| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2003 10:27:14 AM |
| Object: |
OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’ |
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3748660/
Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’
Ruling could shift trial of Padilla to civilian courts
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:21 a.m. ET Dec. 18, 2003
NEW YORK - President Bush does not have power to detain an American
citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant, a federal appeals
court ruled Thursday in a decision that could force a man held in a
dirty bomb plot to be tried in civilian courts.
In a 2-to-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals said the detention of Jose Padilla was not authorized by
Congress and that Bush could not designate Padilla as an enemy combatant
without the authorization.
"As this court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade
Center stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al-Qaida
poses to our country and of the responsibilities the president and law
enforcement officials bear for protecting the nation," the court said.
"But presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum, and this case
involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively
pursued, but whether the president is obligated, in the circumstances
presented here, to share them with Congress," it added.
Padilla is accused of plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb," which uses
conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. The former
Chicago gang member was arrested in May 2002 and within days was moved
to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C.
© 2003 The Associated Press.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’ |
19 Dec 2003 11:44:17 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:19:20 -0500, a stranger
called by some Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
It's wrong that it happened this time. We're talking about a man held
without being charged with anything for over a year. All we have is
the government's side of the story. Do you believe *everything* the
government tells you?
No.
So, wghy do you believe them here? Did *you* see the evidence?
Witness the acts? Eight niow we just have the government's word that
Padilla did what they claim.
That's why we have trials. So that the evidence can be brought
forward and seen by a jury.
Which wasn't done in this case. I was wrong about the Amendment, it's
the Sixth:
Amendment VI
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense."
Show me the loophole. *All* criminal prosecutions. Nothing in there
about the President, or even Congress, getting to suspend the rules.
All.
Don't ask me, ask the judge.
I'm asking you. You have stated that you have no trouble with the
government grabbing people off the street and holding them without
being charged. Will you concede that is a direct violation of the
Sixth Amendment?
And it doesn't bother you that until a court ordered it, the Executive
Branch was willing to hold this man incommunicado for an idefinate
period of time?
Are you kidding? I would have had him shot.
Without a trial? How un-American!
Which no contact with his family and no rights?
That's how the Soviet Union did things.. weren't we supposed to be
better than they were?
No, that's not how the Soviets did things. They didn't have courts that
could overrule the President.
Actually, they did, but the Party could make the judges disappear. As
could Bush. After all, if there's no public record, all that anybody
knows for sure is that Judge Whoever vanished on the way to work.
So, because we did wrong in the past, it justifies wrongs now? When I
was a kid, I shplifted. So it's OK for me to rob liquor stores? Is
that your vision?
No, because of what we did wrong in the past I know that we're not
living in a perfect society where all the rules make complete sense all
the time.
So you think that the Sixth Amendment, the bedrock of our judicial
system, doesn't make sense?
How do you know it hasn't happened? No contact with the outside
world, no lawyer, no phone call, no records, no public warrant..
No reporters, no relatives, no leaks from "administration sources"...
Do you have any idea how many Americans are reported missing every
single year? About 100,000. Every year. About 10% of those are
never found.
In Argentina, the reporters vanished too. The relatives tried to find
their brothers and husbands, but to no avail. And it was the state
that was doing this.
I think the Padillia case reaches the level of a "high crime and
misdemeanor", and Ashcroft should be impeached.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't =?windows-1252?Q?=91enemy_c?==?windows-1252?Q?ombatant=92?= |
19 Dec 2003 12:47:30 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:19:20 -0500, a stranger
called by some Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
It's wrong that it happened this time. We're talking about a man held
without being charged with anything for over a year. All we have is
the government's side of the story. Do you believe *everything* the
government tells you?
No.
So, wghy do you believe them here? Did *you* see the evidence?
Witness the acts? Eight niow we just have the government's word that
Padilla did what they claim.
That's why we have trials. So that the evidence can be brought
forward and seen by a jury.
So ruled the court.
Which wasn't done in this case. I was wrong about the Amendment, it's
the Sixth:
Amendment VI
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense."
Show me the loophole. *All* criminal prosecutions. Nothing in there
about the President, or even Congress, getting to suspend the rules.
All.
Don't ask me, ask the judge.
