| 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: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Court:_U.S._citizen_isn't_'enemy_combatant'?= |
18 Dec 2003 11:13:49 AM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:h7l3uvohhar2ak8c1orgchkm2g6d5r5860@4ax.com...
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.
At last! This is a great day for freedom; I'm starting to feel as if I live
in America again. The only thing that amazes me was that this decision took
this long to come about.
--
"The spiritual man.... attacks what he believes | a.a. #2001
to be wrong, though defended by the many, | ebonmuse!hotmail.com
and he is willing to stand for the right | www.ebonmusings.org
against the world." --Robert Green Ingersoll | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't =?windows-1252?Q?=91enemy_c?==?windows-1252?Q?ombatant=92?= |
18 Dec 2003 11:31:41 AM |
|
|
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.
--
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: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_OT:__Court:_U.S._citizen_isn't_=91enemy_combatant=92?= |
18 Dec 2003 03:18:02 PM |
|
|
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? 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 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.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't =?windows-1252?Q?=91enemy_c?==?windows-1252?Q?ombatant=92?= |
18 Dec 2003 03:43:21 PM |
|
|
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".
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.
--
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: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_OT:__Court:_U.S._citizen_isn't_=91enemy_combatant=92?= |
18 Dec 2003 05:44:10 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu47ricf5nuj96@news.supernews.com...
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,
I'm rather amazed by this. Does the term "setting a precedent" have any
meaning to you?
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?
Huh?
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".
I didn't claim he was necessarily innocent. But if the government has a
substantive case against him, then they should give him a fair trial, and
if they don't, they have no right to hold him. Don't you agree?
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.
So, would it be a fair summation of your position to say that you're
willing to grant the government the power to arrest and indefinitely detain
without charges anyone whom *they* tell you is guilty of terrorism-related
activities, and you're going to trust that they will not abuse that power?
If this is not an accurate representation of your position, please explain
what about it is wrong.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't =?windows-1252?Q?=91enemy_c?==?windows-1252?Q?ombatant=92?= |
18 Dec 2003 07:41:46 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu47ricf5nuj96@news.supernews.com...
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,
I'm rather amazed by this. Does the term "setting a precedent" have any
meaning to you?
Yes. You keep leaving out the particular conditions under which this
precedent was set. It is relevant, you know.
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?
Huh?
Duh? Somebody brought suit on his behalf, right?
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".
I didn't claim he was necessarily innocent. But if the government has a
substantive case against him, then they should give him a fair trial, and
if they don't, they have no right to hold him. Don't you agree?
Not when bringing the case either blows secrets or interferes with
interrogations.
Do we give him immunity in exchange for talking? Cut him a deal? That's
probably how it'll work out. I don't know. He'll be talking to his
lawyer soon.
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.
So, would it be a fair summation of your position to say that you're
willing to grant the government the power to arrest and indefinitely detain
without charges anyone whom *they* tell you is guilty of terrorism-related
activities, and you're going to trust that they will not abuse that power?
If this is not an accurate representation of your position, please explain
what about it is wrong.
No, I'm willing to let the President try to assert such a power and then
let the system work it out. Checks and balances, remember? Politics.
*Compromises*. I know that's a dirty word around here. The Prez has
thirty days to decide whether to ask Congress for a declaration of enemy
combatant status or bring charges in criminal court.
I'm certain that he'll come up with something.
If the President goes around in a crisis situation worrying about
whether a court will reverse him, he's going to hogtie himself. He's
hogtied enough as it is, 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: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_OT:__Court:_U.S._citizen_isn't_=91enemy_combatant=92?= |
18 Dec 2003 08:07:44 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu4lqfrjfkuue7@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
[...]
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,
I'm rather amazed by this. Does the term "setting a precedent" have any
meaning to you?
Yes. You keep leaving out the particular conditions under which this
precedent was set. It is relevant, you know.
I see no conditions that would prevent this new power from being expanded
arbitrarily. Who gets to define who is and is not a terrorist? What if the
government passed a law defining as a terrorist anyone who attempted to
interfere with a business by "sound wave or light ray", even if they did no
damage and caused no harm? Would you then support the arbitrary and
indefinite detention of anyone who violated that law?
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?
Huh?
Duh? Somebody brought suit on his behalf, right?
Yes. It is my understanding that they did so without being allowed to see
or speak to him.
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".
I didn't claim he was necessarily innocent. But if the government has a
substantive case against him, then they should give him a fair trial,
and if they don't, they have no right to hold him. Don't you agree?
Not when bringing the case either blows secrets or interferes with
interrogations.
