"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
:

On 17 Dec 2011 23:53:16 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On 17 Dec 2011 13:49:10 GMT, Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:0YWdnULmTsZeE3HTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earth link.com:

Han wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Uh, there is no judge or jury when dealing with unlawful enemy
combatants. They are not criminals. They do not get criminal
trials. They do not get the "rights" provided to criminal
defendants.

If the president or his designee anoints someone as an
unlawful enemy combatant, they're toast.

That seems to be current procedure. My question is whether
anointing or branding someone UEC could possibly be misused to
get rid of people the "President" doesn't like.

Yes, it could. Almost any law could be misused (and most have).
We just have to rely on the innate goodness of our president and
his sense of fair play. But even if the president goes rogue (or
a little funny in the head), he can be replaced at the next
regularly scheduled election.

Seems to me that in a lawful
state some kind of due process should exist.

Due process does exist. It exists in the unfettered discretion
possessed by the president. Very many laws rely on the
"discretion" of the bureaucrat.

Why do your statements fail to give me confidence in the process?

Hint: no law is needed for the government to "go rogue".

I came to the US in 1969, in spite of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution
and its sequelae, but when I came it was known as somewhat bogus.
Same for the other side of the aisle with Iraq. Yes, I know that
governemnt can go rogue, with or without law. I hope you'll join me
in NOT condoning that.

So you think (the absence of) a little law will stop it?

If there is a "law", however unconstitutional, to permit
unconstitutional behavior, a "conviction" is more difficult to
obtain.

Gingrich didn't help the rule of law by saying (paraphrased) if I'm
president, I will do what I want and the SCOTUS can go (insert
phrase). He has now totally disqualified himself. Why can't the
Republicans find a qualified AND electable candidate? With Obama's
not so great performance (thus far), that should be easy ...


Why don't you provide us with PRIMARY evidence to that assertion
IN he case of MOST of the US Mainstream media, the old adage, "Trust
but Verify" does not apply any more.
The rule now is "Mistrust and Verify".

If I can't trust the WSJ for correctly reporting a quote, I'll give up.



Then get ready to give up, since it appears that Newt did not make ANY
comment about the SCOTUS recently.
Just spent a few minutes trying to track down his exact statement..