2
   

Ok to jail US citizens indefinitely without hearing or trial

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:57 pm
well we know right off that's a load o' jive, don't we ?

there were still plenty of suspicious englishmen lurking around in 1791...

they like to pretend that everything's different so they can tinker around, but it's the same as it ever was.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 06:06 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
This is old news...

Quote:

According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."

"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."


Bill of Rights Pared Down...


I just bet they never foresaw anything like that.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 07:19 pm
roger wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
This is old news...

Quote:

According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."

"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."


Bill of Rights Pared Down...


I just bet they never foresaw anything like that.


since they had just finished getting rid of that crap with their king george, i doubt that they ever intended for that to come about in america for any reason.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 08:12 pm
How bad is it that articles from the Onion now seem perfectly conceivable.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 08:32 pm
I am glad someone got the joke, Duck. I was about to feel uncomfortable for posting it.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 12:00 am
Bill of Rights? These are just niceties for when the going's good. They're not meant to be taken literally. What? Next you all will be wanting to own guns! Due process? Puleeease . . .
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 01:21 am
DrewDad wrote:
Actually, I have a suspicion that they want this to get to the Supreme Court. Then it applies in all jurisdictions.


Senate Confirmation Hearings--Judge Roberts:

Quote:
Executive power

Roberts also seemed to reject executive power to order the detention of American citizens in wartime simply because of their nationality or religion, similar to the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

"I would be surprised if there were arguments that could support it" even in wartime, he replied.


The above report from CNN does not make sense to me. "American citizens" are nationals of the United States of America. Accordingly, the article appears to be saying that Roberts rejects executive power to order the detention of American citizens in wartime simply because they are American citizens (???)

I suppose the article is trying to say that Roberts seems to reject executive power of the president to detain ARAB-Americans during wartime simply because they are ARAB-Americans. That still doesn't answer the question whether Roberts would support executive power to detain American citizens without charge or trial on the suspicion that they are affiliated with a terrorist group or conspired to engage in criminal acts in the United States.

The problem, with respect to terrorism, is that we are not at war with another country wherein the ordinary rules of war would allow us to try WAR criminals in a military tribunal. We are (proverbally, not literally) at war against a thing--terrorism. Therefore, when we capture suspected terrorists, it's our duty to bring them to justice in our criminal courts pursuant to our criminal laws against terrorism, murder, bombing, etc. We must have probable cause to arrest them and to detain them. The accused terrorist has the right to be informed of the charges against him so that he may prepare a defense and is entitled to a speedy trial.

We didn't detain Timothy McVeigh as an enemy combatant nor try him in a military tribunal for his act of terrorism in Oklahoma City. So, why is the government allowed to treat other suspected terrorists as "enemy combatants" to be dealt with as "war" criminals rather than as accused lawbreakers to be dealt with in our criminal courts?
0 Replies
 
LordoftheLeftHand
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 10:16 am
edited and deleted... doh posted message in wrong thread.... thats what you get for having more than window open.

LLH
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 08:58 pm
An American citizen on US soil considered an enemy combatant.

Bullshit.
0 Replies
 
saywot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 09:01 pm
I'm thousands of miles from the USA but can smell a rat from over there.
The democracy that you're imposing on other countries extols such tenets as FREEDOM ( meaning some freedoms for some people) LIBERTY ( I'm free to do what the better armed and economically more powerful let me do) LIFE ( what you get if you disagree with the US Government) PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ( give me a break )

You may think that it's OK to forego a few individual freedoms for the protection of the majority - but where/when will it end ?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 09:24 pm
Say what? That's the question we've been asking for a couple of years, now.
0 Replies
 
saywot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Sep, 2005 10:13 pm
Coalition of the ....
roger wrote:
Say what? That's the question we've been asking for a couple of years, now.


But why are you dragging ME into all of this ?

Governments can get away with a lot of stuff if they scream out at the tp of their lungs

" LOOK OUT , BEHIND YOU !! " and while you're not looking
- (well take your pick) something else has been taken off you.
Health Funding/Cheap Housing/Education
all the money gone into fighting something somewhere
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2005 11:19 pm
saywot wrote:
I'm thousands of miles from the USA but can smell a rat from over there.
The democracy that you're imposing on other countries extols such tenets as FREEDOM ( meaning some freedoms for some people) LIBERTY ( I'm free to do what the better armed and economically more powerful let me do) LIFE ( what you get if you disagree with the US Government) PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ( give me a break )

You may think that it's OK to forego a few individual freedoms for the protection of the majority - but where/when will it end ?


