The US Government claims YOU have NO rights

[Blackwater OPS]

Just saw this, looks like they are just going to keep pushing until the Constitution is about as binding on the US Government as the Magna Carta. Makes me sick.

They busted some guy who probably is a terrorist (not that is matters) and this is what they have to say about holding him indefinitely on US FREAKING SOIL without trial:


WASHINGTON - If his cell were at Guantanamo Bay, the prisoner would be just one of hundreds of suspected terrorists detained offshore, where the U.S. says the Constitution does not apply.

But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.

Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gasses and plotting a cyberattack.

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

First you declare war on an emotion (fear) than you use that war to justify destroying everything this country stands for. WTF people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_go_ot/enemy_combatant;_ylt=Alx9OnugHGCK8u1RfPOp1hqs0NUE

[Blackwater OPS]

In early 2003, he was indicted on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI. Like anyone else in the country, he had constitutional rights. He could question government witnesses, refuse to testify and retain a lawyer.

On June 23, 2003, Bush declared al-Marri an enemy combatant, which stripped him of those rights. Bush wrote that al-Marri possessed intelligence vital to protect national security. In his jail cell in Peoria, however, he could refuse to speak with investigators.

A military brig allowed more options. Free from the constraints of civilian law, the military could interrogate al-Marri without a lawyer, detain him without charge and hold him indefinitely. Courts have agreed the president has wide latitude to imprison people captured overseas or caught fighting against the U.S. That is what the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is for.

But al-Marri was not in Guantanamo Bay.

"The president is not a king and cannot lock people up forever in the United States based on his say-so," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer who represents al-Marri and other detainees. "Today it's Mr. al-Marri. Tomorrow it could be you, a member of your family, someone you know. Once you allow the president to lock people up for years or even life without trial, there's no going back."

Glenn Sulmasy, a national security fellow at Harvard, said the issue comes down to whether the nation is at war. Soldiers would not need warrants to launch a strike against invading troops. So would they need a warrant to raid an al-Qaida safe house in a U.S. suburb?

Sulmasy says no. That's how Congress wrote the bill and "if they feel concerned about civil liberties, they can tighten up the language," he said.

That would require the politically risky move of pushing legislation to make it harder for the president to detain suspected terrorists inside the U.S.

Al-Marri is not the first prisoner who did not fit neatly into the definition of enemy combatant.

Two U.S. citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, were held at the same brig as al-Marri. But there are differences. Hamdi was captured on an Afghanistan battlefield. Padilla, too, fought alongside the Taliban before his capture in the United States.

By comparison, al-Marri had not been on the battlefield. He was lawfully living in the United States. That raises new questions.

Did Congress really intend to give the president the authority to lock up suspected terrorists overseas but not those living here?

If another Sept. 11-like plot was discovered, could the military imprison the would-be hijackers before they stepped onto the planes?

Is a foreign battlefield really necessary in a conflict that turned downtown Manhattan into ground zero?

Also, if enemy combatants can be detained in the U.S., how long can they be held without charge? Without lawyers? Without access to the outside world? Forever?

These questions play to two of the biggest fears that have dominated public policy debate since Sept. 11: the fear of another terrorist attack and the fear the government will use that threat to crack down on civil liberties.

"If he is taken to a civilian court in the United States and it's been proved he is guilty and it's been proved there's evidence to show that he's guilty, you know, he deserves what he gets," his brother, Mohammed al-Marri, said in a telephone interview Friday from his home in Saudi Arabia. "But he's just been taken there with no court, no nothing. That's shame on the United States."

Your damn right it's a shame.

[GJJ]

A lot of good conservatives fell for the lie that we have to become a police state to keep us safe. They mistakenly think that only the "bad guys" will be effected. Next year, if Hillary gets to be president, they will have an epiphany.

THE VIOLATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS COULD EFFECT THEM TOO.

Good conservatives let their FEAR get the better of them. They also supported these violations to prove to themselves that they were tough and strong. They comforted themselves in the fact that they were better than the wishy washy liberals by supporting fascism. Nice work guys.

You don't have to be cruel to be strong.

[Blackwater OPS]

It's pretty damn obvious that they are only holding this guy here to test the waters, see what they can get away with. And you know no federal judge will order his release, therefore the government will be able to establish case law that they are allowed to "end the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely" for any reason they deem sufficient.

