http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama

Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

Defence funding bill allows American citizens to be arrested as
terrorists on home soil and held indefinitely without trial

Chris McGreal in Washington
Thursday 15 December 2011 04.34 GMT

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that
allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American
terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to
Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles
and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not
used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly
criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of
individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no
end".

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US
military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to
the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war
are subject to military detention.

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing
practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at
Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece
of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to
include US citizens arrested in their own country.

"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had
it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human
Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the
United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a
time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its
emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation,
requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist
organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or
other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military
and held indefinitely without trial.

The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".

Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary
because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.

"We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do
anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said.
"When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined
a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are
a military threat."

Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was
fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as
combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections.

But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has
said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that
if the law passes "the terrorists have won".

"We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United
States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It
puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what
security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first
and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is
that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism.
This is simply not borne out by the facts."

Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

"Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of
American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that
locks up its citizens without charge."

Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist
groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under
existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall
within it.

"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a
terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according
to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has
ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days
of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul
said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the
government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for
indefinite detention?"

Under the legislation suspects can be held without trial "until the end
of hostilities". They will have the right to appear once a year before a
committee that will decide if the detention will continue.

The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end
of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he
would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would
"cause confusion" in the intelligence community and encroached on his
own powers.

But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a
veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to
prevent individuals from being handed to the military.

Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some
Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in
next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.

Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in
history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without
trial in US law.

"The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds
that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski
said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in
the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over
200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic
affairs."

In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA,
the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected
to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill.

The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could
compromise the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it
would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the
military.

"The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain
co-operation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly
successful in gaining," he told Congress.

Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with
more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful
prosecutions of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", Umar Farouk, the
"underwear bomber", and Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber".

Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being
constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to
be challenged all the way to the supreme court.

Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately included in the bill
in order to get it passed. "The very lack of clarity is itself a
problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree
about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law," he said.

On Dec 15, 8:27*am, Home Guy wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ace-guantanamo...

Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

You missed Facebook by about a light year.
-----

- gpsman

On 12/15/2011 8:27 AM, Home Guy wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama

Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

Defence funding bill allows American citizens to be arrested as
terrorists on home soil and held indefinitely without trial

Chris McGreal in Washington
Thursday 15 December 2011 04.34 GMT

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that
allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American
terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to
Guantánamo Bay.


[remainder snipped for brevity]

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the 6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I predict legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

On Dec 15, 11:06*am, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2011 8:27 AM, Home Guy wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ace-guantanamo...

Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

Defence funding bill allows American citizens to be arrested as
terrorists on home soil and held indefinitely without trial

Chris McGreal in Washington
Thursday 15 December 2011 04.34 GMT

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that
allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American
terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to
Guantánamo Bay.

[remainder snipped for brevity]

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the 6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? *Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. *I predict legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

This troll started the same nonsense a couple weeks ago and it
was soundly demolished. The bill simply does not say what he claims
it says. Here, from the actual bill:

"(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.


So first in only applies to Al-Qaeda that have participated in
planning attacks on the USA . Second, it specifically excludes
US citizens and resident aliens.

He's just an American bashing troll that makes off topic posts
here and continues to try to get away with it again, after it's been
pointed out that what he's posted is a lie.

Peter wrote in :

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the 6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I predict legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer. The danger of this execrable law is that
someone is going to be police, judge, and executioner all at the same time.
That doesn't seem constitutional. I have no objection to a /real/
terrorist being handed over to the military for safekeeping, but I'd like a
jury of /MY/ peers to help the police and prosecutor in determining whether
that person is a /real/ terrorist, rather than some bloke shooting of his
big mouth to an entrapment agent.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
wrote in :

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the 6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I predict legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer. The danger of this execrable law is that
someone is going to be police, judge, and executioner all at the same time.
That doesn't seem constitutional. I have no objection to a /real/
terrorist being handed over to the military for safekeeping, but I'd like a
jury of /MY/ peers to help the police and prosecutor in determining whether
that person is a /real/ terrorist, rather than some bloke shooting of his
big mouth to an entrapment agent.

