On 17 Dec 2011 23:57:26 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 15 Dec 2011 21:59:07 GMT, Han wrote:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
news:jcdme4$num$1 @dont-email.me:

Ironically, it turned out that all those (and some more) were actual
communists.

This is a good analogy. Some were communists or at least not averse
to have others exercise their right for free speech.

No, the ones McCarthy was going after were Communists, as in "Soviet
agents" and their accomplices.

Huh, you're McCarthy's son?

That's a great argument. I suppose it's your best/only shot. Try reading
some *history* rather than CNBC.

I am not sympathetic to a lot of what is happening or stated in the
world, but I'd like to be able to discuss almost anything. And I'd
like to be the one to decide what I can discuss.

Go for it. No one is stopping you, even though you often don't have
the facts or are even interested in getting them.

Reading the relevant passage on a government website, it is patently
unclear whether a US citizen, anointed as an Al Quaida sympathizer or
somesuch, is automatically excluded from due process. I don't trust
lawyers on points like these. Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule soonest
possible on this IMNSHO terrible law.

That would mean that such a case would be brought before them. Not likely.

On 17 Dec 2011 23:59:10 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

I was hoping someone would point that out. McCarthy was indeed right.

OK, I'll bite again. McCarthy was an abomination of justice.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Those he went after turned
out to *be* Soviet agents. The government was infested with them (most likely
still is).

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

" wrote in
:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:0YWdnULmTsZeE3HTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthlink .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?

"Han" wrote in message
...
"HeyBub" wrote in

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.

Even sooner in the case of Richard Nixon who misused his powers to direct a
team of burglars to illegally enter the offices of his rivals to look for
dirt. He didn't get to finish out his term, as I recall, as a result.
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't seem to
bother you. It's been alleged that more than one president used the FBI to
gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents from both parties. Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

--
Bobby G.

On Dec 17, 6:57*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote :

On 15 Dec 2011 21:59:07 GMT, Han wrote:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
news:jcdme4$num$1 @dont-email.me:

Ironically, it turned out that all those (and some more) were actual
communists.

This is a good analogy. *Some were communists or at least not averse
to have others exercise their right for free speech.

No, the ones McCarthy was going after were Communists, as in "Soviet
agents" and their accomplices.

Huh, you're McCarthy's son?

I am not sympathetic to a lot of what is happening or stated in the
world, but I'd like to be able to discuss almost anything. *And I'd
like to be the one to decide what I can discuss.

Go for it. *No one is stopping you, even though you often don't have
the facts or are even interested in getting them.

Reading the relevant passage on a government website, it is patently
unclear whether a US citizen, anointed as an Al Quaida sympathizer or
somesuch, is automatically excluded from due process.

And despite being asked for that relevant passage about
10 times now, you have not provided it. In fact, you said
along the way, that you were too lazy to look it up. So,
either put up or shut up.

I've provided the relevant section in the bill. What part
of the below don't you understand or need a lawyer
to figure out that it excludes US citizens? Or alternatively
show us the part you're continuing to bitch about.



"(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-


(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces
of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2)
who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in
military custody pending disposition under the law of war.


(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to
any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is
determined--


(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force
that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-
Qaeda; and


(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an
attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition
partners.


(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection,
the
disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in
section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in
paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with
the
requirements of section 1033.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National
Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary
submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.


(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident
Aliens-


(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in
military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of
the
United States.


(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in
military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful
resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking
place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the
Constitution of the United States.







*I don't trust
lawyers on points like these.

No, better to trust liars like HomeGuy that restarts
the same discredited thread.



*Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule soonest
possible on this IMNSHO terrible law.


They won't be ruling on it because it's just a bill that
AFAIK, has not passed. As for the legalilty of detaining
enemy combatants, the Supreme Court has ruled
on that and generally upheld the rights of the military.
Gitmo is still open, you know.

On Dec 18, 2:30*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Han" wrote in message

...

"HeyBub" wrote in
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.

Even sooner in the case of Richard Nixon who misused his powers to direct a
team of burglars to illegally enter the offices of his rivals to look for
dirt.

Another lie. There isn't a shred of evidence that Nixon had
advance knowledge of the Watergate burglary.



He didn't get to finish out his term, as I recall, as a result.
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't seem to
bother you. *It's been alleged that more than one president used the FBI to
gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents from both parties. *Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

--
Bobby G.

Yeah, but they only bother you when it's a Republican. All the
use of govt power to take away our freedoms little by little in
the name of liberalism, you're OK with. In fact, you want more
of it. Like making us work more each year for govt, one more
step each year towards becoming serfs of the state. Yet you
ruminate about a 40 year old event, where the system worked.