Don't know where you come from saywot, but if you smell something foul, chances are its within range of your nose.

While I totally disagree with the finding that a US citizen on US soil can be deemed an enemy combatant, I hardly think we need worry about "where/when will it end?"

It has been four years since 2001 and the tightening of security laws and one thug from Chicago remains in prison on shaky grounds. Not much of a police state if you ask me.

There were much greater incursions on individual liberties during the Civil War, WWI and WWII, and we seem to have made it through those periods fairly OK.

Your take on American democracy is nonsensical.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Oct, 2005 01:27 pm
Occupied New Orleans and Homegrown Resistance

The appearance of fully-armed mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans tells us that the city is currently under occupation. Whenever foreign troops are deployed within an urban area it can only mean one thing; the loss of sovereignty. It's no different here. Blackwater mercenaries are part of a privately owned army that has seized control of the streets from their rightful owners, the people of New Orleans. They are an integral part of a much broader plan to militarize the nation and turn America into a garrison-state.

Blackwater employees may work for the United States government, but, in fact, they represent the exclusive interests of an elite cadre of corporate globalists who are transforming America into a base for future operations. New Orleans is simply the testing-grounds for their radical theories of establishing order. It provides a pilot-program for working out the kinks that inevitably arise from revamping society from the ground up. So far, the project is moving ahead better than anyone could have expected, mainly due to the media's skillful diversion of the public's attention from the militarization-process to the many human-interest stories of suffering and rebirth. It is a cynical way of exploiting misery and obfuscating the truth.

Just like Iraq, the propaganda-system has been the most successful part of the entire campaign; working flawlessly to provide a storyline that runs counter to the facts as we know them.

New Orleans is the first American city to come under the direct control of the global-corporate oligarchy. By taking advantage of loopholes in the current law created by terrorist legislation, Rumsfeld has been able to insert both the military and private security organizations into a major metropolitan area without as much as a peep from his critics. There's simply been no opposition from any quarter to a draconian move that will have sweeping affects on the future of liberty in the US.

We can only imagine the gleeful reaction to these new developments at America's many elite-bastions, like the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the others, who have worked so tirelessly to overturn the basic principles of personal freedom and representative government. The emergence of a militarized police-state is the victory they have sought for decades. Now, it has materialized in the wreckage of the South's main port-o-call.

The soldiers and mercenaries will be part of a permanent military contingent in New Orleans performing routine policing activities, assisting NGOs, and executing various disciplinary functions. The Red Cross is already being assisted by Blackwater employees; ensuring that vital assistance is meted-out according to strict guidelines rather than mere need. These same restrictions have been applied in Afghanistan and Iraq to make sure that victims meet certain political criteria before they can get aid. This is how the Pentagon enters NGOs into the overarching military goals of the operation and turns relief into a subtle form of coercion.

Realistically, New Orleans can no longer be considered a part of the United States. It now belongs to that confused jumble of quasi-states like Kosovo, Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq that toil beneath the corporate banner of the new world order.

The pattern emerging in New Orleans is no different from the one we see wherever the corporate globalists extend their grip. The social safety-net is savaged, the public infrastructure is destroyed, and the path is paved for the multinational parasites to descend on their prey and reap their windfall profits from "no-bid" contracts.

The shifting political realities in New Orleans are bound to create a growing sense of unease and horror among the public. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti, that disquiet has evolved into indigenous resistance movements. We expect the same will take place in New Orleans. The deployment of troops is a deliberate provocation and a direct threat to the fundamental principles of a free society. It cannot stand. Democracy is incompatible with occupation; whether it's in Iraq or New Orleans. Any talk about freedom in America is pointless until every soldier and mercenary is removed from the streets of our cities.

Courtesy & Copyright © Mike Whitney

http://uruknet.info/?p=16346&hd=0&size=1&l=x
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Oct, 2005 08:31 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Occupied New Orleans and Homegrown Resistance

The appearance of fully-armed mercenaries on the streets of New Orleans tells us that the city is currently under occupation. Whenever foreign troops are deployed within an urban area it can only mean one thing; the loss of sovereignty. It's no different here. Blackwater mercenaries are part of a privately owned army that has seized control of the streets from their rightful owners, the people of New Orleans. They are an integral part of a much broader plan to militarize the nation and turn America into a garrison-state.