Hi,
If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada.
Never see him/her again.

" wrote in
:

On Dec 15, 11:06*am, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2011 8:27 AM, Home Guy wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ace-guantanamo
...

Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

Defence funding bill allows American citizens to be arrested as
terrorists on home soil and held indefinitely without trial

Chris McGreal in Washington
Thursday 15 December 2011 04.34 GMT

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law
that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial
American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be
shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

[remainder snipped for brevity]

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the
6th Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? *Also, there may
be a violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. *I
predict legal challenges if this legislation is enacted.

This troll started the same nonsense a couple weeks ago and it
was soundly demolished. The bill simply does not say what he claims
it says. Here, from the actual bill:

"(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.


So first in only applies to Al-Qaeda that have participated in
planning attacks on the USA . Second, it specifically excludes
US citizens and resident aliens.

He's just an American bashing troll that makes off topic posts
here and continues to try to get away with it again, after it's been
pointed out that what he's posted is a lie.

I'm not a lawyer, so I am not sure that all the except this or that would
or would not permit a legal US citizen or resident to be detained under
this military rule. I am also not sure that this will not lead to
classifying some idiot shooting off his big mouth to an entrapment agent
under this law. It seems to me that some of the prosecutions that are
ongoing against some idiots are getting too close to that line for
comfort.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Dec 15, 4:32*pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:06*am, Peter wrote:





On 12/15/2011 8:27 AM, Home Guy wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ace-guantanamo....

Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

Defence funding bill allows American citizens to be arrested as
terrorists on home soil and held indefinitely without trial

Chris McGreal in Washington
Thursday 15 December 2011 04.34 GMT

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that
allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American
terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to
Guantánamo Bay.

[remainder snipped for brevity]

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the 6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? *Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. *I predict legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

This troll started the same nonsense a couple weeks ago and it
was soundly demolished. *The bill simply does not say what he claims
it says. *Here, from the actual bill:

"(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.

So first in only applies to Al-Qaeda that have participated in
planning attacks on the USA . Second, it specifically excludes
US citizens and resident aliens.

He's just an American bashing troll that makes off topic posts
here and continues to try to get away with it again, after it's been
pointed out that what he's posted is a lie.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I've been predicting it for a while. Another step down the
police state road.

Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2011 8:27 AM, Home Guy wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama

Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

Defence funding bill allows American citizens to be arrested as
terrorists on home soil and held indefinitely without trial

Chris McGreal in Washington
Thursday 15 December 2011 04.34 GMT

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law
that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial
American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be
shipped to Guantánamo Bay.


[remainder snipped for brevity]

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the
6th Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may
be a violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I
predict legal challenges if this legislation is enacted.

Yes, but...

The 6th Amendment begins: "In all criminal prosecutions..."

Unlawful enemy combatants (UEC) do not come under the jurisdiction of the
criminal law - they are not criminals. They are similar to POWs, but have
even fewer rights. Actually, they have no "rights" at all. Their handling is
solely up to the President under his Article II powers. Specifically, UECs
do not have a right to a lawyer, indictment by a grand jury, jury trials,
witnesses, remaining silent, or any of the other "rights" afforded
criminals.

Moreover, the President may designate ANYONE to be a UEC and, according to
the customary laws of war, dispose of them as he sees fit. In this regard,
UECs are similar to spies, fifth-columnists, guerrillas, and saboteurs. Our
very first UCE was Major John Andre who was hanged by George Washington
after a perfunctory inquiry.

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.

On Dec 15, 11:44*am, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On Dec 15, 11:06*am, Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2011 8:27 AM, Home Guy wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ace-guantanamo
...

Americans face Guantánamo detention after Obama climbdown

Defence funding bill allows American citizens to be arrested as
terrorists on home soil and held indefinitely without trial

Chris McGreal in Washington
Thursday 15 December 2011 04.34 GMT

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law
that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial
American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be
shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

[remainder snipped for brevity]

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the
6th Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? *Also, there may
be a violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. *I
predict legal challenges if this legislation is enacted.