I'm asking you. You have stated that you have no trouble with the
government grabbing people off the street
I have said no such thing. Quit putting words in my mouth.
They "grabbed" this guy when he flew home from a meeting with known
terrorists. Give me a fucking break.
and holding them without
being charged. Will you concede that is a direct violation of the
Sixth Amendment?
The court doesn't concede that so why would I?
And it doesn't bother you that until a court ordered it, the Executive
Branch was willing to hold this man incommunicado for an idefinate
period of time?
Are you kidding? I would have had him shot.
Without a trial? How un-American!
Sigh. So much for hyperbole. Holding the guy whilst playing the
loopholes doesn't sound so bad against a *real* psycho, does it?
Which no contact with his family and no rights?
That's how the Soviet Union did things.. weren't we supposed to be
better than they were?
No, that's not how the Soviets did things. They didn't have courts that
could overrule the President.
Actually, they did, but the Party could make the judges disappear. As
could Bush. After all, if there's no public record, all that anybody
knows for sure is that Judge Whoever vanished on the way to work.
If they wanted to do that, what makes you think they'd put it in the
public record anyway, laws or not? Come to think of it, they *did* put
all the "enemy combatants" declarations in the public record.
Unless you're going to keith out on me.
So, because we did wrong in the past, it justifies wrongs now? When I
was a kid, I shplifted. So it's OK for me to rob liquor stores? Is
that your vision?
No, because of what we did wrong in the past I know that we're not
living in a perfect society where all the rules make complete sense all
the time.
So you think that the Sixth Amendment, the bedrock of our judicial
system, doesn't make sense?
I think the Sixth amendment has a whole lot of case law behind it and
the administration thought they found a loophole they could justify. I
think the Court clarified the loophole and said that was something the
Congress could do, so *THEY* don't think it's entirely against the
Constitution.
I think that the administration should have certain powers to
interrogate terrorism suspects. I would not let "terrorist" be
redefined to mean "anybody". I will let the Congress decide how to
define it.
How do you know it hasn't happened? No contact with the outside
world, no lawyer, no phone call, no records, no public warrant..
No reporters, no relatives, no leaks from "administration sources"...
Do you have any idea how many Americans are reported missing every
single year? About 100,000. Every year. About 10% of those are
never found.
In Argentina, the reporters vanished too. The relatives tried to find
their brothers and husbands, but to no avail. And it was the state
that was doing this.
You have absolutely *no* evidence that they've *disappeared* anybody.
None. They certainly acknowledged the existence of Padilla when they
could just as easily have made him disappear too.
I think the Padillia case reaches the level of a "high crime and
misdemeanor", and Ashcroft should be impeached.
And I think he's just trying to do his job and the system is working the
way it's supposed to. Sure he's a hardass. The system is designed to
push back and it has.
--
Fred Stone
October 2001 Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar: "The
situation where we are now, there are two things: either death or
victory. To those who are fighting and bombarding us, they should
understand the Afghan man is a fighter willing to die for jihad."
June 1944 General George S. Patton: "I want you to remember that no
***** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the
other poor dumb ***** die for his country..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’ |
19 Dec 2003 04:17:07 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:47:30 -0500, a stranger
called by some Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
So, why do you believe them here? Did *you* see the evidence?
Witness the acts? Eight niow we just have the government's word that
Padilla did what they claim.
That's why we have trials. So that the evidence can be brought
forward and seen by a jury.
So ruled the court.
After he was held for well over a year. Are they going to give him a
year of his life back?
Doesn't it faze you in the least that they even tried this crap?
I'm asking you. You have stated that you have no trouble with the
government grabbing people off the street
I have said no such thing. Quit putting words in my mouth.
Excuse me, but you said that you would have just shot Padillia out of
hand!
They "grabbed" this guy when he flew home from a meeting with known
terrorists. Give me a fucking break.
Has this been proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt?
Fred, I found out just over a year ago that a guy I knoew was in fact
a major supplier of metamphetamines in Northern California. I found
this out when the police busted him, and interviewed me. I used to
get together with him to watch baseball, eat dinner, do whatever.
In other owrds, I left meetings with him on a regualr basis. Does
that make me a drug runner? Should I have just been locked away with
no charges filed, no lawyer, no chance to put my case to the test?