[PatriotnMore]

Everyone, should have their day in court, to have any and all evidence put before a jury of your peers, and based on that verdict, the courts should perform their duty and either free, or punish the accused.

I was VERY upset when the issue of Habeas Corpus was argued by Alberto R. Gonzales that it can be suspended. "Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended. " http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml
This is the kind of skewed logic that undermines our freedoms in the Constitution. There are PLENTY of writings from our framers and Founders to know, with out a doubt, what the meaning and spirit was intended, for all citizens.We were not to be controlled by the Government, we were to have maximum freedoms from the rule of government, a nation for the people by the people.

[DrunkSkunk]

It's pretty damn obvious that they are only holding this guy here to test the waters,

that's what i was thinking. so great to see such wonderful things they do for us, so protective, so kind. :(

[MisterDudeManGuy]

...researching poisonous gas and planning a cyber attack...

OK, I call BS. So what is his specialty exactly? He wasn't going to use gas in a cyber attack - duh. And does anyone here know what it takes to be a credible threat with regard to conducting a cyber attack? It takes a deep knowledge of technology and implies a certain primary focus of an individual's time and energy. It's not something you pick up in a weekend.

And if he were a cyber terrorist, he'd be smart enough to know that he doesn't have to be physically in the US to conduct such an attack. In fact, it would be monumentally stupid to be here, since so many countries offer what amounts to a safe haven for people like that.

What do you bet he used his PC on the Internet to research a few fringe technologies and got nabbed because they keyword filtered the guy. That's what we're paying for, a government that snoops in on your communications, looking for the danger words - despite the context or intent. Not filtering through what you expouse to others, but filtering what you seek.

At that rate, anyone who has researched anything not kosher had better watch their back. Or they will sock you away forever with no legal right to due process.

[CCWFacts]

The right of Habeas Corpus is "the great writ" because without it, we have star chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber) type of trials. You know those signs that say, "last gas for 34 miles"? Habeas Corpus is like "the last right before the end of civilized society".

[gmcal]

I've often said the only reason the government is getting away with this is because the people they are holding look like the ones that committed the attacks on September 11, 2001. If they were holding white people, or even hispanic or black people, we wouldn't tolerate this kind of treatment. How does that poem end....."when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up." Contact your federal reps and let them hear from you that you find this unacceptable.

[Blackwater OPS]

I've often said the only reason the government is getting away with this is because the people they are holding look like the ones that committed the attacks on September 11, 2001. If they were holding white people, or even hispanic or black people, we wouldn't tolerate this kind of treatment. How does that poem end....."when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up." Contact your federal reps and let them hear from you that you find this unacceptable.

Oh, really Mr. XXXXXXX, so you are supporting this terrorist? Just one moment while I transfer you to the I want my house raided department....

[DrunkSkunk]

Just one moment while I transfer you to the I want my house raided department....

lmao - that's so ****ed up but plausible it's funny!
better call with a prepay and email from the library or a wifi point with a mac spoofer:TFH:

[Sam .223]

they should at least charge him with something, if they have proof he's part of a terriost cell charge him as a tratior...at least then they have reason to detain.

[Fjold]

But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.

Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gasses and plotting a cyberattack.

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

These two statements seem to be unrelated. The guy isn't a citizen.

Also just because a lawyer says something doesn't make it true or legal.

[Quake0]

It's pretty damn obvious that they are only holding this guy here to test the waters, see what they can get away with. And you know no federal judge will order his release, therefore the government will be able to establish case law that they are allowed to "end the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely" for any reason they deem sufficient.

Thats scary stuff.

[Blackwater OPS]

It's pretty well established that legal US residents have the same Constitutional rights as citizens.

But Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a U.S. resident being held in a South Carolina military brig; he is the only enemy combatant held on U.S. soil. That makes his case very different.

Al-Marri's capture six years ago might be the Bush administration's biggest domestic counterterrorism success story. Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gasses and plotting a cyberattack.

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

These two statements seem to be unrelated. The guy isn't a citizen.

Also just because a lawyer says something doesn't make it true or legal.

[jjperl]

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." -Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me we are becoming accustomed to sufferable BS!