This troll started the same nonsense a couple weeks ago and it
was soundly demolished. *The bill simply does not say what he claims
it says. *Here, from the actual bill:

"(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.

So first in only applies to Al-Qaeda that have participated in
planning attacks on the USA . Second, it specifically excludes
US citizens and resident aliens.

He's just an American bashing troll that makes off topic posts
here and continues to try to get away with it again, after it's been
pointed out that what he's posted is a lie.

I'm not a lawyer, so I am not sure that all the except this or that would
or would not permit a legal US citizen or resident to be detained under
this military rule.

You don't have to be a lawyer to read what is written above in
plain English. How about demanding from the troll who starts
this crap that he show you were it says it applies to US citizens?



*I am also not sure that this will not lead to
classifying some idiot shooting off his big mouth to an entrapment agent
under this law. *It seems to me that some of the prosecutions that are
ongoing against some idiots are getting too close to that line for
comfort.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly which prosecutions are entrapment of of someone
just shooting his mouth off? I've seen cases where after
learning someone was looking to make a bomb with terrorist
motives, the FBI then hand an undercover team supply
the bomb making material. Is that what makes you
uncomfortable? Nothing new there, that has been going
on in the criminal world forever and the resulting prosecutions
have been upheld. Specific examples please. I'.m betting
there aren't any.

And when there are, then the ACLU can go defend them
and make their case. It's sort of like saying robbery should
not be a crime because someday, somewhere, some cop
might misapply it.

On Dec 15, 11:39*am, Han wrote:
Peter wrote :

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the 6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? *Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. *I predict legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer. *The danger of this execrable law is that
someone is going to be police, judge, and executioner all at the same time.

Show us where it says that in the law.


That doesn't seem constitutional.

It wouldn't be.



*I have no objection to a /real/
terrorist being handed over to the military for safekeeping, but I'd like a
jury of /MY/ peers to help the police and prosecutor in determining whether
that person is a /real/ terrorist, rather than some bloke shooting of his
big mouth to an entrapment agent.

Show us a specific case where a US citizen, just shooting their
mouth off, has been handed over to the military.





--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:01:34 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

Well, I've been predicting it for a while. Another step down the
police state road.

Well, Mr. Nostril-dumbus. what are your predictions for FaceBook and
Twitter?

We already lock some people up "indefinitely". Have been for many,
many years.

On 12/15/2011 11:41 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


Han wrote:
wrote in :

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the 6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I predict legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer. The danger of this execrable law is that
someone is going to be police, judge, and executioner all at the same
time.
That doesn't seem constitutional. I have no objection to a /real/
terrorist being handed over to the military for safekeeping, but I'd
like a
jury of /MY/ peers to help the police and prosecutor in determining
whether
that person is a /real/ terrorist, rather than some bloke shooting of his
big mouth to an entrapment agent.

Hi,
If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada.
Never see him/her again.

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their career was toast.

" wrote in news:9dda59f5-
:

And when there are, then the ACLU can go defend them
and make their case. It's sort of like saying robbery should
not be a crime because someday, somewhere, some cop
might misapply it.


I snipped a lot ... Here in the New York City area there were some cases
that came close to being entrapment and/or encouraging someone shooting his
big mouth off. Too lazy to go look for specifics, OK? The (perhaps
hypothetical) point is that if the President or his designee says this
person is an UEC, there is no way under this law that we can hear about it
- the person just disappears. As I said,I'm in favor of having the army
deal with UEC, but there should be a public process that designates him/her
as such.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in news:38a212cd-
:

Show us a specific case where a US citizen, just shooting their
mouth off, has been handed over to the military.

The way I read the (non-quoted) law and how it has been described to me,
that would become possible.