THE STATE HAS TO PROVE THEIR CASE FIRST. At least to the point of
showing just cause to make the arrest. The only exception is if a
crime is witnessed.
and holding them without
being charged. Will you concede that is a direct violation of the
Sixth Amendment?
The court doesn't concede that so why would I?
So you *do* believe everything the government tells you. Good little
sheep that you are; you accept that despite this horrible wrong,
everything is all right with the world.
Without a trial? How un-American!
Sigh. So much for hyperbole. Holding the guy whilst playing the
loopholes doesn't sound so bad against a *real* psycho, does it?
A real psycho can be put in a pychriatric hiold. Also, we have what
are called bail hearings. There, the state can argue that the
prisoner constitues either a clear danger to himself and others, or is
a significant flight risk. The judge can order the person held
without bail. A judge. Not some executive branch flunkie. And it is
all done as a matter of public record.
Actually, they did, but the Party could make the judges disappear. As
could Bush. After all, if there's no public record, all that anybody
knows for sure is that Judge Whoever vanished on the way to work.
If they wanted to do that, what makes you think they'd put it in the
public record anyway, laws or not? Come to think of it, they *did* put
all the "enemy combatants" declarations in the public record.
Unless you're going to keith out on me.
They put them there after another court decision related to the
Padillia case made them reveal the list of people who had been
detained.
So you think that the Sixth Amendment, the bedrock of our judicial
system, doesn't make sense?
I think the Sixth amendment has a whole lot of case law behind it and
the administration thought they found a loophole they could justify. I
think the Court clarified the loophole and said that was something the
Congress could do, so *THEY* don't think it's entirely against the
Constitution.
I think that the administration should have certain powers to
interrogate terrorism suspects. I would not let "terrorist" be
redefined to mean "anybody". I will let the Congress decide how to
define it.
Yet that's how Ashcroft wants to define it in Patriot II.
Do you have any idea how many Americans are reported missing every
single year? About 100,000. Every year. About 10% of those are
never found.
In Argentina, the reporters vanished too. The relatives tried to find
their brothers and husbands, but to no avail. And it was the state
that was doing this.
You have absolutely *no* evidence that they've *disappeared* anybody.
None. They certainly acknowledged the existence of Padilla when they
could just as easily have made him disappear too.
Only after his family raised a stink to the heavens and refused to
shut up.
I think the Padillia case reaches the level of a "high crime and
misdemeanor", and Ashcroft should be impeached.
And I think he's just trying to do his job and the system is working the
way it's supposed to. Sure he's a hardass. The system is designed to
push back and it has.
His job is to enforce the laws of the United States. Which make it
clear that secret trials and secret prisons are not how we do things.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't =?windows-1252?Q?=91enemy_c?==?windows-1252?Q?ombatant=92?= |
19 Dec 2003 05:32:09 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:47:30 -0500, a stranger
called by some Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry wrote:
So, why do you believe them here? Did *you* see the evidence?
Witness the acts? Eight niow we just have the government's word that
Padilla did what they claim.
That's why we have trials. So that the evidence can be brought
forward and seen by a jury.
So ruled the court.
After he was held for well over a year. Are they going to give him a
year of his life back?
Doesn't it faze you in the least that they even tried this crap?
I'm asking you. You have stated that you have no trouble with the
government grabbing people off the street
I have said no such thing. Quit putting words in my mouth.
Excuse me, but you said that you would have just shot Padillia out of
hand!
I didn't say I'd have grabbed him off the street for no reason. YOu keep
ignoring the reasons and pretending that they're grabbing people out of
the blue. Get real.
They "grabbed" this guy when he flew home from a meeting with known
terrorists. Give me a fucking break.
Has this been proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt?
Fred, I found out just over a year ago that a guy I knoew was in fact
a major supplier of metamphetamines in Northern California. I found
this out when the police busted him, and interviewed me. I used to
get together with him to watch baseball, eat dinner, do whatever.
In other owrds, I left meetings with him on a regualr basis. Does
that make me a drug runner? Should I have just been locked away with
no charges filed, no lawyer, no chance to put my case to the test?
I just said the courts did what they're supposed to do, what do you want
from me? I should immolate myself over an idea that's been overturned?