I love this quote. Can anyone guess where it came from?

[Ech0Sierra]

...researching poisonous gas and planning a cyber attack...
You can find that crap on &TOTSE, the *chans, and other places, this doesn't make him a terrorist.

[Blackwater OPS]

Even if they caught him with 50 nukes at his house he deserves his day in court.

[Ech0Sierra]

Even if they caught him with 50 nukes at his house he deserves his day in court.

Agreed. The Nazis had their trial (Nuremberg), along with the Japanese of Unit 731 (The International Military Tribunal for the Far East). Who is the President to deny this right to a credit card fraudster?

[Harrison_Bergeron]

I think the important milestone will be when they set their sights on "domestic terrorists" like the ones that build high powered assault weapons and frequent message boards where calls to action against the government are prevalent.

Did anyone see that vid from FOX news, Bill O'Reilly I think, saying that the US should adopt reasonable suspicion in place of probable cause when it comes to terrorism? He said that since he is not a terrorist he has nothing to hide. That person in a position of pseudo-power would take a stance like that is quite scary.

[jumbopanda]

I think the important milestone will be when they set their sights on "domestic terrorists" like the ones that build high powered assault weapons and frequent message boards where calls to action against the government are prevalent.

Did anyone see that vid from FOX news, Bill O'Reilly I think, saying that the US should adopt reasonable suspicion in place of probable cause when it comes to terrorism? He said that since he is not a terrorist he has nothing to hide. That person in a position of pseudo-power would take a stance like that is quite scary.

Com'on, it's Bill O'Reilly :rolleyes:


This whole incident is very disturbing indeed. Things like this make me fear the government much more than I fear any terrorist group. People who get so caught up in the war on terror that they ignore the fact that they're losing their rights need to wake up.

[cbn620]

Well I imagine the first step is upholding the constitution EVERYWHERE we deal with people. Not just in-country. The constitution alludes to the natural rights of man and guarantees those rights to our citizens. But to be morally and ethically upright, it's simply absurd for us to violate the natural rights of others just because they aren't on our soil.

In other words, the first step is treating U.S.-run foreign prisons as if they were on our soil. Not being hypocrites, to be frank.

[yellowfin]

This whole incident is very disturbing indeed. Things like this make me fear the government much more than I fear any terrorist group. People who get so caught up in the war on terror that they ignore the fact that they're losing their rights need to wake up. And also those who think that the government is free to do as it wishes. For the last 80 years there has been no check on their action; they literally make it all up as they go along with there being no effective saying "no" to them. Worse still that no successful revolution against them has been carried out, so thus none is thought possible and the more distant the notion becomes the bolder those needing removal become. THAT is the problem.

[Yankee Clipper]

A lot of good conservatives fell for the lie that we have to become a police state to keep us safe. They mistakenly think that only the "bad guys" will be effected. Next year, if Hillary gets to be president, they will have an epiphany.
THE VIOLATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS COULD EFFECT THEM TOO.
Good conservatives let their FEAR get the better of them. They also supported these violations to prove to themselves that they were tough and strong. They comforted themselves in the fact that they were better than the wishy washy liberals by supporting fascism. Nice work guys.
You don't have to be cruel to be strong.

Let’s take another small turn --- to the right with that thought. Those that applauded the government's suspending the rights of citizens and resident aliens are not conservatives. I thought a conservative, by definition, was someone who believed a centralized government/authority was anathema to their way of thinking and that decentralized government put the power, through the constitution/bill of rights, into the hands of the people. Looking through this tread, most of those that have posted seem to have this conservative view. And it seems that from Blackwater OPS original post on down that it’s agreed that unless and until, this law is constitutionally challenged it sets a bad precedent. As much as we all hate terrorist, and any unlawful acts that threaten our security, the tools we use to keep us safe must pass constitutional muster.

[hawk81]

When the citizens of this country begin to fear their government, it's time to start a new government.

[PatriotnMore]

the tools we use to keep us safe must pass constitutional muster.

I am under the impression that the vast majority of Americans agree with that statement. The problem is, we have an extremely small group in Government passing unconstitutional laws. Where is the challenge from the Judicial branch on laws that are unconstitutional? It's not the Executive branches job, nor authority to pass law (Patriot Act), that rests with the Legislative branch, and yet they passed this into law also.