We'll just have to wait and see 1) whether this becomes law, and 2) if it
is constitutional.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 12/15/2011 12:01 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Unlawful enemy combatants (UEC) do not come under the jurisdiction of the
criminal law - they are not criminals. They are similar to POWs, but have
even fewer rights. Actually, they have no "rights" at all. Their handling is
solely up to the President under his Article II powers. Specifically, UECs
do not have a right to a lawyer, indictment by a grand jury, jury trials,
witnesses, remaining silent, or any of the other "rights" afforded
criminals.

Moreover, the President may designate ANYONE to be a UEC and, according to
the customary laws of war, dispose of them as he sees fit. In this regard,
UECs are similar to spies, fifth-columnists, guerrillas, and saboteurs. Our
very first UCE was Major John Andre who was hanged by George Washington
after a perfunctory inquiry.


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.

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.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2011 11:41 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


Han wrote:
wrote in :

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the
6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I predict legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer. The danger of this execrable law is that
someone is going to be police, judge, and executioner all at the same
time.
That doesn't seem constitutional. I have no objection to a /real/
terrorist being handed over to the military for safekeeping, but I'd
like a
jury of /MY/ peers to help the police and prosecutor in determining
whether
that person is a /real/ terrorist, rather than some bloke shooting of
his
big mouth to an entrapment agent.

Hi,
If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada.
Never see him/her again.

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and their
career was toast.

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

In article ,
Han wrote:


I snipped a lot ... Here in the New York City area there were some cases
that came close to being entrapment and/or encouraging someone shooting his
big mouth off. Too lazy to go look for specifics, OK? The (perhaps
hypothetical) point is that if the President or his designee says this
person is an UEC, there is no way under this law that we can hear about it
- the person just disappears. As I said,I'm in favor of having the army
deal with UEC, but there should be a public process that designates him/her
as such.

I have worked enough investigations to know that in something like this,
yo HAVE to take it seriously. The papers, CongressCritters, and people
on Usenet can say things like this is the gang that couldn't shoot
straight. But one thing I know from personal experience is that every
once in awhile, the idiots screw things up and get it right. When that
happens people die. And the papers, CongressCritters, and people on
Usenet have a fit about how the cops coulda stopped it.

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

In article , Peter
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.


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

The more times change, the more things remain the same.

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

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2011 11:41 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:

Hi,
If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada.
Never see him/her again.

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their career was toast.

Did any of them communists ever get elected to positions of power?

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

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in message
...

If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada.
Never see him/her again.

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and their
career was toast.

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

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:


I snipped a lot ... Here in the New York City area there were some
cases that came close to being entrapment and/or encouraging someone
shooting his big mouth off. Too lazy to go look for specifics, OK?
The (perhaps hypothetical) point is that if the President or his
designee says this person is an UEC, there is no way under this law
that we can hear about it - the person just disappears. As I
said,I'm in favor of having the army deal with UEC, but there should
be a public process that designates him/her as such.

I have worked enough investigations to know that in something like
this, yo HAVE to take it seriously. The papers, CongressCritters, and
people on Usenet can say things like this is the gang that couldn't
shoot straight. But one thing I know from personal experience is that
every once in awhile, the idiots screw things up and get it right.
When that happens people die. And the papers, CongressCritters, and
people on Usenet have a fit about how the cops coulda stopped it.

Yes, I do want the cops to catch the bad guys.
But why would that make it impossible to detain the guy(s) following a
public trial, or at least a public determination that he is an UEC? The
guy who wasn't caught in time, but whose bomb did NOT go off in Times
Square, was subjected to public trial and put away. Etc, etc. We don't
need another McCarthy era destroying innocent people (who may or may not
have unpalatable ideas).

Note that the cops catch those idiots (dangerous or just idiotic) who have
contacts with others. They have great difficulty catching lone wolfs.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"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.

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.

By the way, I am in favor of making sure that fertilizer, dynamite etc, can
be traced, just in case someone got their hands on some and uses it for the
WRONG reasons. Because whoever supplied it could have supplied others.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2011 12:01 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Unlawful enemy combatants (UEC) do not come under the jurisdiction
of the criminal law - they are not criminals. They are similar to
POWs, but have even fewer rights. Actually, they have no "rights" at
all. Their handling is solely up to the President under his Article
II powers. Specifically, UECs do not have a right to a lawyer,
indictment by a grand jury, jury trials, witnesses, remaining
silent, or any of the other "rights" afforded criminals.

