Post #41,830
6/10/02 12:30:23 PM
|
Hmmm.
"We have acted with legal authority both under the laws of war and clear Supreme Court precedent, which establishes that the military may detain a United States citizen who has joined the enemy and has entered our country to carry out hostile acts," Ashcroft said. Hmmmm, why go through this explanation? Okay, this brings up another question. Aryan Nations. They kill blacks. They attempt to spread terror amongst blacks. Are they terrorists? Since they are US citizens, would the paragraph I quoted apply to them as well? Anyway, who was that who said we couldn't have a trial for someone who did not kill anyone yet? Seems Ashcroft has that exact process in mind. And the guy didn't even have a complete plan yet. Strange.
|
Post #41,854
6/10/02 4:03:00 PM
|
Lots of things to make you go hmm...
- He's a US citizen. So now we're applying Military Tribunes to US citizens.
- There's apparently no bomb. Just a discussion about a bomb. (Is anyone picking up Tom Clancy for talking about nuking Denver yet?)
- He's been held since May 8th. Suddenly they're releasing information about him, just in time to push for the New Homeland Security and divert from a Congressional Investigation into 9/11.
- Not to mention that this could distract from the [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15269-2002Jun7.html| Cipro ] story.
Now...do I think this guy is guilty. Sure. I think he probably deserves to be strung from a tree. But I do find the timing......interesting.
|
Post #41,939
6/11/02 11:34:08 AM
|
He doesn't even get a Tribunal
He doesn't even get a tribunal.
He has to wait until the end of the "war".
--rant--
I'm really surprised the lawyers haven't latched onto the fact that we are calling this a war, and yet it really isn't a war because Congress hasn't declared a war. Congress can't really declare a war like we did in WWII because during a "declared" war practically all insurance policies exclude damage from war activities and some are null and void. Thus, banks are afraid of losing money from property damaged by "enemies" during a war. Most home loans require that you insure your home. If a war is declared and you can't insure your home, you can't keep it. However, if we avoid the use of the word "war" and we don't declare one, then the bankers are happy, but the insurers aren't? Maybe that's why Korea and Vietnam weren't wars. The Gulf War didn't qualify because all the action was overseas and there were very few threats to the homeland. Yet, we're not in a declared "war", but Ashcroft and company have the right to detain an American citizen indefinitely without his having a lawyer. He doesn't even get a lawyer or tribunal?
--/aside rant--
--another rant--
I've always felt that we have been much too lax about citizenship, even with those of us who were born here. I'm in favor of requiring all adult males and females to either serve 1-2 years in military service or in the peace corps, or some other "service" organization for their citizenship. I think we have been much to lax in letting foreigners in the U.S., even to the point that we don't even have an effective border patrol. We have no idea who is even in our country. I would guess that most Al Quieda did not just show up at an airport and go through customs. I suspect most probably went to Mexico or Canada and crossed via car or on foot, without anyone even checking an id. The great wall of China kept out invaders for centuries, and helped China effectively control their borders. We will have to do the same. Sadly, we can no longer offer freedom to everyone, only to those who will take citizenship seriously and stand with us when we are attacked.
--/another rant--
A sad day for America. Enemies of freedom will turn us into another Israel.
Glen Austin
|
Post #41,986
6/11/02 4:33:39 PM
|
Are you sure they haven't?
I'm really surprised the lawyers haven't latched onto the fact that we are calling this a war, and yet it really isn't a war because Congress hasn't declared a war. He hasn't been charged. If he isn't charged, the government can't be "wrong" for not being at war. This is a US citizen being held, without recourse, without a charge, without anything. We'd expect this in totalitarian societies. And I completely approve of this! Go Big Brother! I (heart) the Stazi!
|
Post #41,950
6/11/02 12:08:39 PM
|
Well...was he planning on exploding a bomb?
That was quick...
U.S. officials are backing away from assertions that a man arrested last month in Chicago was plotting a 'dirty' bomb attack on the United States, CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart reports.
U.S. officials now admit they're not sure what American-born Abdullah al Muhajir's plans were when he returned to the U.S. last month.