Blackwater employees may work for the United States government, but, in fact, they represent the exclusive interests of an elite cadre of corporate globalists who are transforming America into a base for future operations. New Orleans is simply the testing-grounds for their radical theories of establishing order. It provides a pilot-program for working out the kinks that inevitably arise from revamping society from the ground up. So far, the project is moving ahead better than anyone could have expected, mainly due to the media's skillful diversion of the public's attention from the militarization-process to the many human-interest stories of suffering and rebirth. It is a cynical way of exploiting misery and obfuscating the truth.

Just like Iraq, the propaganda-system has been the most successful part of the entire campaign; working flawlessly to provide a storyline that runs counter to the facts as we know them.

New Orleans is the first American city to come under the direct control of the global-corporate oligarchy. By taking advantage of loopholes in the current law created by terrorist legislation, Rumsfeld has been able to insert both the military and private security organizations into a major metropolitan area without as much as a peep from his critics. There's simply been no opposition from any quarter to a draconian move that will have sweeping affects on the future of liberty in the US.

We can only imagine the gleeful reaction to these new developments at America's many elite-bastions, like the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the others, who have worked so tirelessly to overturn the basic principles of personal freedom and representative government. The emergence of a militarized police-state is the victory they have sought for decades. Now, it has materialized in the wreckage of the South's main port-o-call.

The soldiers and mercenaries will be part of a permanent military contingent in New Orleans performing routine policing activities, assisting NGOs, and executing various disciplinary functions. The Red Cross is already being assisted by Blackwater employees; ensuring that vital assistance is meted-out according to strict guidelines rather than mere need. These same restrictions have been applied in Afghanistan and Iraq to make sure that victims meet certain political criteria before they can get aid. This is how the Pentagon enters NGOs into the overarching military goals of the operation and turns relief into a subtle form of coercion.

Realistically, New Orleans can no longer be considered a part of the United States. It now belongs to that confused jumble of quasi-states like Kosovo, Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq that toil beneath the corporate banner of the new world order.

The pattern emerging in New Orleans is no different from the one we see wherever the corporate globalists extend their grip. The social safety-net is savaged, the public infrastructure is destroyed, and the path is paved for the multinational parasites to descend on their prey and reap their windfall profits from "no-bid" contracts.

The shifting political realities in New Orleans are bound to create a growing sense of unease and horror among the public. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti, that disquiet has evolved into indigenous resistance movements. We expect the same will take place in New Orleans. The deployment of troops is a deliberate provocation and a direct threat to the fundamental principles of a free society. It cannot stand. Democracy is incompatible with occupation; whether it's in Iraq or New Orleans. Any talk about freedom in America is pointless until every soldier and mercenary is removed from the streets of our cities.

Courtesy & Copyright © Mike Whitney

http://uruknet.info/?p=16346&hd=0&size=1&l=x


Has it really taken this long for the blueflame of Abuzz to find his way to A2K?
0 Replies
 
tonyf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Oct, 2005 01:12 pm
just adding a thought
If governments are allowed to lock up people without due process because of what the government thinks that person believes or may do in the future then:

what is the difference between the government and the stalinist gulags?
how would civil rights movement have fared?
wouldn't nelson mandela would still be imprisoned?
the state of israel would not exist as David Ben Gurion et al would have been locked away

The great strength of democracy is the freedom it allows people to express ideas which may run against the grain. Freedom of expression by all means - but if expression turn into illegal actions, then there is case for justice.


"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 01:40 am
The difference between the US government, its many administrations throughout the ages, and the Soviet government is that the Soviet government. felt that its existence was constantly threatened, and its gulags were the only way to ensure its survival. The US government has felt its existence threatened generally during war time, and has run its concentration camps, and curtailed constitutional rights therefrom. The US government honors the Bill of Rights only when it feels the status quo isn't seriously threatened.

The civil rights movement caused a great shift in the thinking of constitutional rights as to who was afforded them, and in what capacity. I think certain elements of the government and its different administrations during the time of the civil rights movement felt threatened to different degrees, going so far as to carry out investigations by the F.B.I. on many of the civil rights leaders of the time. Local governments certainly did feel threatened. Some of the US administrations, however, went against the local governments and called in federal troops to protect the civil rights activists of those times.