Moreover, the President may designate ANYONE to be a UEC and,
according to the customary laws of war, dispose of them as he sees
fit. In this regard, UECs are similar to spies, fifth-columnists,
guerrillas, and saboteurs. Our very first UCE was Major John Andre
who was hanged by George Washington after a perfunctory inquiry.


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.

While the Congress has the sole authority to DECLARE war, the President has
the sole authority to WAGE war. The president may wage ware against whomever
he pleases, anytime he pleases. See the "Prize Cases." Remember, Bill
Clinton waged war against more countries than anyone since FDR (Albania,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, Sudan, Bosnia, and one other that I
forget). Moreover, the Congress passed enabling legislation back in 2001
authorizing the use of force agains al Queda and similar terrorist
organizations.

Citizenship has absolutely no bearing on whether someone is an unlawful
enemy combatant. Nor should it.


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.

Nope, there's no provision to deal with a president that's gone rogue. The
president's action is this regard cannot be gainsaid by the courts or the
Congress. That question was raised in an appellate court some time back. The
decision of the court was that "... the president can be replaced at the
next regularly scheduled election."

Teddy Roosevelt proposed sending the U.S. Navy around the world (The White
Fleet) as a demonstration of American global reach, but Congress declined to
appropriate the money. Roosevelt responded with "I have enough money to send
the fleet HALF way around the world. Let's see if the Congress will provide
the money to get them back."

On 12/15/2011 3:44 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2011 11:41 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


Han wrote:
wrote in :

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't
the 6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I predict legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer. The danger of this execrable law is
that
someone is going to be police, judge, and executioner all at the same
time.
That doesn't seem constitutional. I have no objection to a /real/
terrorist being handed over to the military for safekeeping, but I'd
like a
jury of /MY/ peers to help the police and prosecutor in determining
whether
that person is a /real/ terrorist, rather than some bloke shooting
of his
big mouth to an entrapment agent.

Hi,
If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada.
Never see him/her again.

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their career was toast.

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


Absolutely not true. you are entitled to your opinions, but that does
not extend to fabricating history.

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).

Peter wrote in :

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).

But, but, but, Nixon "declared" war against cancer way back when, and we
are only slowly winning a few battles here and there. That war isn't
over by a long shot.

Nonsense aside, we are at war in Afghanistan, and despite the declaration
that war in Iraq is over, there are still servicemen there, and not just
scratching their backsides.

And, last but not least, we are at war at home against all kinds of bad
people - terrorists (unspecified), gun, narcotics and human smugglers,
politicians we don't like, etc, etc.

War is just a word, subject to interpretation, and the Constitution is
something that politicians like to violate, in words and deeds.
/rant

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Dec 15, 4:53*pm, Han wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote innews:XJSdnWpVa5AlwnfTnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@earthlink. com:





In article ,
*Han wrote:

I snipped a lot ... *Here in the New York City area there were some
cases that came close to being entrapment and/or encouraging someone
shooting his big mouth off. *Too lazy to go look for specifics, OK?
The (perhaps hypothetical) point is that if the President or his
designee says this person is an UEC, there is no way under this law
that we can hear about it - the person just disappears. *As I
said,I'm in favor of having the army deal with UEC, but there should
be a public process that designates him/her as such.

I have worked enough investigations to know that in something like
this, yo HAVE to take it seriously. The papers, CongressCritters, and
people on Usenet can say things like this is the gang that couldn't
shoot straight. But one thing I know from personal experience is that
every once in awhile, the idiots screw things up and get it right.
When that happens people die. And the papers, CongressCritters, and
people on Usenet have a fit about how the cops coulda stopped it.

