So if any American forces invade or enter a Country, kidnap folk and calls them terrorists for whatever reason, then subsequentially finds there is little or no evidence to support its claims it can hold them indefinitally somewhere in the world with those held never appearing before a court to be charged and given due process? If any other Country approved of this policy America would be quick to call them terrorists. Why should it be one law for the US to do what it wants whenever it simply cries oh but we think those folk are terrorists?
Camp X-ray is to all intents and purposes American soil. It is under no one elses rule but the USA! How do you know that none of its folks are US citizens - it is not acting or accountable in anyway under your own laws. If these folk escaped and were arrested by your police in your state are you saying the just thing would be to deport them to hold them forever where they can't be tried guilty or not? Remember most are being held under suspicion - because there is insufficient evidence to convict them in a trial - guilt by being accused, not by being proven guilty. That stinks!
If any other country in the world did that how would you feel? How is this different from terrorism itself? And please don't say oh but I say they started this, not unless you appreciate just how interventionist the US has been on foreign soveriegn soil for over 80 years.
How can the land of the free exist if you don't abide by the rule of law within your terrorities or areas around teh world you temporarily control? How can you kidnap folk and detain them for years without any trial or access to legal aid? That is certainly not permissible under either American civil, criminal or international law.
As I said I believe there is already one consistutional challenges of Bush's administrations actions before your Supreme court awaiting a ruling.
Already the Patriotic act is having an unhealthy affect, American criminals are being charged as terrorists - althought they get the huge privilege of being able to mount a defense under a court of law, versus simply being accused, kidnapped and held indefinitely without trial.
* * *
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20041229/us_nm/security_terrorist_dc_4&printer=
New York Gang Member Faces Trial as Terrorist
Wed Dec 29, 8:57 AM ET U.S. National - Reuters
By Maria Castro
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Every time Lourdes Morales watches the TV news and sees a story on terrorism, she weeps. Family members ... cannot understand why Edgar Morales, the family's youngest son, will see the new year arrive in prison where he is waiting to be tried as a terrorist. "They are comparing my son to (Osama) bin Laden ... and all those people who used bombs and killed thousands of people at random," said Morales. ...
Morales, 22, was indicted on murder and other charges as acts of terror in May, along with 18 other members of the St. James Boys Gang, a Mexican and Mexican-American street gang. Morales faces the most serious charge of second-degree murder as a terrorist act. A New York grand jury returned the charges against him in connection with the shooting death of 10-year-old Melanie Mendez, who died from gunshot wounds two years earlier. ...
Morales is the first gang member in New York to be indicted under the state's terrorism statute, which became law shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. If the charges did not include the terrorism stipulation, he would face a sentence of 25 years to life if found guilty. With the stipulation, he faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
At least 33 states passed laws amending criminal codes related to acts of terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most changes focused on money laundering, cyberterrorism, agri-terrorism and supporting terrorist groups.
New York's use of the statute to prosecute gang-related crime has sparked disagreement among lawmakers who voted for the legislation. A spokeswoman for state Sen. Michael Balboni, who sponsored the bill, said he does not mind that prosecutors have decided gang violence is a form of domestic terrorism and are using the statute to prosecute Morales.
"Gangs are a forum to promote terrorism," said Balboni spokeswoman Lisa Angerame. "Therefore, the anti-terrorism statue would be applicable against them, even if the original intent for this law was not exactly to prosecute them." Others say the law is not being used as intended. "It is not that I want to defend gangs," said state Rep. Jeffrey Dinowitz. "But it should never be justifiable to use laws with purposes other than their original intent. "We already have the appropriate laws to prosecute gang members for their crimes," he added. The anti-terror law passed overwhelmingly in the New York Senate 53-1.
Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson, who brought the charges against Morales, said the terrorism stipulation was justified. "The obvious need for this statue is to protect society against acts of political terror," Johnson said in a statement. "However, the terror perpetrated by gangs, which all too often occurs on the streets of New York, also fits squarely within the scope of this statute." The 70-count indictment said the gang members conspired to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population."
It included a long list of crimes cited as evidence they terrorized a city neighborhood, including allegations they harassed and robbed customers of a local restaurant, fired guns into a crowded park, shot a teenager in the face and slashed someone's throat. Some residents say the law is being abused. "We cannot compare gang violence with big scale terrorist attacks," said resident Miriam Medina. Local store manager Lidia Chavez added: "Gang violence and terrorism are two different things." But Eve Santana, owner of a bridal shop, said while maybe not on the scale of bin Laden, "of course they are terrorists." "They do terrorize neighborhoods. Innocent bystanders die ... and they have to pay."