Nelson Mandela wasn't imprisoned by the US government. He was imprisoned by the South African government for 27 or so years. I think the weight of global public outcry against apartheid in general, and his imprisonment in particular as a symbol of apartheid oppression caused the SA government of F.W. de Klerk to release him and end apartheid.

David Ben Gurion was never imprisoned by the US government, nor was he a threat thereof. However, many of the other Zionist leaders who engaged in terrorism and violent resistance against the British were impresoned by them, like Abraham Stern, founder of the terrorist group Lohamei Herut Israel, who was killed by British Intelligence in 1942 while arresting him; Israel Eldad (né Schieb), one of the triumvirate leaders of Lohamei Herut Israel (now called LEHI) after the death of Stern along with Natan Yellin-Mor and Yitzhak Shamir (who would go on to be a Prime Minister of Israel), both of whom were also jailed. Another Zionist terrorist who would go on to be a Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, headed the terrorist group Irgun Tsvai Leumi, or Irgun, was pursued by the British but was never apprehended. Roughly one thousand members of both LEHI and Irgun were interned by the British in camps in Palestine and Africa. After the British had handed control of Palestine to the UN, it initiated a general amnesty and released most all of these prisoners, and granted pardons to others that had been wanted.
0 Replies
 
tonyf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Oct, 2005 12:36 pm
"The difference between the US government, its many administrations throughout the ages, and the Soviet government is that the Soviet government. felt that its existence was constantly threatened, and its gulags were the only way to ensure its survival. The US government has felt its existence threatened generally during war time, and has run its concentration camps, and curtailed constitutional rights therefrom. The US government honors the Bill of Rights only when it feels the status quo isn't seriously threatened."

I still am not convinced there is a difference between the actions of the two governments. The action taken to deprive people of their rights and liberty without having committed a crime is reprehensible, whichever regime is responsible.

"The civil rights movement caused a great shift in the thinking of constitutional rights as to who was afforded them, and in what capacity. I think certain elements of the government and its different administrations during the time of the civil rights movement felt threatened to different degrees, going so far as to carry out investigations by the F.B.I. on many of the civil rights leaders of the time. Local governments certainly did feel threatened. Some of the US administrations, however, went against the local governments and called in federal troops to protect the civil rights activists of those times."
Yes, I know the background to the Civil Rights movement, the point was making was if the civil rights leaders had been imprisoned under the same laws bush is using, there wouldn've have been a Civil Rights movement or any achievements.

"Nelson Mandela wasn't imprisoned by the US government. He was imprisoned by the South African government for 27 or so years. I think the weight of global public outcry against apartheid in general, and his imprisonment in particular as a symbol of apartheid oppression caused the SA government of F.W. de Klerk to release him and end apartheid."
I don't need a history lesson in who imprisoned Mandela. I was extending the logic of the argument to show that powers to imprison without cause leads to the wrong people/innocent people being incarcerated. Mandela is a prime example of why locking away people who don't agree with the government or expound radically different ideas to those held by society at large is wrong.

"David Ben Gurion was never imprisoned by the US government, nor was he a threat thereof. However, many of the other Zionist leaders who engaged in terrorism and violent resistance against the British were impresoned by them, like Abraham Stern, founder of the terrorist group Lohamei Herut Israel, who was killed by British Intelligence in 1942 while arresting him; Israel Eldad (né Schieb), one of the triumvirate leaders of Lohamei Herut Israel (now called LEHI) after the death of Stern along with Natan Yellin-Mor and Yitzhak Shamir (who would go on to be a Prime Minister of Israel), both of whom were also jailed. Another Zionist terrorist who would go on to be a Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, headed the terrorist group Irgun Tsvai Leumi, or Irgun, was pursued by the British but was never apprehended. Roughly one thousand members of both LEHI and Irgun were interned by the British in camps in Palestine and Africa. After the British had handed control of Palestine to the UN, it initiated a general amnesty and released most all of these prisoners, and granted pardons to others that had been wanted."
Again, an unnecessary history lesson. The US is not at the centre of world events throughout out history, nor did I suggest the US was culpable in imprisoning Ben Gurion. It is again another example of people being impriosned because of their views. Your comments do however, throw up the interesting question of when does a terrorist become a freedom fighter? Also, the related observation.....how are today's palestinian freedom fighters/terrorists (delete as applicable) any different from the israelis of the 1940's? You can't (and couldn't in the 1940s) lock them all up because of their beliefs.