Yes, I do want the cops to catch the bad guys.
But why would that make it impossible to detain the guy(s) following a
public trial, or at least a public determination that he is an UEC? *The
guy who wasn't caught in time, but whose bomb did NOT go off in Times
Square, was subjected to public trial and put away. Etc, etc. *We don't
need another McCarthy era destroying innocent people (who may or may not
have unpalatable ideas).

The case you just cited isn't the one we want. It disproves your
case.
You claimed that the new bill that HomeGuy is harping about again
could lead to some fool who is just shooting his mouth off being taken
off
to Guantanamo by the military.

First, as the excerpt I posted from the law clearly states, the law
specifically excludes US citizens and resident aliens. It only
applies
to someone that is AL-Qaeda and participating in an attack or
attempted attack on the USA. That alone demolishes HomeGuy's
BS that says it applies to Americans. And this is the second time
in a month he has started the same BS thread to fool people.
If there is somewhere in the bill that says what he
claims it says and what you fear it says, then one of you should
post it.

As to some fool being falsely entrapped, I have not seen anything
coming even close to that. I have seen excellent law enforcement
work that has lead to undercover agents nailing guys that had
clear intentions of committing terrorists acts. They probably are
fools too, given how half-assed they went about it and how dumb
they are. But an incompetent bank robber is still a bank robber,
aren't they?

Two of the cases locally that come to mind were Fort Dix and
NYC. In the Fort Dix case, the Feds were alerted by a store
clerk that was transferring videos to CD for a guy. He saw
that it contained suspicious activity and alerted police.
Through undercover work, the FBI established that they had
automatic weapons, were doing training with them, had
surveiled Fort Dix to figure out how to best attack it, etc.
They put together enough of a case to convince a jury and
the whole bunch of them are in jail. Fools? Yes, but dangerous
terrorist fools. Entrapment? I don't think so and neither did
the courts.

Another case was in NYC where Muslim extremists were
planning on planting a bomb at a synagogue. FBI got wind
of it and hand an undercover agent supply them with bomb
material that was fake, but they thought was real. They
were arrested on their way to plant the bomb. Again, I'd
say they were fools, but it sure wasn't entrapment.

So, if you have a case of this alleged entrapment, please
present it. Otherwise I'd say you're just taking an extreme
hypothethical position. On that basis, I could come up
with reasons that just about any new law could be used
in dishonest ways.

As Kurt said, we've done an excellent job in avoiding another
attack.... so far. But a lot of it has been pure luck and we
aren't going to be lucky forever. The
skunk that tried to blow up the Northwest flight near Detroit
being a prime example. But for the fact that the bomb
didn't work it would have succeeded. That skunk was:

A - Clearly working with Al Qaeda

B - A foreign national

He would fit the definition under the new bill.
I would have no problem with him being taken off that plane,
handed to the military, and taken off to Gitmo to join the
other Al-Qaeda scum to face interrogation and a military tribunal.







Note that the cops catch those idiots (dangerous or just idiotic) who have
contacts with others. *They have great difficulty catching lone wolfs.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Dec 15, 3:31*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:38a212cd-
:

Show us a specific case where a US citizen, just shooting their
mouth off, has been handed over to the military.

The way I read the (non-quoted) law and how it has been described to me,
that would become possible.

We'll just have to wait and see 1) *whether this becomes law, and 2) if it
is constitutional.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Once again I ask you to show us the section of the law that you
and HomeGuy are referring to that make it possible for the military
to grab an American and send them to Gitmo for just shouting his
fool mouth off.
The law is available to look at. I found it and posted the section
where it clearly says it only applies to:

A - Those Al-Qaeda attacking or planning an attack

B - It specifically excludes US citizens or resident aliens.

Either show us the law or stop speculating based on lies that HG posts
and what has been "described to you".

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in message
...

If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada.
Never see him/her again.

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their
career was toast.

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


Did any of them communists ever get elected to positions of power?


Many worked for various government agencies like State and DOE
Those were not elected positions


P.S.
What is it going to take to make you change OE so that you bottom post
instead of acting like a stupid noob and continue top-posting
Your behavior is both stupid and annoying

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2011 3:44 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their career was toast.

