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.

" 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, 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.

" 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

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:32:35 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

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?


Not to mention that GITMO only houses the few, the finest deserving
souls locked up there. One side of the base is lined with Cubans,
along a fence, land mine field, etc. Much of the base is surrounded
by tropical waters and breezes.

The base has some wind energy (2 turbines?), fast food, and many other
amenities for the troops, and dignitaries visiting.

Castro no longer cashes our one dollar a year check for the annual
payments of the 99 year lease.

We win ... yippity yeah

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

" 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 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".

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

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.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
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.

This is really just a test of the AOIE server and not a thread revival.

Testing, testing . . .

Fest Tailed! Hog Dumper!

(I knew Dufe would . . .)

Oh, and not all of them are toast. Some got to be Supreme Court litigants
and have earned a place in the history books. What a world.

--
Bobby G.

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 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.

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

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:
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 Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:34:30 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

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).

....anything in a skirt...

Moreover, the Congress passed enabling legislation back in 2001
authorizing the use of force agains al Queda and similar terrorist
organizations.

A declaration of war.

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."

Or impeachment.

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."

"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.

"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.

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!"

"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

You can read it at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama
or
tinyurl.com/bpp3uc6

Was not detention without a trial one of the reasons for the American
Revolution?

The ACLU is going to have a field day with this one.

On 12/16/2011 5:43 PM, Dick Adams wrote:
You can read it at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama
or
tinyurl.com/bpp3uc6

Was not detention without a trial one of the reasons for the American
Revolution?

The ACLU is going to have a field day with this one.

I tried to get some help from the ACLU once, their lawyer let me know
that my skin was the wrong color to qualify for help from their
organization. ^_^

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:
Dick Adams wrote:

You can read it at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama
or
tinyurl.com/bpp3uc6

Was not detention without a trial one of the reasons for the American
Revolution?

The ACLU is going to have a field day with this one.

I tried to get some help from the ACLU once, their lawyer let me
know that my skin was the wrong color to qualify for help from
their organization.

I'm honestly surprised that the ACLU would discriminate based on
race because they defend a lot of white people. Afterall they are
the Legal Defense Fund for the Klu Klux Klan and the American Nazi
Party - and those guy are as white as you can be.

But this time the ACLU will be on the honorable side of a case.

On 12/16/2011 7:37 PM, Dick Adams wrote:
The Daring wrote:
Dick Adams wrote:

You can read it at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama
or
tinyurl.com/bpp3uc6

Was not detention without a trial one of the reasons for the American
Revolution?

The ACLU is going to have a field day with this one.

I tried to get some help from the ACLU once, their lawyer let me
know that my skin was the wrong color to qualify for help from
their organization.

I'm honestly surprised that the ACLU would discriminate based on
race because they defend a lot of white people. Afterall they are
the Legal Defense Fund for the Klu Klux Klan and the American Nazi
Party - and those guy are as white as you can be.

But this time the ACLU will be on the honorable side of a case.

I think the ACLU is populated by schizophrenics. There's no telling what
they will do from one social outrage to the next. I'm not sure
but I don't think they've ever supported Second Amendment rights.

TDD

TinyURL was created!
The following URL:

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_priso
ners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-r
ights/second-amendment

has a length of 102 characters and resulted in the following TinyURL which
has a length of 26 characters:
http://tinyurl.com/3342rba
[Open in new window]
Let the hypocrites at ACLU speak for themselves. "The ACLU disagrees with
the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by
the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control
itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of
guns raises a civil liberties issue."

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

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

I think the ACLU is populated by schizophrenics. There's no telling what
they will do from one social outrage to the next. I'm not sure
but I don't think they've ever supported Second Amendment rights.

TDD

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:23:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 7:37 PM, Dick Adams wrote:
The Daring wrote:
Dick Adams wrote:

You can read it at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama
or
tinyurl.com/bpp3uc6

Was not detention without a trial one of the reasons for the American
Revolution?

The ACLU is going to have a field day with this one.

I tried to get some help from the ACLU once, their lawyer let me
know that my skin was the wrong color to qualify for help from
their organization.

I'm honestly surprised that the ACLU would discriminate based on
race because they defend a lot of white people. Afterall they are
the Legal Defense Fund for the Klu Klux Klan and the American Nazi
Party - and those guy are as white as you can be.

But this time the ACLU will be on the honorable side of a case.

I think the ACLU is populated by schizophrenics. There's no telling what
they will do from one social outrage to the next. I'm not sure
but I don't think they've ever supported Second Amendment rights.

The ACLU is not one person or even one organization. Each chapter seems to go
in a different direction (though generally the wrong way).

Dick Adams wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Dick Adams wrote:

You can read it at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama
or
tinyurl.com/bpp3uc6

Was not detention without a trial one of the reasons for the
American Revolution?

The ACLU is going to have a field day with this one.

I tried to get some help from the ACLU once, their lawyer let me
know that my skin was the wrong color to qualify for help from
their organization.

I'm honestly surprised that the ACLU would discriminate based on
race because they defend a lot of white people. Afterall they are
the Legal Defense Fund for the Klu Klux Klan and the American Nazi
Party - and those guy are as white as you can be.

But this time the ACLU will be on the honorable side of a case.

There is no "case," nor will there be one. Probably.

The new law only codifies existing practice, a practice that's been
litigated to death since 1861.

Dick Adams wrote:
You can read it at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama
or
tinyurl.com/bpp3uc6

Was not detention without a trial one of the reasons for the American
Revolution?

The ACLU is going to have a field day with this one.

Every day, every single day, hundreds of people are detained without trial.
These inclue:
* Those in civil contempt (i.e., not paying alimony or child support),
* Juveniles,
* Those claimed, due to mental disease or defect, to be a danger to
themselves or others,
* Those infected with contagious diseases,
* Most illegal immigrants,
and more

Trials are a "right" constitutionally recognized ONLY for criminals. No one
on the above list is a "criminal." Nor are unlawful enemy combatants.