Geeze, what the ***** am I supposed to say? Yes, drag your ***** down here
and get out the rubber hoses. And the bong it goes with. ;-)
THE STATE HAS TO PROVE THEIR CASE FIRST. At least to the point of
showing just cause to make the arrest. The only exception is if a
crime is witnessed.
Oh come on now, they showed they had cause to arrest him. That's not the
issue at all.
and holding them without
being charged. Will you concede that is a direct violation of the
Sixth Amendment?
The court doesn't concede that so why would I?
So you *do* believe everything the government tells you. Good little
sheep that you are; you accept that despite this horrible wrong,
everything is all right with the world.
Did you read the court decision? They said quite clearly that Congress
could make the determination that he was an enemy combatant, which means
they don't think it's irreparably unconstitutional.
Without a trial? How un-American!
Sigh. So much for hyperbole. Holding the guy whilst playing the
loopholes doesn't sound so bad against a *real* psycho, does it?
A real psycho can be put in a pychriatric hiold. Also, we have what
are called bail hearings. There, the state can argue that the
prisoner constitues either a clear danger to himself and others, or is
a significant flight risk. The judge can order the person held
without bail. A judge. Not some executive branch flunkie. And it is
all done as a matter of public record.
Ok, I'll say it again. The administration thought they had a loophole.
The court disagreed. That's the way the system works. If you don't like
the way the President is a hardass on national security, don't vote for him.
Actually, they did, but the Party could make the judges disappear. As
could Bush. After all, if there's no public record, all that anybody
knows for sure is that Judge Whoever vanished on the way to work.
If they wanted to do that, what makes you think they'd put it in the
public record anyway, laws or not? Come to think of it, they *did* put
all the "enemy combatants" declarations in the public record.
Unless you're going to keith out on me.
They put them there after another court decision related to the
Padillia case made them reveal the list of people who had been
detained.
So there you go again, the system works like it's supposed to.
So you think that the Sixth Amendment, the bedrock of our judicial
system, doesn't make sense?
I think the Sixth amendment has a whole lot of case law behind it and
the administration thought they found a loophole they could justify. I
think the Court clarified the loophole and said that was something the
Congress could do, so *THEY* don't think it's entirely against the
Constitution.
I think that the administration should have certain powers to
interrogate terrorism suspects. I would not let "terrorist" be
redefined to mean "anybody". I will let the Congress decide how to
define it.
Yet that's how Ashcroft wants to define it in Patriot II.
The Congress doesn't seem willing to rubber stamp this one.
Do you have any idea how many Americans are reported missing every
single year? About 100,000. Every year. About 10% of those are
never found.
In Argentina, the reporters vanished too. The relatives tried to find
their brothers and husbands, but to no avail. And it was the state
that was doing this.
You have absolutely *no* evidence that they've *disappeared* anybody.
None. They certainly acknowledged the existence of Padilla when they
could just as easily have made him disappear too.
Only after his family raised a stink to the heavens and refused to
shut up.
If I recall correctly, they announced right away that they had detained
him. That was about getting him an interview with his lawyer, IINM.
I think the Padillia case reaches the level of a "high crime and
misdemeanor", and Ashcroft should be impeached.
And I think he's just trying to do his job and the system is working the
way it's supposed to. Sure he's a hardass. The system is designed to
push back and it has.
His job is to enforce the laws of the United States.
And going after terrorists is part of that duty.
Which make it
clear that secret trials and secret prisons are not how we do things.
It's not much of a secret when everybody knows the prisoner is there.
--
Fred Stone
October 2001 Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar: "The
situation where we are now, there are two things: either death or
victory. To those who are fighting and bombarding us, they should
understand the Afghan man is a fighter willing to die for jihad."
June 1944 General George S. Patton: "I want you to remember that no
***** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the
other poor dumb ***** die for his country..."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’ |
21 Dec 2003 08:43:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:43:21 -0500, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>,
Message ID: <vu47ricf5nuj96@news.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu3p3jp5gkda6a@news.supernews.com...
stoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3748660/
Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’
Ruling could shift trial of Padilla to civilian courts
Amazing. The checks and balances are still working. That must come as an
awful shock to you, Stoney.