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


Absolutely not true. you are entitled to your opinions, but that does not
extend to fabricating history.

I'm so sorry that you are ignorant
Documents from archived FBI and KGB files have been released that prove you
wrong.
Start here
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=4020
Then just Google for "McCarthy was right" to find out how wrong and ignorant
YOU are.

Peter wrote:
On 12/15/2011 3:44 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2011 11:41 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:


Han wrote:
wrote in :

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't
the 6th
Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may be a
violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I predict
legal
challenges if this legislation is enacted.

I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer. The danger of this execrable law is
that
someone is going to be police, judge, and executioner all at the same
time.
That doesn't seem constitutional. I have no objection to a /real/
terrorist being handed over to the military for safekeeping, but I'd
like a
jury of /MY/ peers to help the police and prosecutor in determining
whether
that person is a /real/ terrorist, rather than some bloke shooting
of his
big mouth to an entrapment agent.

Hi,
If you don't like somepne. just call him/her terrorist or Al Queada.
Never see him/her again.

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their career was toast.

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


Absolutely not true. you are entitled to your opinions, but that does
not extend to fabricating history.
Whoa!
Amazing, people like you, where have you been? You really don't know the
truth? I am not even an American but I do. Your knowledge depends on
media? Dig up and read some real stuffs yourself to know the truth.

Han wrote:
Peter wrote in :

I'm not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional lawyer, but doesn't the
6th Amendment provide the right to a speedy trial? Also, there may
be a violation of Constitutional habeas corpus protections. I
predict legal challenges if this legislation is enacted.

I'm a biochemist, not a lawyer. The danger of this execrable law is
that someone is going to be police, judge, and executioner all at the
same time. That doesn't seem constitutional. I have no objection to
a /real/ terrorist being handed over to the military for safekeeping,
but I'd like a jury of /MY/ peers to help the police and prosecutor
in determining whether that person is a /real/ terrorist, rather than
some bloke shooting of his big mouth to an entrapment agent.

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.

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

Reminds me of entering the US from Europe one time. My US passport had
been in my rear pocket and was just a bit crumpled. I mean indeed just
barely a bit crumpled. The nice INS person told me to get that fixed
because she would be justified in detaining me until someone could
ascertain my "true" status, seeing that the passport might have been
tampered with. I know there is no real due process when entering the US,
in the sense that it is up to you to prove that you are indeed who you
are and innocent.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in news:05ebd037-
:

Another case was in NYC where Muslim extremists were
planning on planting a bomb at a synagogue. FBI got wind
of it and hand an undercover agent supply them with bomb
material that was fake, but they thought was real. They
were arrested on their way to plant the bomb. Again, I'd
say they were fools, but it sure wasn't entrapment.

That was the case I was referring to. I'm not so sure that these nutcases
would have gone as far as they did if they hadn't been encouraged. But it
is indeed a borderline case in my opinion. And you made clear yours.

Again, reading the excerpts you posted about the law one would conclude
what you did, butothers have stated that US citizens would come under that
"ship them to Gitmo or further" law. I'm only saying that some public
exposure of the case needs to be in the laws, rules and regulations. Just
picking them up and shipping them out reeks of the disappearing cases in
Chili, Argentina and elsewhere. That's not rule of law as I see it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 12/16/2011 10:45 AM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2011 3:44 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their career was toast.

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


Absolutely not true. you are entitled to your opinions, but that does
not extend to fabricating history.

I'm so sorry that you are ignorant
Documents from archived FBI and KGB files have been released that prove
you wrong.
Start here
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=4020
Then just Google for "McCarthy was right" to find out how wrong and
ignorant YOU are.


Yeah, a real unbiased source. Jon Basil Utley is the associate
publisher of The American Conservative - a fair and balanced source of
"fact" right? Stop playing me for a fool.

On 12/16/2011 9:09 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in :

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).

But, but, but, Nixon "declared" war against cancer way back when, and we
are only slowly winning a few battles here and there. That war isn't
over by a long shot.