I am just incredulous at this. By your logic, *anyone* who is accused of
something should be arrested and held without trial or counsel, because
giving him a lawyer would "interfere with interrogations". Don't you think
police could get confessions far more often if American citizens didn't
have all those pesky rights? How about the Miranda right to remain silent -
doesn't that also "interfere with interrogations"? Doesn't the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution "interfere with interrogations"? Why don't we
revoke all those things too? I cannot believe how ready you are to
disregard the fundamental rights given to citizens of this country as soon
as the government assures you that doing so is necessary in order to
further some goal.
[...]
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.
So, would it be a fair summation of your position to say that you're
willing to grant the government the power to arrest and indefinitely
detain without charges anyone whom *they* tell you is guilty of
terrorism-related activities, and you're going to trust that they will
not abuse that power? If this is not an accurate representation of your
position, please explain what about it is wrong.
No, I'm willing to let the President try to assert such a power and then
let the system work it out. Checks and balances, remember? Politics.
And if the courts had granted the president that power, would you accept it
without qualm? My above question remains. Is it okay by *you* that the
government should be allowed to detain anyone indefinitely without trial as
long as they assure you that they will not abuse that power?
*Compromises*. I know that's a dirty word around here. The Prez has
thirty days to decide whether to ask Congress for a declaration of enemy
combatant status or bring charges in criminal court.
I'm certain that he'll come up with something.
If the President goes around in a crisis situation worrying about
whether a court will reverse him, he's going to hogtie himself. He's
hogtied enough as it is, for pete's sakes.
Yes, he certainly is "hogtied" by annoying and inconvenient things such as
the Bill of Rights. Wouldn't it be so much easier if he could just do
anything he wanted? Why don't we just give him the power to arrest anyone,
at any time, and imprison them for as long as he pleases without giving
them access to a lawyer, without giving them a trial, and without telling
either the person arrested or the general public what the evidence or
charges against that person are? That is completely consistent with the
principles America was founded on. I'm sure he'll use that power
responsibly and then relinquish it when the war on terrorism is over,
aren't you? We certainly don't have anything to worry about.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't =?windows-1252?Q?=91enemy_c?==?windows-1252?Q?ombatant=92?= |
18 Dec 2003 09:09:33 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu4lqfrjfkuue7@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
[...]
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,
I'm rather amazed by this. Does the term "setting a precedent" have any
meaning to you?
Yes. You keep leaving out the particular conditions under which this
precedent was set. It is relevant, you know.
I see no conditions that would prevent this new power from being expanded
arbitrarily. Who gets to define who is and is not a terrorist? What if the
government passed a law defining as a terrorist anyone who attempted to
interfere with a business by "sound wave or light ray", even if they did no
damage and caused no harm? Would you then support the arbitrary and
indefinite detention of anyone who violated that law?
When they suggest doing that, ask me again.
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?
Huh?
Duh? Somebody brought suit on his behalf, right?
Yes. It is my understanding that they did so without being allowed to see
or speak to him.
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".
I didn't claim he was necessarily innocent. But if the government has a
substantive case against him, then they should give him a fair trial,
and if they don't, they have no right to hold him. Don't you agree?
Not when bringing the case either blows secrets or interferes with
interrogations.
I am just incredulous at this. By your logic
Sorry, not *my* logic. I've already identified the conditions under
which I would apply *my* logic. QUIT IGNORING THEM.
*anyone* who is accused of
something should be arrested and held without trial or counsel, because
giving him a lawyer would "interfere with interrogations". Don't you think
police could get confessions far more often if American citizens didn't
have all those pesky rights? How about the Miranda right to remain silent -
doesn't that also "interfere with interrogations"? Doesn't the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution "interfere with interrogations"? Why don't we
revoke all those things too? I cannot believe how ready you are to
disregard the fundamental rights given to citizens of this country as soon
as the government assures you that doing so is necessary in order to
further some goal.
[...]
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.
So, would it be a fair summation of your position to say that you're
willing to grant the government the power to arrest and indefinitely
detain without charges anyone whom *they* tell you is guilty of
terrorism-related activities, and you're going to trust that they will
not abuse that power? If this is not an accurate representation of your
position, please explain what about it is wrong.
No, I'm willing to let the President try to assert such a power and then
let the system work it out. Checks and balances, remember? Politics.
And if the courts had granted the president that power, would you accept it
without qualm? My above question remains. Is it okay by *you* that the
government should be allowed to detain anyone indefinitely without trial as
long as they assure you that they will not abuse that power?
And I repeat my answer.