" wrote in
:

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

" wrote in
m:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:0YWdnULmTsZeE3HTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthlin k.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 ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant in
view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he saw fit,
and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 17 Dec 2011 23:57:26 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 15 Dec 2011 21:59:07 GMT, Han wrote:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
news:jcdme4$num$1 @dont-email.me:

Ironically, it turned out that all those (and some more) were
actual communists.

This is a good analogy. Some were communists or at least not averse
to have others exercise their right for free speech.

No, the ones McCarthy was going after were Communists, as in "Soviet
agents" and their accomplices.

Huh, you're McCarthy's son?

That's a great argument. I suppose it's your best/only shot. Try
reading some *history* rather than CNBC.

I am not sympathetic to a lot of what is happening or stated in the
world, but I'd like to be able to discuss almost anything. And I'd
like to be the one to decide what I can discuss.

Go for it. No one is stopping you, even though you often don't have
the facts or are even interested in getting them.

Reading the relevant passage on a government website, it is patently
unclear whether a US citizen, anointed as an Al Quaida sympathizer or
somesuch, is automatically excluded from due process. I don't trust
lawyers on points like these. Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule soonest
possible on this IMNSHO terrible law.

That would mean that such a case would be brought before them. Not
likely.

Certainly not necessary if Gingrich becomes president:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...10507201025878
2.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth
"Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich came out swinging
Saturday against the nation's legal system, pledging if elected to defy
Supreme Court rulings with which he disagrees and declaring that a 200-
year-old principle of American government, judicial review to ensure that
the political branches obey the Constitution, had been "grossly
overstated."

The Wall Street Journal isn't exactly left-wing, is it?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 17 Dec 2011 23:59:10 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

I was hoping someone would point that out. McCarthy was indeed
right.

OK, I'll bite again. McCarthy was an abomination of justice.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Those he went after
turned out to *be* Soviet agents. The government was infested with
them (most likely still is).

I think you are living in the wrong era. Go back where you think you
belong, please. This is the 21st century. Ok, you're allowed your
opinions, but please don't revise history ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Sorry, you're quoting an obsolete version.

The current version (S.1867es, I found the pdf via:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112Tl2LH5::)
does not contain those statements under 1031.

Instead, there is this vague wording under 1031 (e) on page 428 of the pdf
I have:
"10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United States."

While I'm hopeful that this means that US citizens and lawful residents are
NOT subject to this proposed law, I find the wording less than unambiguous.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:


The Wall Street Journal isn't exactly left-wing, is it?
Sorta the 21st century equivalent of how many divisions does the Pope
have.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

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

I was hoping someone would point that out. McCarthy was indeed right.

OK, I'll bite again. McCarthy was an abomination of justice.


Read up on the FBI Verona tapes and the documents released by the KGB
following the collapse of the Soviet

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

On 17 Dec 2011 23:59:10 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

I was hoping someone would point that out. McCarthy was indeed
right.

OK, I'll bite again. McCarthy was an abomination of justice.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Those he went after
turned out to *be* Soviet agents. The government was infested with
them (most likely still is).

I think you are living in the wrong era. Go back where you think you
belong, please. This is the 21st century. Ok, you're allowed your
opinions, but please don't revise history ...


You need to revise your own ignorance and read up on the FBI Verona tapes
and the data released by the KGB following the collapse of the Soviet.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant in
view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he saw fit,
and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).


The key point is that it's a "reported" statement..
Considering the (lack of) credibility of MOST of the media in the US,
anything "reported", but not clearly substantiated, against a potential
presidential candidate just before an nomination/election, could very well
be an attempt at smearing.

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

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

" wrote in
:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:0YWdnULmTsZeE3HTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthli nk.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".

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


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

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

" wrote in
m:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:0YWdnULmTsZeE3HTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthl ink.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.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant
in view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he
saw fit, and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).

"Despite the Supreme Court decision, [Andrew] Jackson took no action to
uphold the Court verdict, and in fact would openly defy it; he was quoted as
saying "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision [on the Indian
Removal Act of 1830], now let him enforce it!". As the court has no
executive powers to enforce its decisions, Jackson's executive disregard of
the court, marked a time when the Judicial branch of government was very
weak."

As to whether Gingrich would defy a Supreme Court order, it may not be
necessary. Congress has the power to anoint a law as being outside the
scrutiny of the federal courts. While this ability is rarely used, if the
Gingrich presidency is blessed with a Republican majority in Congress, what
the Court thinks could be rendered irrelevant.

Still, it is a feature of our government's organization that no branch can
order anything of another branch. The executive branch cannot compel
congress to pass a specific law and the courts cannot demand the president
do squat. That most conflicts are settled with comity and deference does not
mean that they ALL have to be handled in a civilized manner.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant
in view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he
saw fit, and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).