Nonsense aside, we are at war in Afghanistan, and despite the declaration
that war in Iraq is over, there are still servicemen there, and not just
scratching their backsides.

And, last but not least, we are at war at home against all kinds of bad
people - terrorists (unspecified), gun, narcotics and human smugglers,
politicians we don't like, etc, etc.

War is just a word, subject to interpretation, and the Constitution is
something that politicians like to violate, in words and deeds.
/rant

Han, I normally agree with your comments. Please recognize that in my
comments I've been referring to "war" in the formal, legal definition in
accordance with the text of the Constitution, and not in the more
colloquial sense in which the word has come to be used. I agree that
our military action in Afghanistan is a de facto war, but it not a de
jure war.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/16/2011 10:45 AM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/15/2011 3:44 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"Peter" wrote in message
...

Just like in the 50s with McCarthy; just call some a "communist" and
their career was toast.

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


Absolutely not true. you are entitled to your opinions, but that does
not extend to fabricating history.

I'm so sorry that you are ignorant
Documents from archived FBI and KGB files have been released that prove
you wrong.
Start here
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=4020
Then just Google for "McCarthy was right" to find out how wrong and
ignorant YOU are.


Yeah, a real unbiased source. Jon Basil Utley is the associate publisher
of The American Conservative - a fair and balanced source of "fact" right?
Stop playing me for a fool.

I'm not "playing you the fool"
I'm PROVING you the fool

There are other sources where you can verify the FBI Verona data, as well as
the KGB data.

You are the ignorant fool because you foolishly dismiss the facts because of
the source referenced.
Typical of fools like you, to try to shoot the messenger when you don't
like the message.

Peter wrote in :

snipped

Han, I normally agree with your comments. Please recognize that in my
comments I've been referring to "war" in the formal, legal definition
in accordance with the text of the Constitution, and not in the more
colloquial sense in which the word has come to be used. I agree that
our military action in Afghanistan is a de facto war, but it not a de
jure war.

I don't give a rat's ass about this war being not a de jure war. You're
legalistically correct, perhaps, but Congress did authorize lethal force
here to "protect" something, most likely. You also should keep in mind
that people, including Americans, have died in this de jure not-a-war, so
some people would take offense to your wording.

Ever since the "police action" in Korea, wars have been fought that aren't
wars according to some definition or another, but still had armies opposong
one another.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Dec 16, 12:31*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:05ebd037-
:

Another case was in NYC where Muslim extremists were
planning on planting a bomb at a synagogue. *FBI got wind
of it and hand an undercover agent supply them with bomb
material that was fake, but they thought was real. *They
were arrested on their way to plant the bomb. *Again, I'd
say they were fools, but it sure wasn't entrapment.

That was the case I was referring to. *I'm not so sure that these nutcases
would have gone as far as they did if they hadn't been encouraged. *But it
is indeed a borderline case in my opinion. *And you made clear yours.



They're muslim extremist, looking for bombs and the FBI gives them
what they think are real explosives. They take them and are on their
way to a synagogue to plant them. And you have doubts?
Sorry, but you libs are just amazing.


Again, reading the excerpts you posted about the law one would conclude
what you did, butothers have stated that US citizens would come under that
"ship them to Gitmo or further" law.

So, instead of basing your opinions on what the law actually
says, you base it on what liars like HomeGuy say it says?
Go figure. Sorry again, but from my experience, that is
typical lib behavior. It's like the libs ranting on about what
Rush or O'Reilly said without ever:

A: listening to them and actually hearing it.

B: verifying that they actually said what someone claims they
said. Never mind the facts.... Your behavior is in line with
what produces bad results. Never mind the facts, I just
know it;s the way it is because I heard it somewhere. I n
this case it's a lie posted by HomeGuy. The same lie posted
a month ago. I would expect more from you.


*I'm only saying that some public
exposure of the case needs to be in the laws, rules and regulations. *Just
picking them up and shipping them out reeks of the disappearing cases in
Chili, Argentina and elsewhere. *That's not rule of law as I see it.

--
Best regards

Again you're arguing about that which does not exist.