This is just one such area, we now are having unreasonable search and seizure being perpetrated on citizens, laws violating the second amendment, and this list is deteriorating. If this continues left unchecked, and unchallenged with true constitutional rulings based on the writings of our founders concerning the constitution, and the spirit in which it was written, we will have lost our rights, to an extremely small minority, who is not upholding the constitution, and is not acting on behalf of their constituents.

This is unacceptable.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Even if they caught him with 50 nukes at his house he deserves his day in court.

I'm a realist. If really were caught with 50 nukes at his house, I think that some secret US government anti-terror agency that operates off the books with a scary name like 'Omega Sector' should peel his God-blasted skin off his body with a pair of Vise-Grips while they poured alcohol all over him. :TFH:

[CALI-gula]

If you want to see a great, very well-done, balanced and true documentary, done the way documentaries USED to be done without the trend toward copying the "Michael Moore" embellishment/bias way of doing documentaries ( in such a way that it BEAT out Moore's 'docudrama' of "Sicko" this past year for Best Academy Award for a documentary)...

See "Taxi to the Dark Side" by Jigsaw Productions on this very topic as well as the abuse, torture, AND MURDER (yes, that's right, and well documented - don't start yapping about that accusation of murder until you actually see the film), that went on in the various prisons and detainments at areas such as Bagram Air Base, Abu Ghraib prison, and Gitmo.

It just lays out the facts, uses REAL documents, and interviews the ACTUAL people involved and convicted who give FIRST-PERSON testimony willingly. It doesn't get into questioning the war, or Anti-American drivel, nor does it rail against US troops. It simply states the facts, shows you first-hand proof (without insinuating there is proof and avoidingt actual documentation al la Michael Moore) and by the time the film is done, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Peacenik, Nazi, Communist... whatever you are, you just go "Wow!".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0854678/

http://www.jigsawprods.com/

http://www.jigsawprods.com/work.htm

.

[CALI-gula]

I'm a realist. If really were caught with 50 nukes at his house, I think that some secret US government anti-terror agency that operates off the books with a scary name like 'Omega Sector' should peel his God-blasted skin off his body with a pair of Vise-Grips while they poured alcohol all over him. :TFH:

Ironic. The "realist" part is the horrible part. They did do this EXACTLY sans vice-grips, using other methods... unfortunately, on several accounts where they DID do this, it turns out the guy was a nobody, and was set up by another Iraqi citizens trying to win over the US Troops for grandeur, and/or the US Troops were doling out large amounts of cash for information on "insurgents" where later that information proved false.

In one particular case, a local Iraqi military soldier was secretly firing RPGs on US Bases and then claiming it was certain other Iraqi citizens, turning in their names for the cash/info trade. Those citizens suffered horrible deaths or were tortured incessantly, and/or are still being held in these prisons even AFTER the is well known and documentated about this one Iraqi military "advisor".

.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Ironic. The "realist" part is the horrible part.

I'm not aware of what you're talking about, but I was talking about a guy caught with 50 nukes. If that were reality, that would mean WWIII with whatever nation manufactured those nukes and would be a Godsend to the Bush Administration because it would justify every single transgression they're accused of in this 'War On Terror', wouldn't it?

Of course it would.

[Blackwater OPS]

Read my sig line. (top quote)

I'm a realist. If really were caught with 50 nukes at his house, I think that some secret US government anti-terror agency that operates off the books with a scary name like 'Omega Sector' should peel his God-blasted skin off his body with a pair of Vise-Grips while they poured alcohol all over him. :TFH:

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Read my sig line. (top quote)

I think I've quoted it myself from time to time.

Fifty nukes in the possession of a captured terrorist is no longer a matter of due process.

I think you're bright enough to understand that.

[Beatone]

After 9-11 you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. No I'm not making this up. A prominent attorney told me we no longer live in the "land of the free and home of the brave".

[Crazed_SS]

I think the important milestone will be when they set their sights on "domestic terrorists" like the ones that build high powered assault weapons and frequent message boards where calls to action against the government are prevalent.

Did anyone see that vid from FOX news, Bill O'Reilly I think, saying that the US should adopt reasonable suspicion in place of probable cause when it comes to terrorism? He said that since he is not a terrorist he has nothing to hide. That person in a position of pseudo-power would take a stance like that is quite scary.