"Despite the Supreme Court decision, [Andrew] Jackson took no action
to uphold the Court verdict, and in fact would openly defy it; he was
quoted as saying "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision
[on the Indian Removal Act of 1830], now let him enforce it!". As the
court has no executive powers to enforce its decisions, Jackson's
executive disregard of the court, marked a time when the Judicial
branch of government was very weak."

As to whether Gingrich would defy a Supreme Court order, it may not be
necessary. Congress has the power to anoint a law as being outside the
scrutiny of the federal courts. While this ability is rarely used, if
the Gingrich presidency is blessed with a Republican majority in
Congress, what the Court thinks could be rendered irrelevant.

Still, it is a feature of our government's organization that no branch
can order anything of another branch. The executive branch cannot
compel congress to pass a specific law and the courts cannot demand
the president do squat. That most conflicts are settled with comity
and deference does not mean that they ALL have to be handled in a
civilized manner.

Yes, the 3 branches of government are independent in one way but still
interdependent. As with all marriages, compliance with the vow is up to
the individual partners.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 18 Dec 2011 13:39:42 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 17 Dec 2011 23:57:26 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 15 Dec 2011 21:59:07 GMT, Han wrote:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
news:jcdme4$num$1 @dont-email.me:

Ironically, it turned out that all those (and some more) were
actual communists.

This is a good analogy. Some were communists or at least not averse
to have others exercise their right for free speech.

No, the ones McCarthy was going after were Communists, as in "Soviet
agents" and their accomplices.

Huh, you're McCarthy's son?

That's a great argument. I suppose it's your best/only shot. Try
reading some *history* rather than CNBC.

I am not sympathetic to a lot of what is happening or stated in the
world, but I'd like to be able to discuss almost anything. And I'd
like to be the one to decide what I can discuss.

Go for it. No one is stopping you, even though you often don't have
the facts or are even interested in getting them.

Reading the relevant passage on a government website, it is patently
unclear whether a US citizen, anointed as an Al Quaida sympathizer or
somesuch, is automatically excluded from due process. I don't trust
lawyers on points like these. Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule soonest
possible on this IMNSHO terrible law.

That would mean that such a case would be brought before them. Not
likely.

Certainly not necessary if Gingrich becomes president:

More unsubstantiated nonsense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...10507201025878
2.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth
"Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich came out swinging
Saturday against the nation's legal system, pledging if elected to defy
Supreme Court rulings with which he disagrees and declaring that a 200-
year-old principle of American government, judicial review to ensure that
the political branches obey the Constitution, had been "grossly
overstated."

The Wall Street Journal isn't exactly left-wing, is it?

Their editorial page certainly isn't RoC. Otherwise, they're all over the
place.

On 18 Dec 2011 13:42:53 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 17 Dec 2011 23:59:10 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

I was hoping someone would point that out. McCarthy was indeed
right.

OK, I'll bite again. McCarthy was an abomination of justice.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Those he went after
turned out to *be* Soviet agents. The government was infested with
them (most likely still is).

I think you are living in the wrong era. Go back where you think you
belong, please. This is the 21st century. Ok, you're allowed your
opinions, but please don't revise history ...

Good God, you're living under a rock. I suppose that's why you're a leftist.

On 18 Dec 2011 13:33:15 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

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

" wrote in
:

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

"HeyBub" wrote in
news:0YWdnULmTsZeE3HTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthli nk.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.

Clearly clueless. You're going to "convict" the President? Good luck with
that.

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 ...

Yet you just *love* Obama for *doing* exactly the same thing. You leftists
are weird.

"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..

Home Guy wrote in :

That was too long of a post and a lot of replies. Was the net of it if you
improperly dispose of a CFL?

Just curious...

Oh gosh. You don't want the EPA to send the men in moon suits out, and then
have the IRS bill you....

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Red Green" wrote in message
...
Home Guy wrote in :

That was too long of a post and a lot of replies. Was the net of it if you
improperly dispose of a CFL?

Just curious...

On Dec 18, 4:07*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message

...

On 12/16/2011 3:00 PM, Han wrote:

stuff snipped

Han, as a retired veteran of 30 years of military service, and as a
physician who has treated the crippled and maimed,

I accompanied my wife a few years back to help with her program to get
people to donate portable DVD players to the soldiers at Walter Reed (they
spend hours waiting for MRI's, etc). I did not know just how badly this
particular war mangled soldiers. *The worst of them got shipped elsewhere,
but there were plenty of serious injury patients at Walter Reed before it
was shut down.

These poor kids, their bodies literally shredded by IEDs, often with their
arms, legs and genitals blown completely off, were still gung ho and hoping
to get back to the war someday. *Most Americans never see any of this, and
the ones crying loudest to continue the war on terror have absolutely no
skin in the game.

