"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On 2 Nov 2006 05:40:22 -0800, wrote:
Bob Martin wrote:
in 1324916 20061101 193059 wrote:
CW wrote:
Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to
Guantanamo, no
charges needed.
Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...
Just don't cry when they send you there.
I don't need to worry about that. I am an honest hardworking citizen. I
don't fraternize with terrorists or enemies of the state. Gitmo is
there for those people, not me. Do you really think of America as "The
Evil Empire" just looking for excuses to lock up honest people who
disagree with "the regime"? If that were true (and it's not), a lot of
very public, very outspoken anti-establishment activists would be
disappearing unexplainably. If they are not locking them up, why would
the lock me up (along with every other average citizen)? Your alarmist
BS has no substance.
Horse****. I thought your first post was toungue-in-cheek.
So what happens if a different political party gains power and decides
that your ilk are dangerous to society? There are very good reasons
why we have due process and Habeus Corpus. Sometimes the guys who
have to enforce the law make mistakes, and the court system is there
to (at least try) to sort those out according to a reasoned process.
These are basic human rights that date back to the 13th century, and
are not to be casually trifled with because the idea that some bad men
halfway around the world might come on camelback to get you makes you
**** your panties.
Law is an incremental process, they start small, with test cases to
establish a precedent. Once the precident is set, it becomes very
difficult to overturn- it's not impossible to disregard precedent, but
it is generally not done in our legal system. So they start with
"terrorists," (I use the word in quotes because without charges or
systematic review, any one of those people could be a grocer from Iran
who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time- the point is, we
can't know, because the evidence is hidden) and once that is
established, it can be applied in incremental steps to broaden it's
effective range of applications. Next might be home-grown militia
groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either.
So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens?
Even
though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists.
So what?
If
the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US
citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened
through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists,
murderers and thieves are next.
While this may be true, who has proposed to suspend Habeus Corpus "for even
one US citizen"? The last person to try i t IIRC was named Grant.
Most of the people will so treated
will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold
the initial cases.
So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it
can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a
camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to
vote for very well could.
Well, now, personally I don't much hold with noncitizens holding elected
office in the US so I don't really have a problem with that.
Or a newscaster who has a story that
embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea
(I hope.)
So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they
want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that.
Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable
con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your
wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th
grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean
they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out
for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you
deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it.
Uh, you shouldn't go on about "fifth grade understanding of the world" when
you own is wide of the mark.
McCarthy stuff snipped
Think of how much more
damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been
able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign
soil- never to be seen or heard from again.
So how many noncitizens _did_ McCarthy go after?
You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
come too late.
If you're a noncitizen.
Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what
some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to
"aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens.
Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the
Congress had that same restriction.
The full text of the legislation may be found at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109vNo5G3:: .
Note specifically
"Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
commission under this chapter."
Also note
"Sec. 948a. Definitions
In this chapter:
(3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the
United States."
If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about
something that somebody actually did or was trying to do.