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

"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

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

"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

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.

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.

"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...

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.

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.