What would you do, send up the white flag and send them
a cake?



They are happy to have others fight the wars they demand
be fought and to carve the costs of the war out of the very programs that
kept the 2008 recession from turning into the Second Great Depression.

The armed services are all volunteer. The brave men and
women there have no problem with doing what it takes to
keep the country safe.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0616163438.htm

says: In the second phase of the war, the use of improvised explosive
devices by insurgents has resulted in more fragment wounds and a higher
percentage of critically injured patients arriving to the surgical unit .

On 12/18/2011 9:15 AM, Han wrote:
Sorry, you're quoting an obsolete version.

The current version (S.1867es, I found the pdf via:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112Tl2LH5::)
does not contain those statements under 1031.

Instead, there is this vague wording under 1031 (e) on page 428 of the pdf
I have:
"10 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
11 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
12 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
13 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
14 captured or arrested in the United States."

While I'm hopeful that this means that US citizens and lawful residents are
NOT subject to this proposed law, I find the wording less than unambiguous.


My last activity prior to retirement was to participate in the
rewrite/update of an instruction issued by the Office of the Secretary
of one of the Department of Defense's primary military services. One of
the team's goals was to write the instruction as unambiguously as
possible, to minimize the opportunity for both inadvertent and
intentional misinterpretation. After months of careful research and
writing, we were required to send our final draft to the legal staff of
the Secretary's office for their endorsement. That endorsement was
required if the draft was to continue along the review chain. They
rejected it, sending it back because it was too specific. They said
that they require ambiguity in instructions because that gives them
greater flexibility (latitude) in enforcing the instruction according to
the particular wishes of the Secretary.

Interpretation for those who did not make their career "inside the
Beltway": high government agencies need wiggle room so that their front
offices can satisfy the particular political objectives and assignments
coming from further up in the chain of command. They detest regulations
that box them in and potentially leave them no capacity to make their
bosses happy.

Lawyers run the show, and lawyers love ambiguity. Without it, no one
would need them.

On 12/18/2011 2:08 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 17 Dec 2011 23:59:10 GMT, wrote:

z wrote in
:

I was hoping someone would point that out. McCarthy was indeed right.

OK, I'll bite again. McCarthy was an abomination of justice.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Those he went after turned
out to *be* Soviet agents. The government was infested with them (most likely
still is).

That would require a time machine. The Soviet Union has not been around
since Putin replaced Yeltsin.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:03:07 -0500, Peter wrote:

On 12/18/2011 2:08 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On 17 Dec 2011 23:59:10 GMT, wrote:

z wrote in
:

I was hoping someone would point that out. McCarthy was indeed right.

OK, I'll bite again. McCarthy was an abomination of justice.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Those he went after turned
out to *be* Soviet agents. The government was infested with them (most likely
still is).

That would require a time machine. The Soviet Union has not been around
since Putin replaced Yeltsin.

You may not think so, but Putin doesn't.

Peter wrote:
On 12/18/2011 9:15 AM, Han wrote:

Interpretation for those who did not make their career "inside the
Beltway": high government agencies need wiggle room so that their
front offices can satisfy the particular political objectives and
assignments coming from further up in the chain of command. They
detest regulations that box them in and potentially leave them no
capacity to make their bosses happy.


It could go the other way.

In the wake of 9/11, a committee was formed to create procedures for the FAA
to follow when faced with a similar situation of hijacked planes being used
as missiles in the future.

After a significant amount of work it was decided that NO new procedures
would be necessary. The policy to be followed with a repeat of 9/11 was to
let the people directly involved work unfettered around the problem. As it
turns out, the committee could find no instance where the FAA, air traffic
controllers, and the rest could have had a better outcome than they had with
decisions being made ad hoc by the folks involved.

For example:
Senior FAA bureaucrat. "How many flights aloft over CONUS right now?"
Controller: "A bit over 4,000"
Senior FAA: "Okay, this **** stop now. Pass the word. ATC-Zero nationwide."
(All planes in the air to land at the nearest airport)
Controller: "That's never been done! I don't think we have the authority to
do that!"
Senior FAA: "We do now. Just make it happen."

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text

Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant in
view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he saw fit,
and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).

Yes, I read that and it's consistent with what he's said over the years.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...impeach-judges

WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court
decisions that conflict with his powers as commander in chief, and he would
press for impeaching judges or abolishing certain courts if he disagreed
with their rulings . . . "I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose
their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday during a
conference call with reporters.

An elitist politician with a $1M line of credit at Tiffany's and a doctorate
in history has some balls to be ****ed at judges who mostly try to follow
the Constitution that they were sworn to uphold. I don't know how good a
history professor he was if he fails to understand the basic principles of
"checks and balances" written into the Constitution. Maybe he thinks it's
about balancing his checkbook. (-:

I've pretty much concluded that Democrats and Republicans alike don't care
for judges who actively advocate positions they don't espouse. But they're
just fine with activist judges that think like they do. That's why we have
the nomination process for Federal judges, to at least ensure a mix.