You can see that very same thinking on this board. Remember in the illegal threads where people were saying that they wouldnt mind carrying their passport at all times and submitting to citizenship checks when demanded of them by a gov't agent. Doesnt matter what the menace is.. Illegals, terrorists, gangbangers, etc.. People are often quick to give up liberty if they think it'll get rid of the bad guys.

[Blackwater OPS]

I think I've quoted it myself from time to time.

Fifty nukes in the possession of a captured terrorist is no longer a matter of due process.

I think you're bright enough to understand that.

Everyone gets due process. When you start saying that some do and some don't, you are heading very quickly down a real slippery slope. After all who is to say he had 50 nukes? The government? They must also be the final arbiter of who gets due process and who does not right? So we should just blindly trust them when they say, "Don't worry folks, THIS guy does not get due process, but I'm sure YOU still have that right..."


Seriously what are you thinking? Everyone gets due process or the right is meaningless.

[Blackwater OPS]

After 9-11 you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. No I'm not making this up. A prominent attorney told me we no longer live in the "land of the free and home of the brave".

From now on I live in the land of the Shotgun and the home of the High Powered Rifle.

You can see that very same thinking on this board. Remember in the illegal threads where people were saying that they wouldnt mind carrying their passport at all times and submitting to citizenship checks when demanded of them by a gov't agent. Doesnt matter what the menace is.. Illegals, terrorists, gangbangers, etc.. People are often quick to give up liberty if they think it'll get rid of the bad guys.

You can see the same thinking two posts up from yours.

[nobody_special]

The guy isn't a citizen.

Neither is my wife, and if you suggest that she would not deserve due process if she were to be accused of something, well... :83:

I think the important milestone will be when they set their sights on "domestic terrorists" like the ones that build high powered assault weapons and frequent message boards where calls to action against the government are prevalent.:iagree:

Seriously what are you thinking? Everyone gets due process or the right is meaningless.

That's absolutely true; if some people do not get due process, then the government could simply claim that you are one of those people... true or not, without due process and habeas corpus, you have no recourse. If they can hold some people without due process, then they can hold anyone without due process.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Seriously what are you thinking? Everyone gets due process or the right is meaningless.

Not a foreign national caught with fifty nukes. What I think you're missing is that this would be an obvious act of war by a foreign power. You might want to investigate what rights a foreign national in this situation would have before you start quoting Benjamin Franklin.

What, if you caught the Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl Harbor in 1941 your response would be to arraign Imperial Japanese Navy dive bomber pilots in the Honolulu district court?

No, seriously, what are you thinking? :p

[nobody_special]

Pvt. Cowboy, let me ask you this:

Why should a "foreign national caught with fifty nukes" not get due process? Seriously, What possible harm could come from due process here?

Yes, the rules are different in wartime, but that isn't the case here.

[berto]

Not a foreign national caught with fifty nukes. What I think you're missing is that this would be an obvious act of war by a foreign power. You might want to investigate what rights a foreign national in this situation would have before you start quoting Benjamin Franklin.

What, if you caught the Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl Harbor in 1941 your response would be to arraign Imperial Japanese Navy dive bomber pilots in the Honolulu district court?

No, seriously, what are you thinking? :p

So a British citizen, we'll say he's a radicalized muslim for the sake of making it easy and playing to full stereotype, caught in the US with 50 nukes would be committing an act of war against the US in the name of the UK?

The Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl in 1941 could have been on maneuvers. A US battle group steaming towards where ever today isn't necessarily launching an attack tomorrow.

Due process afforded to anyone in the US is proper. If the govt removes those rights from the other and we allow it to happen we have set the govt on a path to do the same to us. Giving the other his day in court doesn't hurt me and keeps our nation rooted in law.

[ZapThyCat]

We're already in a police state. You don't have rights.

[compulsivegunbuyer]

Due process afforded to anyone in the US is proper. If the govt removes those rights from the other and we allow it to happen we have set the govt on a path to do the same to us. Giving the other his day in court doesn't hurt me and keeps our nation rooted in law.