*Compromises*. I know that's a dirty word around here. The Prez has
thirty days to decide whether to ask Congress for a declaration of enemy
combatant status or bring charges in criminal court.
I'm certain that he'll come up with something.
If the President goes around in a crisis situation worrying about
whether a court will reverse him, he's going to hogtie himself. He's
hogtied enough as it is, for pete's sakes.
Yes, he certainly is "hogtied" by annoying and inconvenient things such as
the Bill of Rights.
Oh yawn.
Wouldn't it be so much easier if he could just do
anything he wanted? Why don't we just give him the power to arrest anyone,
at any time, and imprison them for as long as he pleases without giving
them access to a lawyer, without giving them a trial, and without telling
either the person arrested or the general public what the evidence or
charges against that person are? That is completely consistent with the
principles America was founded on. I'm sure he'll use that power
responsibly and then relinquish it when the war on terrorism is over,
aren't you? We certainly don't have anything to worry about.
Oh spare me the strawmen. Get over yourself.
--
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: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_OT:__Court:_U.S._citizen_isn't_'enemy_combatant'?= |
18 Dec 2003 10:35:39 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu4quvh4ecs0e9@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
[...]
Yes. You keep leaving out the particular conditions under which this
precedent was set. It is relevant, you know.
I see no conditions that would prevent this new power from being
expanded arbitrarily. Who gets to define who is and is not a terrorist?
What if the government passed a law defining as a terrorist anyone who
attempted to interfere with a business by "sound wave or light ray",
even if they did no damage and caused no harm? Would you then support
the arbitrary and indefinite detention of anyone who violated that law?
When they suggest doing that, ask me again.
In fact, it's not only been suggested, it's been done (though admittedly by
a state government rather than the federal government).
http://www.acluutah.org/uarcpimemo.htm
In 2001, the state of Utah passed a law creating a new offense, "commercial
terrorism", the conditions for which are as I described above. Thankfully,
the law was struck down by a federal court
(http://www.acluutah.org/pr101001.htm). Nevertheless, my essential point
remains: Once a precedent of this nature is set, certain people will
inevitably seek to take advantage of it by redefining "terrorism" to
include activities which *they* want stopped, and use the greatly expanded
powers which have been created to fight terrorism as weapons. That is why
we must be vigilant in opposing even the slightest intrusion on our
liberties; that is why we must make certain that our rights are strongly
protected. Once they are weakened for *anyone*, once they do not apply to
any category of people, those who oppose what our nation stands for will
seek to use that to their advantage by classifying all their adversaries
into that unprotected category. If the Constitution is ever revoked, it
won't happen all at once - it will happen little by little, nibbling away
at one right here, weakening another constitutional protection there, with
every step justified by abundant rhetoric as to how this is necessary to
ensure our safety and is certainly only a temporary measure that will be
used with discretion. We who care about the ideals our country stands for
must not allow that to happen.
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?
Huh?
Duh? Somebody brought suit on his behalf, right?
Yes. It is my understanding that they did so without being allowed to
see or speak to him.
No response?
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".
I didn't claim he was necessarily innocent. But if the government has
a substantive case against him, then they should give him a fair
trial, and if they don't, they have no right to hold him. Don't you
agree?
Not when bringing the case either blows secrets or interferes with
interrogations.
I am just incredulous at this. By your logic
Sorry, not *my* logic. I've already identified the conditions under
which I would apply *my* logic. QUIT IGNORING THEM.
I'm afraid you're standing at the summit of a very slippery slope no matter
what "conditions" you would impose on the president's claimed right to
detain anyone indefinitely without charges - all the more so because those
conditions are not anywhere written into law, but would have to be
voluntary commitments on the president's part. However, I'm afraid I'm not
entirely certain what the conditions you have in mind are. Could you please
state them clearly one more time?
*anyone* who is accused of
something should be arrested and held without trial or counsel, because
giving him a lawyer would "interfere with interrogations". Don't you
think police could get confessions far more often if American citizens
didn't have all those pesky rights? How about the Miranda right to
remain silent - doesn't that also "interfere with interrogations"?
Doesn't the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution "interfere with
interrogations"? Why don't we revoke all those things too? I cannot
believe how ready you are to disregard the fundamental rights given to
citizens of this country as soon as the government assures you that
doing so is necessary in order to further some goal.