Newt does worry me but I read an article in the NYT that actually pointed to
the many good ideas that Newt has that will probably sabotage him with the
far right. I'll quote the negative ones. (-:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/us...-gingrich.html

. . . But many of the conservatives who rode to power with Mr. Gingrich
ultimately deserted him, while he denounced them as "petty dictators" and
"the perfectionist caucus" in the waning days of his tumultuous four-year
speakership . . .Gingrich, 68, remains a paradoxical figure for
conservatives to embrace - a man who can "bring us together, and alienate
the hell out of us," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South
Carolina, who as a House member tried to oust Mr. Gingrich in an
unsuccessful 1997 coup. Many credit him with advancing their cause, yet many
are deeply suspicious of him . . .

The Republicans I know are *somewhat for* Newt because he does have a good
understanding (probably better than Obama's) of how to get Congress to vote
his way. The Republican women I know, including my wife, find it very
difficult to like him after serving his wife with divorce papers while she
was in the hospital recovering from cancer. His comments about schools
hiring kids as janitors reminded more than a few Republicans that Newt
ranges pretty far into craziness on occasion. Not a sign of "presidential
timber."

. . . He emerges as more of a pragmatist than a purist, a believer in
"activist government" whose raw ambition made colleagues uneasy, provoking
questions about whether he was motivated by conservative ideals, personal
advancement - or both . . . "Gingrich is more Nixonian than he is
Reaganite," said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman and the first
chairman of the Conservative Opportunity Society, who is on good terms with
Mr. Gingrich but supports Mr. Romney. "Not in the Watergate sense, in the
strategic sense. He is not an ideologue." . . .He made little secret of his
ambitions when, as a 25-year-old graduate student at Tulane University . . .
His political philosophy was "in the middle," Ms. Wisdom said. He was
antitax, and hawkish on defense, but a strong environmentalist and advocate
of civil rights

He does have some good ideas and what looks to be a fairly decent moral
compass - at times. At other times, people throw up their hands and say:
"WTF?"

. . . he railed against Nixon and Gerald R. Ford for their failure to
build a majority . . . "They have done a terrible job, a pathetic job," Mr.
Gingrich thundered, unaware that his words were being recorded. "In my
lifetime, literally in my lifetime - I was born in 1943 - we have not had a
competent national Republican leader. Not ever!" . . . Mr. Gingrich went on:
"I think that one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is
that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat,
obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would
be great around the campfire, but are lousy in politics."

Ah, yes, an admission of guilt that reveals where the great Congressional
gridlock began. (-: I've heard many a representative say there used to be
a lot more fraternity between both parties before Newt and Tom (convicted
criminal) DeLay began their assault on Congress. There's more!

In 1979, his first year in office, Mr. Gingrich was among a handful of
freshman Republicans to vote to create the federal Department of Education,
a vote that many conservatives, who want to abolish the department, still
hold against him. (Today Mr. Gingrich says he wants to "dramatically shrink"
the agency.) . . . When President Jimmy Carter proposed an Alaskan wildlife
reserve, Mr. Gingrich voted in favor, breaking with his party . . .His
support for more federal investment in transportation, science, space
programs and technology rattled libertarians and free market conservatives .
.. .the Club for Growth . . . complains that Mr. Gingrich has "a recurring
impulse to insert the government in the private economy."

At least Newt doesn't buy into the "Starve the Beast" philosophy put forth
by the never-elected to office, "Who the Fu& are You to Dictate National
Policy to Anyone?" Grover Norquist and realizes the government does a lot of
necessary things.

. . .In a 1984 interview with Mother Jones Magazine, Mr. Gingrich was
unapologetic. "I believe in a lean bureaucracy," he said, "but not no
bureaucracy." . . . "Gingrich talked a lot about the importance of
listening, but he was often not interested in discussing our ideas," one
member of the freshman class of 1994, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, now a senator,
later wrote in a book about his years in Washington, "Breach of Trust." . .
..His decision to end the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996 proved a
particular sore point; conservatives said Mr. Gingrich had caved in to a
White House that outmaneuvered him. . . ."He was like a whipped dog who
barked, yet still cowered, in Mr. Clinton's presence," Mr. Coburn wrote.