That pretty much sums it up. Do you realy trust the government not to abuse these types of powers? There is no criteria here. You could be detained for any reason. You could simply be voicing you opposition to a government policy, and whammo, it's off to the Gulag. There has to be checks and balances, because without them, there will be abuse of power.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

So a British citizen, we'll say he's a radicalized muslim for the sake of making it easy and playing to full stereotype, caught in the US with 50 nukes would be committing an act of war against the US in the name of the UK?

The UK government provided him with nukes? Confirmed to be emitting isotopes unique to specific registered British nuclear reactors? Adios, London.

The Japanese fleet steaming towards Pearl in 1941 could have been on maneuvers.

Were they? Thanks for playing.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Yes, the rules are different in wartime, but that isn't the case here.

'Fifty nukes' is the case presented by the original poster. I'm glad you agree with me that the rules would be different. Thank you for your comments.

[berto]

The UK government provided him with nukes? Confirmed to be emitting isotopes unique to specific registered British nuclear reactors? Adios, London.



Were they? Thanks for playing.

Maybe the Brit got them from a rogue nation, stole them from a former Soviet, etc. Is mere possession of some kind of weapon by a foreign national on US soil an act of war in the name of that foreign national's nation? Are we drawing the line at WMD or extending it all the way down to say box cutters? And does the possession of said weapon allow the US govt to throw the constitution out the window?

History tells us the Japanese were up to no good but until their planes attacked us we had no idea. Is North Korea or China or Iran within their rights to launch an attack on US forces because a US naval force steams towards them or parks off their coast? Or do they wait until the US actually attacks them?

[Pvt. Cowboy]

Maybe the Brit got them from a rogue nation, stole them from a former Soviet, etc. Is mere possession of some kind of weapon by a foreign national on US soil an act of war in the name of that foreign national's nation?

'Mere possession' of a nuclear warhead as you call it with intent to use it against American soil, much less enough for one detonation per American state capitol, is indeed an act of war. We're going to war with no terms except unconditional surrender with whomever produced them. You might want to take a look at existing treaties and resolutions concerning this that go back to the time of Dwight D. Eisenhower. In fact, if this nuclear scenario were to occur in any of the 26 NATO countries, we're going to war on their behalf just as if it happened here. Denmark equals Denver, in short.

Under that scenario, we're not treating the captured hostile foreign agent to Miranda and Escobedo and arraignment in superior court and waiting until his damned lawyer gets to the police interview room before asking him questions.

Now, if you're saying 'Well, Gosh. Why not? What's to lose?' after that explanation, you need your head examined.

[nobody_special]

I'm glad you agree with me that the rules would be different.

That's not what I said... note how I pointed out that we are not, in fact, at war.. and the discovery of a foreign national in the presence of nuclear weapons does not, in itself, cause the United States to be in a state of war. Only one thing can cause that -- a declaration of war by Congress.

Now, if you're saying 'Well, Gosh. Why not? What's to lose?' after that explanation, you need your head examined.

The ad hominem; a time-honored method of avoidance when you can't make a reasonable argument. :rolleyes: I note that you have not, in fact, answered my question.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

The ad hominem; a time-honored method of avoidance when you can't make a reasonable argument. :rolleyes: I note that you have not, in fact, answered my question.

I note the following:

1. It wasn't an Ad Hominem statement seeing as it was preceded by a thoughtful explanation.
2. It wasn't directed at you anyway.

So there. Twice.

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Without due process how do we know this to be the case?

The UK government provided him with nukes? Confirmed to be emitting isotopes unique to specific registered British nuclear reactors? Adios, London.

[berto]

'Mere possession' of a nuclear warhead as you call it with intent to use it against American soil, much less enough for one detonation per American state capitol, is indeed an act of war. We're going to war with no terms except unconditional surrender with whomever produced them. You might want to take a look at existing treaties and resolutions concerning this that go back to the time of Dwight D. Eisenhower. In fact, if this nuclear scenario were to occur in any of the 26 NATO countries, we're going to war on their behalf just as if it happened here. Denmark equals Denver, in short.

Under that scenario, we're not treating the captured hostile foreign agent to Miranda and Escobedo and arraignment in superior court and waiting until his damned lawyer gets to the police interview room before asking him questions.

Now, if you're saying 'Well, Gosh. Why not? What's to lose?' after that explanation, you need your head examined.