It doesn't strike you as even a little bit upsetting that we *needed* the
checks and balances in the first place?
Nope.
You're not bothered at all by the
fact that the president of this country claims he has unlimited authority
to arrest an American citizen, on American soil, at any time, and to hold
them indefinitely without charging them, without informing them of the
evidence against them, without allowing them to see a lawyer, and without
giving them a trial?
I don't make general principles out of particular cases, so no, I'm not
bothered in the least by the fact that they arrested this particular guy
after following him home from a meeting with known terrorists, and then
held him away from lawyers in order to interrogate him.
He has not been unrepresented, or how did this case happen?
It's not like they don't have a prima facie case against the guy; his
only hope of acquittal is to play the technicalities like demanding to
interview Khalid sheik whatshisname "to prepare his defense".
Whether they do or not is beside the point. The man was an american
citizen subject to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. The
'President' who had sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution's been
using it to wipe his arse with and folks like you have no problem with
it.
I might expect that sort of thing in a dictatorship
like China or a theocracy like Iran, but this is the United States of
America. People have *rights* here, rights that are not subject to popular
vote or governmental whim. This country was *founded* to put a stop to
tyranny like that.
If the President were asserting the power to do that arbitrarily, I'd
have a problem. But he's not.
Yes, he is. Prior he flat stated he would not utilize his pen and paper
to label U.S. Citizens 'non combatants.' As usual, Shrub lied.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't =?windows-1252?Q?=91enemy_c?==?windows-1252?Q?ombatant=92?= |
21 Dec 2003 08:58:40 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:43:21 -0500, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>,
Message ID: <vu47ricf5nuj96@news.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu3p3jp5gkda6a@news.supernews.com...
stoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3748660/
Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’
Ruling could shift trial of Padilla to civilian courts
Amazing. The checks and balances are still working. That must come as an
awful shock to you, Stoney.
It doesn't strike you as even a little bit upsetting that we *needed* the
checks and balances in the first place?
Nope.
You're not bothered at all by the
fact that the president of this country claims he has unlimited authority
to arrest an American citizen, on American soil, at any time, and to hold
them indefinitely without charging them, without informing them of the
evidence against them, without allowing them to see a lawyer, and without
giving them a trial?
I don't make general principles out of particular cases, so no, I'm not
bothered in the least by the fact that they arrested this particular guy
after following him home from a meeting with known terrorists, and then
held him away from lawyers in order to interrogate him.
He has not been unrepresented, or how did this case happen?
It's not like they don't have a prima facie case against the guy; his
only hope of acquittal is to play the technicalities like demanding to
interview Khalid sheik whatshisname "to prepare his defense".
Whether they do or not is beside the point. The man was an american
citizen subject to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. The
'President' who had sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution's been
using it to wipe his arse with and folks like you have no problem with
it.
The court did their job, didn't they? Geeze, you'd think you were on the
losing side or something.
I might expect that sort of thing in a dictatorship
like China or a theocracy like Iran, but this is the United States of
America. People have *rights* here, rights that are not subject to popular
vote or governmental whim. This country was *founded* to put a stop to
tyranny like that.
If the President were asserting the power to do that arbitrarily, I'd
have a problem. But he's not.
Yes, he is. Prior he flat stated he would not utilize his pen and paper
to label U.S. Citizens 'non combatants.' As usual, Shrub lied.
So what the hell are you complaining about? It got overturned, for
pete's sakes.
--
Fred Stone
October 2001 Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar: "The
situation where we are now, there are two things: either death or
victory. To those who are fighting and bombarding us, they should
understand the Afghan man is a fighter willing to die for jihad."
June 1944 General George S. Patton: "I want you to remember that no
***** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the
other poor dumb ***** die for his country..."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’ |
21 Dec 2003 08:39:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:31:41 -0500, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>,
Message ID: <vu3p3jp5gkda6a@news.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
stoney wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3748660/
Court: U.S. citizen isn't ‘enemy combatant’
Ruling could shift trial of Padilla to civilian courts
Amazing. The checks and balances are still working. That must come as an
awful shock to you, Stoney.
Still working? One check amidst all the misses. And it's been about
two years since the gov's had the man incommunicado.
Poor baby.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