Faced with Romney the flip-flopping wonder and Newt the man with an ego the
size of Alaska, my guess is that a lot of independents will "hold their
noses" and hope the "hope and change" president will actually produce even
an iota of real change with another turn at the wheel. According to the
polls, the more people are reminded of Newt's colorful past, the lower his
polling numbers. Maybe HeyBub is right when he says the party should
nominate George the Elder. He is probably more electable than Mitt or Newt
(what the hell kind of names are those anyway?) and would be a better leader
than either of the two leading contenders. (-:

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message

stuff snipped

And lest you think that it's just not right to imprison someone without
benefit of a trial, remember only CRIMINALS get trials. Every day those in
civil contempt, juveniles, the mentally unstable, "illegal aliens", and
carriers of contagious diseases are locked up without trial. They didn't
get
a trial because they, like UECs, are not criminals.

That's a little misleading, Bubster, to say the least. (-:

All of the groups you mention don't get trials but they are all able to
avail themselves of judicial process. To be committed for any length of
time, the mentally defective are entitled to a competency hearing.
Juveniles have juvenile court. Those in civil contempt have usually been
found to be so because of a judge's order. We just don't lock people up
willy-nilly like China or Russia. Until recently, anyway.

Illegal aliens have their fate decided at immigration hearings and even
those held under suspicion of having a *severely* contagious disease have a
right to a hearing to determine whether the facts of their case truly
warrant quarantine. Haven't you been around when John Hinkley comes up for
release review? That's a judicial proceeding. No one I know of in the US
is locked up for very long without due process.

So all those groups get their day in court, just not as criminal defendants
in a criminal trial but as subjects of judicial hearings. UEC's however,
aren't entitled to any sort of due process, and I don't think that's a
situation that's going to last forever because it is so at odds with the
concepts set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Non-Americans view our treatment of UEC's as extremely hypocritical and not
in keeping with the democracy and human rights that the US is always trying
to get other countries to follow. Or force down their throats at the point
of a gun. They're right.

Say, did you break up with your nurse friend? A little bird from Texas
whispered something in my ear. (-:

--
Bobby G.

"Peter" wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

Following through with what you say, what is to keep the President from
designating his political opposition as UECs and deciding to "dispose of
them as he sees fit?" Even impeachment wouldn't protect against a
President gone wild because (according to your summary above) the
president could just declare all those who support his impeachment to be
UECs as well. Surely there's got to be some judicial mechanism
interposed to review the charges against those accused of being UECs,
even if it is a military court.

What you've just noted is why I believe that eventually, the UEC "exception"
will be found unconstitutional. It may take some changes in the court, but
many of the important decisions regarding UEC's and their treatment have
been by 5-4 votes. Those kinds of close decisions are often reversed when
the right case and the right lawyers hit the Supreme Court. Who would have
thunk Heller would have succeeded after all the rulings to the contrary?

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...impeach-judges

WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore
Supreme Court decisions that conflict with his powers as commander in
chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or abolishing certain
courts if he disagreed with their rulings . . . "I'm fed up with
elitist judges" who seek to impose their "radically un-American"
views, Gingrich said Saturday during a conference call with
reporters.

An elitist politician with a $1M line of credit at Tiffany's and a
doctorate in history has some balls to be ****ed at judges who mostly
try to follow the Constitution that they were sworn to uphold. I
don't know how good a history professor he was if he fails to
understand the basic principles of "checks and balances" written into
the Constitution. Maybe he thinks it's about balancing his
checkbook. (-:

If I were president and a court or congress tried to limit my Article II
powers, I, too, would ignore them. One of the principles of "checks and
balances" is that no branch may order another branch to do anything that
usurps that other branches' constitutional powers. A judge cannot order a
legislature to pass a particular law, the president cannot order a court to
render a certain judgement, and so on.

This concept has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, Democrat or
Republican. The issue is the Constitutional powers of a particular branch.



The Republicans I know are *somewhat for* Newt because he does have a
good understanding (probably better than Obama's) of how to get
Congress to vote his way. The Republican women I know, including my
wife, find it very difficult to like him after serving his wife with
divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer.

(Tell your wife it didn't happen.)

Robert Green wrote:

Maybe HeyBub
is right when he says the party should nominate George the Elder. He
is probably more electable than Mitt or Newt (what the hell kind of
names are those anyway?) and would be a better leader than either of
the two leading contenders. (-:

What the hell kind of names are Hillary and Barak?

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2011 4:02 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:


I hope that is an over-simplification. What you are saying pertains to
the "customary laws of war" but since when can the President declare
war
and since when are we at war with our own citizens? As far as I know,
the last time we were at war (per the Constitution) was in 1945 prior
to
the Japanese surrender.

Nope we are at war currently, per the Constitution. The C also says that
Congress gets to enact laws as they see fit to carry out their
responsibilities under the C. The War Powers Act certainly fits that
bill. There is nothing in the C (unfortunately in many cases) that say
they have to call a spade, a spade.


