively stupid people whipped into a fundamental
religious and patriotic froth. Real US citizens have plenty to fear
with people like you and them in power. Sam

What would be the requirements if Kerry were in power?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

wrote:
Exactly.

If a person has taken up arms against the government the charge in a
criminal court is treason. Once you have proved your charge in open
court you can subject a person to the penalties perscribed by law.

Take a logical step here.
All persons involved in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens. So why
are any Suadi nationals allowed any access to the US and why did the US
government not put troops into Suadi Arabia to defeat the terrorist
organizations and promote a democratic society. ?

Try which King is good friends with a US president and his oil buddies.

,edit to correct omission.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
U.S. Wins Court Ruling in 'Dirty Bomb' Case
By Richard A. Serrano Times Staff Writer2 hours, 6 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Jose Padilla,
held
for more than three years after federal officials said he planned to set
off
radiological devices, or "dirty bombs," could be detained indefinitely
without trial.

The unanimous decision by a panel of the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals
significantly boosts the Bush administration's program of jailing key Al
Qaeda and Taliban suspects without filing criminal charges or holding
trials - whether the detainees were Americans arrested in the U.S. or
citizens of other countries seized abroad - in an effort to squeeze
intelligence information from alleged terrorist operatives.

The ruling could have major implications for detainees at the U.S. naval
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many, like Padilla, have been deemed
"enemy combatants." Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote the decision for the
three-member panel in Richmond, Va. He is considered to be on President
Bush's short list of candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

Since this ruling supports the 'disapearing' of US citizens and denies
them the constitutional rights under a system of laws that this country
was founded on I see no great benefit from it.

If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen...you're an enemy combatant and a traitor. At that point, you
have no rights.

There was no way to fight a successful war against terrorism through our
court system. The enemy knew this, and that's precisely why they were so
successful in waging war against us without any repercussions against
them. All of that changed after 9/11 with Bush as President.



I guess you do not believe in the reasons for the 2nd amendment.