Reminds me how fact the Democrats backed off on the Bush Knew. They could try him...provided they charge him.
Al Mujahir was taken from Justice Department custody in New York City Monday morning to a high-security U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Rivers Johnson. Military officials have not decided whether to charge Muhajir or what charges to file, Johnson said.
Muhajir had a lawyer in New York but his access to a lawyer probably will be severely restricted now that he is in military custody, Johnson said. The alleged al Qaeda operative is being held separately from other prisoners at the brig, Johnson said.
[...]
Al Muhajir is being held by the Defense Department as an "enemy combatant," which under the rules of war allows him to be questioned without the usual protections afforded in the U.S. judicial system, like having an attorney present. Officials have not ruled out lodging criminal charges against al Muhajir later.
President Bush has said American citizens would not be tried in military tribunals that were created after Sept. 11 to try foreign terrorists outside the U.S. court system.
So...we can hold American citizens now, without trial, for as long as the Goverment likes. Good thing Clinton didn't try something like this. ;-)
|
Post #41,956
6/11/02 12:19:44 PM
|
I wonder...
...[link|http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/11/dirty.bomb.suspect/index.html|why "our interest is not in trying him"?]
Maybe because they can't prove anything in Court...or even in a Tribunal?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #41,958
6/11/02 12:29:20 PM
|
Here's what I wonder...
From your link: Federal officials said Monday that Padilla, 31 -- who also goes by the name Abdullah Al Muhajir ... Why does the press keep referring to him this way? Whenever a government spokesperson talks about him, they use his Muslim name, only occasionally mentionining his original name. Do sports writers talk about, "Cassius Clay -- who also goes by the name Muhammed Ali ... Lou Alcindor -- who also goes by the name Kareem Abdul Jabaar ..." Do they have a problem with the fact that he apparently didn't file official name-change paperwork in the U.S.? Or is this their not-so-subtle way of thumbing their collective nose at the government's not-so-subtle attempt to make him appear more alien (and thus frightening) by only using his Muslim name? Although I believe the government's decision to use his Muslim name has little to do with a respect for his wishes, and everything to do with making him sound more foreign, I still think the media should use his Muslim name. ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #41,957
6/11/02 12:26:43 PM
|
What "enemy" is that, (tt)Lord Protector?
"We have acted with legal authority both under the laws of war and clear Supreme Court precedent, which establishes that the military may detain a United States citizen who has joined the enemy and has entered our country to carry out hostile acts," Ashcroft said. What war? I'm not talking about meeja presentation, I'm talking about a Declaration of War (you know, per the Constitution?). We're not at war. So the "laws of war" do not apply. You don't get to suspend the Constitution at your convenience, John! What enemy? Since we're not at war, we don't have an enemy. You don't get to suspend the Constitution at your convenience, simply by waiving some red-letter words around an a meeja event, John! Sorry! Do your homework, moron! jb4
"I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
|
Post #41,969
6/11/02 1:26:53 PM
|
Declaration of War
Even with a declaration of war, most rights still shouldn't be able to be suspended - remember one of the reasons for the original war of independance from England was their taking over quarters and using private property to house their army.
There's provision for "in a manner prescribed by law" in many of the amendments, such as housing soldiers, but (for instance) much of the suppression Abraham Lincoln did was arguably blatently illegal and enormously expanded the powers of the Federal government far beyond even the most "strong government" proponent would have believed.
Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
|
Post #41,983
6/11/02 4:26:35 PM
|
WDY(both)HASM!?!
Oh, and the "in a manner prescribed by law" could be construed to mean that such alterations would have to be processed through the usual channels. You know, start in Congress/Senate, signed into law by President, judged Constitutional or not by the USSC.
But that's only my interpretation of it.
PS:
I fully support Big Brother's indefinate detainment without legal recourse for all enemies of the State.
I (heart) the Stazi!
|
Post #41,999
6/11/02 6:03:19 PM
|
You FUEL! How COULD you be so Pollyannaish?!?
jb4
"I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
|