No. The War Powers Resolution (known colloquially as the War Powers
Act) restricts the war powers of the President. It does not serve to
amend the Constitutionally stipulated way by which this country formally
declares itself to be at war. We are at war only if the Congress pass a
bill that formally declares war and the President signs it. That has
not happened since 1941 after Pearl Harbor. I am not denying that the
country has engaged in military combat on foreign territory since that
time, I'm merely saying that per the C, we are not at war at this time,
except against irrational thinking (and I fear we are losing).

Interestingly enough, for years the DoD has always had a fairly precise
definition of what constitutes a war. Working from my faulty memory it's
something like multiple incidents of attack where casualties of over 1,000
soldiers or civilians are killed and there's an imminent threat of further,
high casualty attacks. Though I just came across it the other day, I can't
find it now. )-: I wonder if they've been as busy trying to redefine "war"
to fit the current situation as they have been trying to define what
constitutes an act of cyberwar where an attack can seem to come from Country
X when it actually is coming from Country Y using spoofing techniques.

http://www.stripes.com/news/congress...guity-1.149790

WASHINGTON - Amid a rising din of reports of online incursions and
Internet-based attacks, Congress wants to know why the Pentagon still hasn't
revealed its basic cyberdefense ground rules. By law, the Department of
Defense was required to report on its cyberwar policies to Congress by March
1, a deadline it missed. And the much-heralded Pentagon cyberstrategy
released last week didn't clarify the matter, according to a letter sent to
the defense secretary Wednesday by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Carl
Levin, D-Mich. "The continued failure to address and define the policies and
legal authorities necessary for the Pentagon to operate in the cyberspace
domain remains a significant gap in our national security that must be
addressed," they wrote.

The bottom line is that neither war we're fighting classifies as war under
the Pentagon's own definitions. The Feds have redefined the meaning of war
on terror so many times no one quite knows where the lines are drawn.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1106c.asp says:

Federal agencies have an array of definitions for "terrorism":

The Defense Department defined terrorism as "the unlawful use or threatened
use of force or violence by a revolutionary organization against individuals
or property, with the intention of coercing or intimidating governments or
societies, often for political or ideological purposes."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation defined terrorism as "the unlawful use
of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance
of political or social objectives."

The State Department defined terrorism as "the use or threat of the use of
force for political purposes in violation of domestic or international law."


Oddly, we treated Timothy McVeigh's attack as a criminal matter in the US
Federal court system rather than declaring war on him or the state he was
from. He got exactly what he deserved - death. That tends to make the
whole whiny chorus of people who say that the courts can't successfully
prosecute terrorists into liars. We can and we did prosecute a terrorist
(actually several) successfully in our criminal court system.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

stuff snipped

And lest you think that it's just not right to imprison someone
without benefit of a trial, remember only CRIMINALS get trials.
Every day those in civil contempt, juveniles, the mentally unstable,
"illegal aliens", and carriers of contagious diseases are locked up
without trial. They didn't get a trial because they, like UECs, are
not criminals.

That's a little misleading, Bubster, to say the least. (-:

All of the groups you mention don't get trials but they are all able
to avail themselves of judicial process. To be committed for any
length of time, the mentally defective are entitled to a competency
hearing. Juveniles have juvenile court. Those in civil contempt have
usually been found to be so because of a judge's order. We just
don't lock people up willy-nilly like China or Russia. Until
recently, anyway.

You are correct in that the situations I mentioned almost always get some
sort of judicial review. The accused do NOT get trials. They are NOT
entitled to a jury of their peers. They do NOT get compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in their favor. They do NOT get an indictment by a Grand
Jury. In most cases, they do NOT get an attorney. And so on.

Our innate sense of fair play provides for a seemingly disinterested
third-party determination, but that is by statute - not the result of a
constitutional edict.

Unlawful enemy combatants (UECs) fall outside both the U.S. criminal and
civil legal systems. They, like POWs, are handled exclusively by the
military under the usual rules of war, and under these "usual rules" (i.e.,
the Geneva and Hauge Conventions), UECs, along with spys, saboteurs,
guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like can be disposed of in any way the
capturing belligerent army sees fit. Our first UEC, Major John Andre, was
given a perfunctory hearing, then hanged by order of George Washington.


Say, did you break up with your nurse friend? A little bird from
Texas whispered something in my ear. (-:

Uh, never had a nurse friend. My current squeeze is a LCSW (Licensed
Clinical Social Worker) whose last job was intake clinician at a psychiatric
hospital. I liken my current relationship to that of the late Isaac Asimov,
whose wife, Janet, is a psychiatrist. And, no, I seldom hear phrases like:
"And how does that make you feel?" or "What would your mother say about
that?" I do, however, hear "Tell me... is it twue what they say about the
way you people are... gifted?" Followed by "It's twue, it's twue!"

On Dec 22, 5:12*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Han" wrote in message

...