So who do we go to war against if a British national is caught on US soil with a nuclear device made from components gathered from various sources? The Brits? The source nations?

The scenario we're likely to face at some point isn't likely to be as simple as national of Country X is caught doing bidding of Country X with weapon from Country X so we attack Country X. The terror game pits us against stateless forces. AQ and Bin Laden are a perfect example.

Question away. Gomer doesn't have to answer, lawyer present or not. 50 nukes or internet research doesn't change the fact that the suspect deserves his day in court in a reasonable amount of time.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

The scenario we're likely to face at some point isn't likely to be as simple as national of Country X is caught doing bidding of Country X with weapon from Country X so we attack Country X. The terror game pits us against stateless forces. AQ and Bin Laden are a perfect example.


The sea change in warfare dynamics you state here is precisely the point of the so-called 'Patriot Act', the execution of which is what's being bemoaned by you and some others when a foreign national is caught with intent to produce indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and I didn't even buy the first half of the OP's second sentence in the starting post -- I do believe that it does matter if they're a terrorist.

You're partially making my case, even more so for the US government, and now I don't even know what your point was anymore. :confused:

[berto]

The sea change in warfare dynamics you state here is precisely the point of the so-called 'Patriot Act', the execution of which is what's being bemoaned by you and some others when a foreign national is caught with intent to produce indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and I didn't even buy the first half of the OP's second sentence in the starting post -- I do believe that it does matter if they're a terrorist.

You're partially making my case, even more so for the US government, and now I don't even know what your point was anymore. :confused:

You confuse my recognition of the changing dynamics of war with support for the current administration's actions. The game has changed, the rules we follow don't necessarily need to change to the extent the govt. has changed them. If Gomer gets caught with 50 warheads why not give him his day in court? Why not try, convict, and sentence him instead of placing him in indefinite lockdown?

Due process. Still required. The constitution applies to all on US soil, citizen or not, lest the govt. decides the constitution no longer applies to any of us.

[nobody_special]

If Gomer gets caught with 50 warheads why not give him his day in court? Why not try, convict, and sentence him instead of placing him in indefinite lockdown?

I already tried asking him that... got nothing but sarcasm in response. :rolleyes:

[jacques]

This stuff has been going on for years.............................

[Lounge Machine]

Isn't this deja vu of Padilla?

The government is just going to play this over and over again til they get the result they want. :mad:

[gimebakmybulits]

[QUOTE=Pvt. Cowboy;1237853]QUOTE]

Thanks for sidetracking a good thread

[Harrison_Bergeron]

Pvt. Cowboy, with your way of doing things where is the accountability on the government? With zero oversight what is to prevent a war mongerer in the White House from telling us that Saddam bin Syria was found in Podunk, Nebraska, with a dirty bomb? Without due process in matters like these what incentive is there for the powers that be to stay honest?

Further more, what happens when you are caught with a nuke that doesn't have any evil features and is therefore not illegal, how will you plead your case to those that arrested you without knowing the actual laws?(phrased jokingly, but if you don't get it you never will)

You are doling out absolute power, and we all know what happens next.

[Pvt. Cowboy]

If Gomer gets caught with 50 warheads why not give him his day in court? Why not try, convict, and sentence him instead of placing him in indefinite lockdown?

I already tried asking him that... got nothing but sarcasm in response. :rolleyes:

Because I don't like repeating myself. I resolve not to do that. If you didn't like my first answer, you won't like it again if I rephrase it.

And to the other guy who said I sidetracked a good thread, I'll promise to steer clear of future hysteria-fueled mutual-appreciation threads where people see rights in the US Constitution that simply don't exist.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

Seems to me that a threat, ANY threat, should be able to be articulated and supported with evidence as to the exact nature of the threat. The threat then needs to be dealt with in accordance with the law. Period.

In a rapidly unfolding situation the action should be immediate, commensurate with the threat, and the justifications analyzed later - with full and proper accountability after the fact. The guy with 50 nukes may not make it to the courtroom if he has his finger near the button. Rightfully so. The risk of 50 nukes justifies swift and overwhelming action. Failure is not an option. It is in defense of the nation that the action should be swift.

