"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message
. ..

So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens?

None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign
terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that
with domestic terrorists, too.

What statute allows that?

Remember Oklahoma City? ( I need to
clarify this- I do not mean that McVeigh's civil rights were breached,
I am pointing out an example of domestic terrorism )

So?

If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an
authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock
someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too
dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused.

So who have "they" "done it to" and what specific legislation has you so
upset?

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.

We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government
declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people
would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it
a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when
doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A
lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags.

So you're saying that laws that specifically do not affect US citizens are
the camel's nose?

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.

You just don't get it, do you?

Yes, I do. You're the one who isn't "getting it" because either you are
misinformed about the legislation you fear or you believe that a nation is
obligated to make no distinction between its own citizens and those of other
nations.

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.

Again, you missed the point. And you *should* have a problem with a
government arresting a reporter and torturing them without evidence-
regardless of their nationality. You don't support the people who
behead American reporters in the Middle East, do you? Is that the
behavior we are to emulate and adopt?

Torturing? Who is being tortured?

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.

Well, you've convinced me. I guess I'll just have to assume from here
on out that whomever is the most popular during any given election
cycle is an honest and upright citizen who has the natural ability and
good sense to use any amount of unlimited power properly.

Whew, that's a relief.

I'm sorry, but now I have no idea what you are on about.

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?

There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an
elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens-
wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again?

Well, now, it happened to US citizens without whatever legislation has you
so upset so what difference does that legislation make?

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.

You're an ass.

No, I'm a person who wishes that twits like you would post the docket number
for whatever legislation you're on about so the rest of us can at least
figure out what you're raving about,.

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.

Somebody did actually do it- you just sent the link describing it.
And they will try to expand it, as sure as the sun rises in the East.

"Did it?" Did _what_, enacted legislation allowing the government to try
noncitizen terrorists by military tribunal, with review by the civilian
courts? Yeah, they did it. So what?

If you're thinking that they'll remove the limitation to aliens that is
there specifically because the Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot
apply such rules to citizens. "They" can't "expand it" unless they replace
the Supreme Court.

I really wish people like you who go around being terrified of their own
shadows would get lives.