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text
Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. *It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. *Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant in
view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he saw fit,
and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).

Yes, I read that and it's consistent with what he's said over the years.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...Gingrich-says-...

WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court
decisions that conflict with his powers as commander in chief, and he would
press for impeaching judges or abolishing certain courts if he disagreed
with their rulings . . . "I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose
their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday during a
conference call with reporters.

An elitist politician with a $1M line of credit at Tiffany's and a doctorate
in history has some balls to be ****ed at judges who mostly try to follow
the Constitution that they were sworn to uphold. *I don't know how good a
history professor he was if he fails to understand the basic principles of
"checks and balances" written into the Constitution. *Maybe he thinks it's
about balancing his checkbook. *(-:

Those checks and balances include procedures for removing judges
that consistently come up with rulings that have no basis in the
law. BTW, do the credit lines or wealth of folks like John Kerrry,
Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton have enter into the equation? Or is
it just
Republicans where it matters?





I've pretty much concluded that Democrats and Republicans alike don't care
for judges who actively advocate positions they don't espouse. *But they're
just fine with activist judges that think like they do. *That's why we have
the nomination process for Federal judges, to at least ensure a mix.

All the activist judges I know are Democrat liberals. Can't think
of a single Republican one. Can you show us some? As an example
of activist judges, the NJ Supreme Court, chock full of liberals is
a classic example. Their decisions, totally unsupported by the
constitution, have wrecked the state. Examples:

They ruled that each municipality must provided it's "fair share"
of affordable housing. Where does it say that in the constitution?

They ruled two decades ago that children in areas with lower
incomes and property values were not getting the proper
education because those school districts had less funding.
Now, two decades later, the court is still directly involved in
deciding that funding every year. We are pouring 2x the money
into the low income school districts that we are into schools
in wealthier communities. Across the state, those of modest
means, retirees, etc are being driven from their homes by
the resulting increases in property taxes. And the kids in
those districts that are getting the 2X funding? They are
just as dumb as ever.

Those are the kinds of judges Newt is talking about.



At least Newt doesn't buy into the "Starve the Beast" philosophy put forth
by the never-elected to office, "Who the Fu& are You to Dictate National
Policy to Anyone?" Grover Norquist and realizes the government does a lot of
necessary things.

. . .In a 1984 interview with Mother Jones Magazine, Mr. Gingrich was
unapologetic. "I believe in a lean bureaucracy," he said, "but not no
bureaucracy." . . . "Gingrich talked a lot about the importance of
listening, but he was often not interested in discussing our ideas," one
member of the freshman class of 1994, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, now a senator,
later wrote in a book about his years in Washington, "Breach of Trust." .

"HeyBub" wrote in
:

Unlawful enemy combatants (UECs) fall outside both the U.S. criminal
and civil legal systems. They, like POWs, are handled exclusively by
the military under the usual rules of war, and under these "usual
rules" (i.e., the Geneva and Hauge Conventions), UECs, along with
spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and the like can be
disposed of in any way the capturing belligerent army sees fit. Our
first UEC, Major John Andre, was given a perfunctory hearing, then
hanged by order of George Washington.

UEC should be dealt with appropriately (grin), no question about that,
but the aspect of the laws as they now exist that I do NOT like, is that it
is unclear whether or not there would be redress of any kind if someone
were to untruthfully be accused of and treated as being UEC.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:12:07 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Han" wrote in message
.. .
"Robert Green" wrote in
:

sorry for snipping relevant prior text

Those are the sort of things that Han and I worry about that don't
seem to bother you. It's been alleged that more than one president
used the FBI to gather dirt on their political enemies, Presidents
from both parties. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.

The last statement is an obvious one, and sad to say rather relevant in
view of Gingrich' reported sttement that if elected he'd do as he saw fit,
and SCOTUS be damned (paraphrased!).

Yes, I read that and it's consistent with what he's said over the years.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011121...impeach-judges

WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court
decisions that conflict with his powers as commander in chief, and he would
press for impeaching judges or abolishing certain courts if he disagreed
with their rulings . . . "I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose
their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday during a
conference call with reporters.

An elitist politician with a $1M line of credit at Tiffany's

It wasn't just his line of creidt (I thought it was 500K). It's that
when they asked him about it last spring or summer, he said pretty
much "That's the way people do business". As if we're dummies for
not knowing that and not having our own line of credit. He's
certainly not the one to criticize Romney for the $10,000 bet idea.


and a doctorate
in history has some balls to be ****ed at judges who mostly try to follow
the Constitution that they were sworn to uphold. I don't know how good a
history professor he was if he fails to understand the basic principles of
"checks and balances" written into the Constitution. Maybe he thinks it's
about balancing his checkbook. (-:

too much to read now, snipped.