In a situation where a player is in custody and the threat is not immediate, the justifications still need to be presented. I find it interesting that some people are exempt from due process at the pleasure of the administration. I want to know what makes this different from Saddam exempting people from due process? Aren't we simply talking about a difference in location? And how is a slow process for some people a benefit to the nation?

A government that purports to be the defender of freedom shouldn't suppress freedom. A government that exists to protect individual rights shouldn't suppress those rights. A government that is based in the code of law should not operate outside of the code of law. Ever. The highest standard of conduct is expected of those who purport to represent the law. Funny how we seem to have the lowest standard of conduct in politicians.

[PatriotnMore]

Seems to me that a threat, ANY threat, should be able to be articulated and supported with evidence as to the exact nature of the threat. The threat then needs to be dealt with in accordance with the law. Period.

In a rapidly unfolding situation the action should be immediate, commensurate with the threat, and the justifications analyzed later - with full and proper accountability after the fact. The guy with 50 nukes may not make it to the courtroom if he has his finger near the button. Rightfully so. The risk of 50 nukes justifies swift and overwhelming action. Failure is not an option. It is in defense of the nation that the action should be swift.

In a situation where a player is in custody and the threat is not immediate, the justifications still need to be presented. I find it interesting that some people are exempt from due process at the pleasure of the administration. I want to know what makes this different from Saddam exempting people from due process? Aren't we simply talking about a difference in location? And how is a slow process for some people a benefit to the nation?

A government that purports to be the defender of freedom shouldn't suppress freedom. A government that exists to protect individual rights shouldn't suppress those rights. A government that is based in the code of law should not operate outside of the code of law. Ever. The highest standard of conduct is expected of those who purport to represent the law. Funny how we seem to have the lowest standard of conduct in politicians.

Exactly right on every point.

[gimebakmybulits]

And to the other guy who said I sidetracked a good thread, I'll promise to steer clear of future hysteria-fueled mutual-appreciation threads where people see rights in the US Constitution that simply don't exist.

Thank God :jump:Better to save your fantastic wordsmithing for people who give a :rolleyes:

[nobody_special]

where people see rights in the US Constitution that simply don't exist.

The fifth amendment exists. The sixth amendment exists. Habeas Corpus exists. The present administration's efforts to curtail it are illegal.

These rights apply to everyone in the US, including foreign nationals.

I already tried asking him that... got nothing but sarcasm in response.
Because I don't like repeating myself. I resolve not to do that. If you didn't like my first answer, you won't like it again if I rephrase it.


AFAICT, the only place where you might have addressed my question is in post #46... but in post #48 you said that was not directed at me. So far, I have not seen an answer to my question.

At any rate, your argument appears to be that a foreign national caught in the presence of 50 nukes is cause to revoke the rule of law, presumably because it is an act of war. I disagree, because (1) it is not necessarily an act of war (such an act must be performed by an agent of a state), (2) it is not, in fact, a reason to abandon the rule of law and due process, and therefore does not answer my question; and (3) an act of war does not, in itself, cause the nation to be at war; it takes an act of Congress for that.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

The fifth amendment exists. The sixth amendment exists. Habeas Corpus exists. The present administration's efforts to curtail it are illegal.

These rights apply to everyone in the US, including foreign nationals.



Absolutely. After all, I thought that the idea was that we believed that our system of government was superior to other systems of government, and it was our responsibility to hew to our own written code of law. Not just because it is the right thing to do legally, but because we believe it to be the right way to live.

If we don't live by our own laws, then what are we? If our government doesn't uphold our laws and constitutional principles, then what are they?

[PatriotnMore]

Absolutely. After all, I thought that the idea was that we believed that our system of government was superior to other systems of government, and it was our responsibility to hew to our own written code of law. Not just because it is the right thing to do legally, but because we believe it to be the right way to live.

If we don't live by our own laws, then what are we? If our government doesn't uphold our laws and constitutional principles, then what are they?

I agree with everything you've said, except your signature line. We need people like you to stay the course, not leave because the kitchen got a little hot.

[MisterDudeManGuy]

I agree with everything you've said, except your signature line. We need people like you to stay the course, not leave because the kitchen got a little hot.

As John Galt said: "I know how to put a stop to this." And he walked out. I may be in Kansas, but it is Colorado to me. :)