In article et,
says...

There have been thousands of alleged "enemy combatants" freed from
Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib once military intelligence and/or tribunals have
deemed that they are no longer a threat. And I have faith that the military
system of justice will provide adequate protections for the truly innocent.

And your "faith" comes as a result of knowing that system so well. I'm
sure the same faith applied to those who didn't have to go to internment
camps in WWII.

Except that I'm sure 99.9% of those Americans would have sided with
their chosen country.

I think you should submit yourself to their custody based on marginal
evidence and see how the system works.

I'm sure you'd be out within a couple of years.

You'd be whimpering like a baby after two days.

jps

In article ,
says...

"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?

Are you suggesting that we operate using the same moral standards as
those who would chop people's heads off?

jps

In article . net,
says...

"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.

You mistake compassion for humane. You and Bert would stoop to the same
moral and ethical levels of your enemy if you felt it proper revenge.

You are the American citizens who should find a country that operates in
such a fashion and emigrate.

jps

In article . net,
says...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:04:13 +0000, NOYB wrote:



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.

The ruling *will* have major implications for all Americans. It's very
bad news for the Bill of Rights. You may want to refresh yourself on the
dying document. Pay special attention to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...cs/billeng.htm

Ironically, one of the Amici supporting Padilla was none other than Janet
Reno. Her name appears right alongside the ACLU, the National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the NYCLU, the CLU of SC, and other mutant,
traitorous leftie organizations.

With Reno presiding over the Justice Dept through the 90's, it's no wonder
why we were fighting an ineffective battle against terrorism before Bush
took office.

http://www.wiggin.com/db30/cgi-bin/p...%20Opinion.pdf

Just because he's guilty doesn't mean he doesn't deserve his day in
court just like any other citizen.

The laws of the land are fully capable of dealing with any of its
citizens.

You'd prefer Joseph Stalin running the country.

jps

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

If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen.

And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such activities is
to HOLD A TRIAL.

How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be for
this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced thought
in the American dialogue.

If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand and you
are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is needed to
classify you as an enemy combatant.

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in
:


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

If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen.

And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such
activities is to HOLD A TRIAL.

How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be
for this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced
thought in the American dialogue.

If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand
and you are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is
needed to classify you as an enemy combatant.

Mr. Padilla was arrested by the FBI, not the military. He was unarmed (in
fact he was at O'Hare airport).

Try dealing in truth next time you post.

Did I mention Padilla's name? I just spoke in general terms regarding the
the classification of an enemy combatant!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in
ink.net:

If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen.
And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such activities
is
to HOLD A TRIAL.

How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be for
this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced thought
in the American dialogue.

If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand and
you are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is needed to
classify you as an enemy combatant.





If you are an "enemy combatant," then you should fall under the protection
of the Geneva Convention.


Not if you're an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

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


QUIZ:

These words were written by:

a) Johnnie Cochran
b) Janet Reno
c) a former Executive Director of the ACLU
d) Gerry Spence

"The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated
powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the
Executive."

Answer below



The correct answer is:

e) Antonin Scalia

Don't worry. I'm sure Scalia will get his chance to rule on this case.
Let's see what he says at that point, OK?

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 05:07:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Not if you're an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

Ah, but a court is the only power that can, legally, determine if a
combatant is "unlawful". Bush does not have that power. The 1996 War
Crimes Act also makes it clear, that failure to follow the Geneva
Convention is a war crime. Impeachment, anyone?

And what about Yaser Hamdi? For three years, this administration held
him, an American citizen, incommunicado, assaulting all Americans' civil
liberties. Holding that Hamdi "jeopardizes compelling national security
interests" and would "interfere with if not irreparably harm the
military's ongoing efforts to gather intelligence." Then they back him
off to Saudi, when he promises that he won't sue. Must have been a real
threat.

Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in
ink.net:

If you engage in subversive activities against the US government and
terrorist activities against US citizens, you are no longer a US
citizen.

And the only way to determine if someone has engaged in such
activities is
to HOLD A TRIAL.

How someone could be against the Kelo v. New London decision but be for
this decision is definitive proof that partisanship has replaced thought
in the American dialogue.


If the US military comes upon you and you have a weapon in your hand
and you are opposing them then that is all of the evidence that is
needed to classify you as an enemy combatant.





If you are an "enemy combatant," then you should fall under the
protection of the Geneva Convention.

George & Co. are above any conventions, agreements, accords etc. Just
ask the people trying to sell reasonably priced softwood to US
customers. International Outlaw might be a good term for his govt.