I don't think you've adequately addressed this point. Let's say we grant
your argument and assume that not allowing anything to "interfere with
interrogations" is an important governmental interest when it comes to
thwarting terrorism. But what is the rationale for this? To protect
citizens from harm caused by terrorists, obviously. But why is harm caused
by non-terrorist domestic criminals any less important? If police arrest
someone whom they believe to be a serial killer or a rapist, isn't it just
as important that they not allow anything - like the accused having a
defense lawyer present - to interfere with their interrogations, because
they need to protect the safety of law-abiding American citizens? Your
logic leads inevitably to the conclusion that anyone merely accused of a
crime forfeits all rights, which is flatly contrary to the fundamental
principles America stands for.
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.
So, would it be a fair summation of your position to say that you're
willing to grant the government the power to arrest and indefinitely
detain without charges anyone whom *they* tell you is guilty of
terrorism-related activities, and you're going to trust that they will
not abuse that power? If this is not an accurate representation of
your position, please explain what about it is wrong.
No, I'm willing to let the President try to assert such a power and
then let the system work it out. Checks and balances, remember?
Politics.
And if the courts had granted the president that power, would you
accept it without qualm? My above question remains. Is it okay by *you*
that the government should be allowed to detain anyone indefinitely
without trial as long as they assure you that they will not abuse that
power?
And I repeat my answer.
Your answer was not applicable to my question. I know you've said you're
content to let the courts work it out. But that's not what I asked. I want
to know what *you* think. I'm interested in your specific opinion on the
constitutionality of this. How would you rule on the issue if you were the
federal judge deciding the case?
*Compromises*. I know that's a dirty word around here. The Prez has
thirty days to decide whether to ask Congress for a declaration of
enemy combatant status or bring charges in criminal court.
I'm certain that he'll come up with something.
If the President goes around in a crisis situation worrying about
whether a court will reverse him, he's going to hogtie himself. He's
hogtied enough as it is, for pete's sakes.
Yes, he certainly is "hogtied" by annoying and inconvenient things such
as the Bill of Rights.
Oh yawn.
You're yawning at the Bill of Rights? Aren't conservatives supposed to be
the ones who love everything America stands for and godless liberals the
ones who hate and despise all of that? I always thought the essence of
being an American was unwavering loyalty to the essential principles our
nation was built on, not unwavering loyalty to whoever happens to be in
office at the moment.
Wouldn't it be so much easier if he could just do
anything he wanted? Why don't we just give him the power to arrest
anyone, at any time, and imprison them for as long as he pleases
without giving them access to a lawyer, without giving them a trial,
and without telling either the person arrested or the general public
what the evidence or charges against that person are? That is
completely consistent with the principles America was founded on. I'm
sure he'll use that power responsibly and then relinquish it when the
war on terrorism is over, aren't you? We certainly don't have anything
to worry about.
Oh spare me the strawmen. Get over yourself.
I hate to break it to you, Fred, but that is not a straw man; it's
happening right now. The only remaining question is how you react to it.
(If anyone's interested how *I'm* reacting to it, I've decided to join the
American Civil Liberties Union. I'm already a member of several similar
groups, but recent events - and not just this case - have convinced me
beyond any reasonable doubt that for the sake of our future it is the only
course of action.)
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
18 Dec 2003 10:56:36 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
<snipped it all>
No, sorry Adam, I won't be badgered about it. I'm not going to play your
exaggerated hypothetical situations.
--
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: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
19 Dec 2003 12:20:59 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu517l426b092a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
<snipped it all>
No, sorry Adam, I won't be badgered about it. I'm not going to play your
exaggerated hypothetical situations.
As I pointed out and you ignored, these things are not hypothetical
situations, they are happening right now. Shame on you, Fred - I expect
better than this kind of evasiveness from an atheist.
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
19 Dec 2003 01:55:49 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu517l426b092a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
<snipped it all>
No, sorry Adam, I won't be badgered about it. I'm not going to play your
exaggerated hypothetical situations.
As I pointed out and you ignored, these things are not hypothetical
situations, they are happening right now. Shame on you, Fred - I expect
better than this kind of evasiveness from an atheist.
Oh come on, Adam, the first example you gave was overturned by the
court. And you said it yourself: "Slippery Slope".
--
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: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
19 Dec 2003 02:46:42 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6ltffj6bgk4a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu517l426b092a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
<snipped it all>
No, sorry Adam, I won't be badgered about it. I'm not going to play
your exaggerated hypothetical situations.
As I pointed out and you ignored, these things are not hypothetical
situations, they are happening right now. Shame on you, Fred - I expect
better than this kind of evasiveness from an atheist.
Oh come on, Adam, the first example you gave was overturned by the
court.