It is an imponderable question, my feeling is that history shows today's actions as being wrong and ill-founded. Why aren't people marching in the streets in protest?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Oct, 2005 12:17 am
tonyf wrote:
I still am not convinced there is a difference between the actions of the two governments.

the point was making was if the civil rights leaders had been imprisoned under the same laws bush is using, there wouldn've have been a Civil Rights movement or any achievements.

I was extending the logic of the argument to show that powers to imprison without cause leads to the wrong people/innocent people being incarcerated. Mandela is a prime example of why locking away people who don't agree with the government or expound radically different ideas to those held by society at large is wrong.

It is again another example of people being impriosned because of their views.


Oh, you were making statements. I thought you were asking questions.
Quote:
what is the difference between the government and the stalinist gulags?
how would civil rights movement have fared?
wouldn't nelson mandela would still be imprisoned?
the state of israel would not exist as David Ben Gurion et al would have been locked away


There was no question mark at the end of the last clause, so I assumed it was also posed as a question.

Quote:
The US is not at the centre of world events throughout out history, nor did I suggest the US was culpable in imprisoning Ben Gurion.


By the obtuseness of your statements with question marks I wasn't sure of your knowledge of history especially in light of your post in a thread titled, "Ok to jail US citizens indefinitely without hearing or trial."

Quote:
when does a terrorist become a freedom fighter?


Assuming that the above clause is a question, and not a statement with a question mark, a terrorist becomes a freedom fighter when one supports their cause, and their methods.

Quote:
how are today's palestinian freedom fighters/terrorists (delete as applicable) any different from the israelis of the 1940's?


Again, if this is a legitimate question, then judging from you response to my response to your statement comparing the Soviet gulags and the US and president Bush, then there isn't much of a difference worth discussing.

Quote:
Why aren't people marching in the streets in protest?

I think you have an answer for your own question, tonyf. Why do you think people aren't marching in the streets in protest?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Dec, 2005 08:04 am
Quote:
US Court Decision a Setback for Government Terror Case
By Sonja Pace
Washington
22 December 2005

A U.S. federal court has handed the government a stinging defeat in the terrorism case against Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for more than three years in military detention as an enemy combatant.

A Federal Appeals Court has denied a Justice Department request to transfer Jose Padilla from military detention to civilian custody to stand trial on criminal charges in Miami.

Mr. Padilla, an American citizen, was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare airport in 2002 as he returned from a trip to Afghanistan. The Justice Department alleged he planned to set off "dirty bombs" in the United States that could spread radioactive material. The department won an initial ruling from Judge J. Michael Luttig to detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant.

Last month a grand jury in Miami charged Mr. Padilla with belonging to a North American terrorist cell that helped finance and recruit fighters for attacks outside the United States, making no mention of the dirty bomb allegations or attacks in the U.S. The Justice Department subsequently asked the Appeals Court to allow Mr. Padilla's transfer to Miami to stand trial.

In writing Wednesday's court's decision, Judge Luttig, noted that the government left the "impression" that Jose Padilla may have been mistakenly detained these past three-and-a-half years and was now changing tactics to avoid further judicial review of the case, possibly by the U.S. Supreme Court.

David Remes is a Washington lawyer, specializing in constitutional law. He told VOA the court's decision is a sharp rebuke of the government's handling of the case.

"The court clearly felt that the government was playing games," he said. "The government had made a very strong argument that Padilla was very dangerous, had to be treated like an enemy combatant and that the government needed very wide latitude in dealing with him. And, then the government says, well, never mind."

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the department is disappointed by the court's decision and is leaving its options open on how to proceed.

Judge Luttig also wrote that the Padilla case should be brought before the Supreme Court.

David Remes says that is now very likely. He says the case goes far beyond the specific charges brought against Mr. Padilla and is less about terrorism than about a struggle between two branches of the federal government, the executive and the judiciary.

"These are major, major issues of constitutional law," he added. "They go to the heart of the separation of powers. They go to the heart of the system of checks and balances. They go to the heart of the right of Americans."

Mr. Padilla's lawyers welcomed the Appeals Court decision. They have questioned the administration's authority to detain him under such conditions. Human rights groups and critics of the Bush administration have also denounced the practice of detaining terrorism suspects, indefinitely and without the promise of a trial.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 09:32:03