You seem remarkably complacent in trusting that the courts will always
uphold our liberties. Of course that law was overturned; that is not the
issue. The issue is: Why did the sponsors of the bill define peaceful
protest as "terrorism"? Do you think they would have done so - do you think
they would even have attempted to pass this bill - if not for all the
recent anti-terror hysteria in this country following September 11 and the
passing of such sweeping measures as the Patriot Act? When you see lots of
little leaks springing out in a dam, it is not wise to simply plug each one
individually and then forget about it; it behooves you to ask why any leaks
at all are appearing all of a sudden.
And you said it yourself: "Slippery Slope".
Slippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you show that one step is in
fact likely to lead to the next. My point was that granting
extra-constitutional powers to fight terrorism will lead to special
interest groups defining activities which they disagree with as terrorism
in order to suppress them, and did I not then give an example of that
precise thing happening already?
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
19 Dec 2003 03:03:20 PM |
|
|
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:SsJEb.25389$D21.25339@news01.roc.ny:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6ltffj6bgk4a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu517l426b092a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
<snipped it all>
No, sorry Adam, I won't be badgered about it. I'm not going to play
your exaggerated hypothetical situations.
As I pointed out and you ignored, these things are not hypothetical
situations, they are happening right now. Shame on you, Fred - I
expect better than this kind of evasiveness from an atheist.
Oh come on, Adam, the first example you gave was overturned by the
court.
You seem remarkably complacent in trusting that the courts will always
uphold our liberties. Of course that law was overturned; that is not
the issue. The issue is: Why did the sponsors of the bill define
peaceful protest as "terrorism"? Do you think they would have done so
- do you think they would even have attempted to pass this bill - if
not for all the recent anti-terror hysteria in this country following
September 11 and the passing of such sweeping measures as the Patriot
Act? When you see lots of little leaks springing out in a dam, it is
not wise to simply plug each one individually and then forget about
it; it behooves you to ask why any leaks at all are appearing all of a
sudden.
You sound surprised at all that has happened. Even a cursory look at
historical crises demonstrates that there is little to be surprised at.
Certainly, I have not been surprised at bad laws being passed, nor at
overzealous enforcement of those laws. And I'm not surprised at the courts
ruling such things unconstitutional. That's the historical pattern
thoughout US history.
And you said it yourself: "Slippery Slope".
Slippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you show that one step
is in fact likely to lead to the next.
But when historical precedent indicates that one step is _not_, in fact,
likely to lead to the next, it's another matter.
My point was that granting
extra-constitutional powers to fight terrorism will lead to special
interest groups defining activities which they disagree with as
terrorism in order to suppress them, and did I not then give an
example of that precise thing happening already?
Except that such laws are unconstitutional, and US courts, all the way up,
have a long standing pattern of saying so. Otherwise, we'd have been an
absolute dictatorship long, long ago.
--
Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com
www.hyperbooks.com
Roleplaying Stuff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
19 Dec 2003 05:27:37 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945684CC8BDCtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
[...]
You seem remarkably complacent in trusting that the courts will always
uphold our liberties. Of course that law was overturned; that is not
the issue. The issue is: Why did the sponsors of the bill define
peaceful protest as "terrorism"? Do you think they would have done so
- do you think they would even have attempted to pass this bill - if
not for all the recent anti-terror hysteria in this country following
September 11 and the passing of such sweeping measures as the Patriot
Act? When you see lots of little leaks springing out in a dam, it is
not wise to simply plug each one individually and then forget about
it; it behooves you to ask why any leaks at all are appearing all of a
sudden.
You sound surprised at all that has happened. Even a cursory look at
historical crises demonstrates that there is little to be surprised at.
Certainly, I have not been surprised at bad laws being passed, nor at
overzealous enforcement of those laws. And I'm not surprised at the
courts ruling such things unconstitutional. That's the historical pattern
thoughout US history.
And you said it yourself: "Slippery Slope".
Slippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you show that one step
is in fact likely to lead to the next.
But when historical precedent indicates that one step is _not_, in fact,
likely to lead to the next, it's another matter.
Merely because similar events have happened in the past and did not lead to
dictatorship is not a reason to decide that there must not be any danger
this time either. What did Thomas Jefferson say the price of liberty was?
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
19 Dec 2003 06:17:03 PM |
|
|
"Adam Marczyk" <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:JPLEb.25422$YI1.16707@news01.roc.ny:
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns945684CC8BDCtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
[...]
You seem remarkably complacent in trusting that the courts will
always uphold our liberties. Of course that law was overturned; that
is not the issue. The issue is: Why did the sponsors of the bill
define peaceful protest as "terrorism"? Do you think they would have
done so - do you think they would even have attempted to pass this
bill - if not for all the recent anti-terror hysteria in this
country following September 11 and the passing of such sweeping
measures as the Patriot Act? When you see lots of little leaks
springing out in a dam, it is not wise to simply plug each one
individually and then forget about it; it behooves you to ask why
any leaks at all are appearing all of a sudden.
You sound surprised at all that has happened. Even a cursory look at
historical crises demonstrates that there is little to be surprised
at. Certainly, I have not been surprised at bad laws being passed,
nor at overzealous enforcement of those laws. And I'm not surprised
at the courts ruling such things unconstitutional. That's the
historical pattern thoughout US history.
And you said it yourself: "Slippery Slope".
Slippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you show that one
step is in fact likely to lead to the next.
But when historical precedent indicates that one step is _not_, in
fact, likely to lead to the next, it's another matter.
Merely because similar events have happened in the past and did not
lead to dictatorship is not a reason to decide that there must not be
any danger this time either. What did Thomas Jefferson say the price
of liberty was?
You're right. The situation is clearly hopeless. The sky is falling. Cats
and dog living together.
Clearly, you should avoid the rush, and kill yourself now.
--
Terry Austin
taustin@hyperbooks.com
www.hyperbooks.com
Roleplaying Stuff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
19 Dec 2003 04:56:50 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu6ltffj6bgk4a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu517l426b092a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
<snipped it all>
No, sorry Adam, I won't be badgered about it. I'm not going to play
your exaggerated hypothetical situations.
As I pointed out and you ignored, these things are not hypothetical
situations, they are happening right now. Shame on you, Fred - I expect
better than this kind of evasiveness from an atheist.
Oh come on, Adam, the first example you gave was overturned by the
court.
You seem remarkably complacent in trusting that the courts will always
uphold our liberties. Of course that law was overturned; that is not the
issue. The issue is: Why did the sponsors of the bill define peaceful
protest as "terrorism"?
Because they went too far. And they got tossed out just like they should
have.
Do you think they would have done so - do you think
they would even have attempted to pass this bill - if not for all the
recent anti-terror hysteria in this country following September 11 and the
passing of such sweeping measures as the Patriot Act? When you see lots of
little leaks springing out in a dam, it is not wise to simply plug each one
individually and then forget about it; it behooves you to ask why any leaks
at all are appearing all of a sudden.
Hmm, I'd respond that airliners being hijacked and flown into buildings
is a leak that needs to be plugged too. The answer to that isn't going
to involve further limiting the power to investigate terrorist activity.
And you said it yourself: "Slippery Slope".
Slippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you show that one step is in
fact likely to lead to the next. My point was that granting
extra-constitutional powers to fight terrorism will lead to special
interest groups defining activities which they disagree with as terrorism
in order to suppress them, and did I not then give an example of that
precise thing happening already?
No, you gave an example of that precise thing being tossed out by the court.
--
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: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
19 Dec 2003 05:26:05 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu70gsqtnpsg49@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
[...]
Do you think they would have done so - do you think
they would even have attempted to pass this bill - if not for all the
recent anti-terror hysteria in this country following September 11 and
the passing of such sweeping measures as the Patriot Act? When you see
lots of little leaks springing out in a dam, it is not wise to simply
plug each one individually and then forget about it; it behooves you to
ask why any leaks at all are appearing all of a sudden.
Hmm, I'd respond that airliners being hijacked and flown into buildings
is a leak that needs to be plugged too. The answer to that isn't going
to involve further limiting the power to investigate terrorist activity.
The 9/11 attacks did not come out of the blue as far as our intelligence
was concerned. We had definite hints that something like this was coming;
the intelligence community simply failed to put the pieces together. (This
was due in no small part to the incoming President Bush, who was handed a
comprehensive anti-terrorism plan by the outgoing Clinton Administration
and promptly responded by ignoring it for nine months.) Zacharias Moussaoui
was even arrested on August 16, and the arresting agent specifically wrote
that he "seemed like the type of person who could fly something into the
World Trade Center." If the Patriot Act had been in force back then, it
would not have helped. We need better methods of coordinating the
information we get, not more power to obtain that information.
And you said it yourself: "Slippery Slope".
Slippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you show that one step
is in fact likely to lead to the next. My point was that granting
extra-constitutional powers to fight terrorism will lead to special
interest groups defining activities which they disagree with as
terrorism in order to suppress them, and did I not then give an example
of that precise thing happening already?
No, you gave an example of that precise thing being tossed out by the
court.
When I originally mentioned the possibility of the government passing a law
defining as a terrorist people who peacefully protest in front of a
business, you said, and I quote, "When they suggest doing that, ask me
again." Well, it was more than suggested, it happened. Now I am asking you
again. Do you not see the danger involved in suggesting that *any* cause
can be so important as to require the rollback of our fundamental civil
rights? Will you maintain the complacent attitude that it doesn't matter
what constitutional outrages one branch of our government commits as long
as the courts are there to stop them?
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
19 Dec 2003 05:43:31 PM |
|
|
Adam Marczyk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu70gsqtnpsg49@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
[...]
Do you think they would have done so - do you think
they would even have attempted to pass this bill - if not for all the
recent anti-terror hysteria in this country following September 11 and
the passing of such sweeping measures as the Patriot Act? When you see
lots of little leaks springing out in a dam, it is not wise to simply
plug each one individually and then forget about it; it behooves you to
ask why any leaks at all are appearing all of a sudden.
Hmm, I'd respond that airliners being hijacked and flown into buildings
is a leak that needs to be plugged too. The answer to that isn't going
to involve further limiting the power to investigate terrorist activity.
The 9/11 attacks did not come out of the blue as far as our intelligence
was concerned. We had definite hints that something like this was coming;
the intelligence community simply failed to put the pieces together. (This
was due in no small part to the incoming President Bush, who was handed a
comprehensive anti-terrorism plan by the outgoing Clinton Administration
and promptly responded by ignoring it for nine months.) Zacharias Moussaoui
was even arrested on August 16, and the arresting agent specifically wrote
that he "seemed like the type of person who could fly something into the
World Trade Center." If the Patriot Act had been in force back then, it
would not have helped. We need better methods of coordinating the
information we get, not more power to obtain that information.
And you said it yourself: "Slippery Slope".
Slippery slope arguments are not fallacious if you show that one step
is in fact likely to lead to the next. My point was that granting
extra-constitutional powers to fight terrorism will lead to special
interest groups defining activities which they disagree with as
terrorism in order to suppress them, and did I not then give an example
of that precise thing happening already?
No, you gave an example of that precise thing being tossed out by the
court.
When I originally mentioned the possibility of the government passing a law
defining as a terrorist people who peacefully protest in front of a
business, you said, and I quote, "When they suggest doing that, ask me
again." Well, it was more than suggested, it happened. Now I am asking you
again.
And I answered you. It got thrown out, just like it should have.
Do you not see the danger involved in suggesting that *any* cause
can be so important as to require the rollback of our fundamental civil
rights? Will you maintain the complacent attitude that it doesn't matter
what constitutional outrages one branch of our government commits as long
as the courts are there to stop them?
Yep. That's how it works.
--
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 08:47:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:20:59 GMT, "Adam Marczyk"
<ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com>, Message ID:
<fNwEb.24668$I26.10335@news01.roc.ny> wrote in alt.atheism;
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu517l426b092a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
<snipped it all>
No, sorry Adam, I won't be badgered about it. I'm not going to play your
exaggerated hypothetical situations.
As I pointed out and you ignored, these things are not hypothetical
situations, they are happening right now. Shame on you, Fred - I expect
better than this kind of evasiveness from an atheist.
This kind of evasiveness is the Fundamentalist Fred when his *****
buddy Shrub is the topic.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't 'enemy combatant' |
21 Dec 2003 08:49:06 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:20:59 GMT, "Adam Marczyk"
<ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com>, Message ID:
<fNwEb.24668$I26.10335@news01.roc.ny> wrote in alt.atheism;
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vu517l426b092a@news.supernews.com...
Adam Marczyk wrote:
<snipped it all>
No, sorry Adam, I won't be badgered about it. I'm not going to play your
exaggerated hypothetical situations.
As I pointed out and you ignored, these things are not hypothetical
situations, they are happening right now. Shame on you, Fred - I expect
better than this kind of evasiveness from an atheist.
This kind of evasiveness is the Fundamentalist Fred when his *****
buddy Shrub is the topic.
Yeah, boy, you sure can pay attention to a thread, stoney. Gosh, you're
just amazing, you are.
--
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: "Ted King" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't Śenemy combatantą |
19 Dec 2003 08:13:08 AM |
|
|
In article <vu47ricf5nuj96@news.supernews.com>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
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 Śenemy combatantą
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.
So you do not agree that it is okay for authorities, in general, to jail
an American citizen while on American soil without this person having
any way to show the error of the imprisonment?
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".
According to PBS radio this morning, the reason he was detained as an
enemy combatant rather than charged was because the government did not
have enough evidence for a conviction.
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.
One of the two judges who ruled that the Bush administration did not
have the sanction to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant was a Bush
appointee. And even the judge who didn't "vote" with the other two, also
a Bush appointee, stated in his opinion that Bush could not hold a US
citizen arrested on US soil under executive security powers without
allowing them to talk to a lawyer and have some means to show that the
alleged "facts" under which they were detained were false. So, yes, even
two judges put on the bench by Bush say that Bush has arbitrarily held
this man incommunicado (sp?).
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Court: U.S. citizen isn't =?windows-1252?Q?=8Cenemy_c?==?windows-1252?Q?ombatant=B9?= |
19 Dec 2003 09:10:39 AM |
|
|
Ted King wrote:
In article <vu47ricf5nuj96@news.supernews.com>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
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 Śenemy combatantą
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.
So you do not agree that it is okay for authorities, in general, to jail
an American citizen while on American soil without this person having
any way to show the error of the imprisonment?
That is correct. I do not agree that it is OK in general. I think that
exceptions to that general rule can be justified.
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".
According to PBS radio this morning, the reason he was detained as an
enemy combatant rather than charged was because the government did not
have enough evidence for a conviction.
According to what I've read, their case was solid but exposed sources.
They followed the guy from a meeting in Pakistan, didn't they?
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.
One of the two judges who ruled that the Bush administration did not
have the sanction to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant was a Bush
appointee. And even the judge who didn't "vote" with the other two, also
a Bush appointee, stated in his opinion that Bush could not hold a US
citizen arrested on US soil under executive security powers without
allowing them to talk to a lawyer and have some means to show that the
alleged "facts" under which they were detained were false. So, yes, even
two judges put on the bench by Bush say that Bush has arbitrarily held
this man incommunicado (sp?).
That's not what I meant by arbitrary.
The whole reason that I'm not all up in arms about Bush's
authoritarianism is that we have the kind of system that we do. I don't
have a problem with hardass executives as long as they're checked by the
courts and the legislature. And no, I'm not terribly worried about him
stacking the court either. Other presidents have tried it and failed to
get what they wanted.
--
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’ |
18 Dec 2003 09:20:11 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:43:21 -0500, a stranger
called by some Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Adam Marczyk wrote:
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.
Even though that violates the Constitution, the bedrock of American
law and our freedoms? Do you support the ideals on which this nation
was created? Or will you chuck them out the window when it suits you?
He has not been unrepresented, or how did this case happen?
You're kidding, right? The problem is he has not been permitted to
meet with his lawyer (hired by his family.) That is a violation of
the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.
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".
If they have a case, let them make it in the manner prescribed by law:
In front of a jury, with the defense given a chance to cross-examine
witnesses and create reasonable doubt. That's the American system of
justice.
You're an American, right?
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.
Yet. What's to stop him from making you vanish? A sealed warrant,
no arrignment, no lawyer, no contact.. read up on Argentina in the
60's and 70s.. thousands just evaporated. Many were loaded onto
military aircraft and dumped over the Atlantic (no mass graves that
way.)
--
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?= |
18 Dec 2003 09:45:55 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
Lo, many moons past, on Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:43:21 -0500, a stranger
called by some Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism
Adam Marczyk wrote:
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.
Even though that violates the Constitution, the bedrock of American
law and our freedoms? Do you support the ideals on which this nation
was created? Or will you chuck them out the window when it suits you?
The Prez gets to work the system just like anybody else. He found what
he thought was a loophole and the court just told him to go to Congress
next time.
He has not been unrepresented, or how did this case happen?
You're kidding, right? The problem is he has not been permitted to
meet with his lawyer (hired by his family.) That is a violation of
the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.
No, it's not. The court said that Congress could make the determination
of enemy combatant status.
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".
If they have a case, let them make it in the manner prescribed by law:
In front of a jury, with the defense given a chance to cross-examine
witnesses and create reasonable doubt. That's the American system of
justice.
No problem. The court has just ordered them to do that.
You're an American, right?
Sure, I'm an American. Of the "Yeah, right, tell me about our
principles. Wanna play Cowboys and Indians?" variety.
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.
Yet. What's to stop him from making you vanish? A sealed warrant,
no arrignment, no lawyer, no contact.. read up on Argentina in the
60's and 70s.. thousands just evaporated. Many were loaded onto
military aircraft and dumped over the Atlantic (no mass graves that
way.)
When they do that, ask me again.
--
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 | | | | | | | |
