Bush Order: Terror Trials by Military
D. Spencer Hines
By Ron Fournier
AP White House Correspondent
Tuesday, November 13, 2001; 6:00 PM
WASHINGTON 末 President Bush signed an order Tuesday that would allow
for the trial of people accused of terrorism by a special military
commission instead of civilian courts, The Associated Press has learned.
The order, signed by Bush before he left for Crawford, Texas, gives the
Bush administration another avenue to bring the Sept. 11 terrorists to
justice, said White House counsel Albert Gonzales.
"This is a new tool to use against terrorism," Gonzales said in a
telephone interview. The White House was to release the order late
Tuesday.
Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court judge who is the president's top
lawyer, said a military commission could have several advantages over a
civilian court. It is easier to protect the sources and methods of
investigators in military proceedings, for example, and a military trial
can be held overseas."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23566-2001Nov13.html
---------------------------
Capital!
Some reports say this executive order does not pertain to U.S. Citizens.
Fair Enough.
And, before you "liberals" and scruffy little socialists get all hot and
bothered and froth at the mouth ---- Franklin Delano Roosevelt did
precisely the same thing with several German spies who had landed by
submarine and were quickly captured, in 1942. FDR even personally
selected the members of the military court and instructed his Attorney
General, Francis Biddle, to be the prosecutor.
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln actually suspended
_habeas corpus_.
We Americans are not fooling around with these terrorist pogues and
poguettes.
I suspect the Brits will be, or already have, taken some similar steps
to ensure quick, efficient, just trials for suspected terrorists.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
D. Spencer Hines
Bush invoked his constitutional authority as commander in chief as well
as the resolution authorizing military force passed by Congress on Sept.
15. Congress has not passed a formal declaration of war, and military
law experts said one was not necessary for Mr. Bush's order.
White House officials said that there was precedent for the military
tribunals and that they had been approved by the Supreme Court, first in
1801. Those accused of plotting the assassination of Abraham Lincoln
were also tried and convicted by a military court, Bush administration
officials said.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, White House officials said, had German
saboteurs tried by a military court in World War II; six of them were
executed. The Supreme Court upheld the proceeding, saying that people
who entered the United States to wage war were combatants who could be
tried in a military court.
"What would you do if you caught bin Laden?" one administration official
said tonight. "This is an additional option that is being provided by
this order."
Administration officials said a long, public trial might turn Mr. bin
Laden into a martyr, and could cause further terrorism in his name."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/national/14DETA.html?todaysheadlines
-------------------------------
Right On!
StNeel
>Some reports say this executive order does not pertain to U.S. Citizens.
>
>Fair Enough.
I am glad to hear it does not apply to U S citizens, if true, since in 1867,
Justice Chase of the U S Supreme court held that no military court could sit
where civilian courts are operating. He held the U S Constitution operates in
both war and peace. Lincoln's administration had been illegal.
I agree that normal trials are not effective against terrorists as formal
evidence is hard to find, intelligent sources have to be disclosed etc. But I
think the nation has to be very careful here and military commissions against
US citizens would disturb me greatly. Foreign aliens is another case. We need
an entire overhaul of the alien laws. Hope that happens but carefully. I like
to think we are a just nation. Very much against the UN handling all this as
many suggest.
StNeel
D. Spencer Hines
Commission. All seven members of the Military Commission, who were U.S.
Army officers, were appointed by FDR and he told his Attorney General,
Francis Biddle, to prosecute them.
Six of the eight were sentenced to death ---- and electrocuted.
The saboteurs landed on Long Island and in Florida in June 1942. They
were quickly captured. The story as to how that transpired is
fascinating. Tried in July and early August, and found guilty ---- six
of the eight were executed on 8 August 1942. The other two German
saboteurs were imprisoned. They were later granted executive clemency
and deported, in 1948, by President Harry S. Truman.
Now, that is the sort of justice we want to see for these terrorists.
http://www.lihistory.com/tmachine/hs020b.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/fbinbrief/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm
So, President Bush has clear precedent for what he is doing. The Great
"Liberal" in the Sky, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has set the mark.
If Usama bin Laden, or any of his confederates, are captured alive ----
this Executive Order may come in handy.
No ---- not a Hague Trial.
Paul J Gans
>StNeel
Well, the entire thing bothers me greatly too. We can't expect
to treat non-citizens this way. It may be that there are issues
of security involved, but we've handled that in the past. As
I recall there were a number of spy trials, including the
Rosenberg case that involved all sorts of sensitive things.
And we got through that well enough.
So I remain to be convinced that it is necessary.
Bush said a while back that we would not let *them* take
away our liberties. And indeed they shall not. But *we*
can take them away and have been for some weeks now.
---- Paul J. Gans
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> >I agree that normal trials are not effective against
> >terrorists as formal evidence is hard to find, intelligent
> >sources have to be disclosed etc. But I think the nation
> >has to be very careful here and military commissions
> >against US citizens would disturb me greatly. Foreign
> >aliens is another case. We need an entire overhaul of
> >the alien laws. Hope that happens but carefully. I like
> >to think we are a just nation. Very much against the
> >UN handling all this as many suggest.
>
> expect to treat non-citizens this way.
As a 'foreign alien' it sure as hell bothers me. It seems
that I can not only be detained without trial indefinitely
and without right of appeal just 'cos the Attorney General
doesn't like my face. Now it seems that I could be tried
by a secret military tribunal where it is unclear what
access the defendant has to lawyers or even to such
procedures as cross-examination . . . oh, and I nearly
forgot that any conversations with a lawyer are not
private either.
Add to this the US's appalling record on the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations (e.g. not allowing aliens
access to their consulates!) and it paints a very disturbing
picture. I suspect you'll find that the wheels of extradition
to the US will grind very slowly . . . would you extradite
someone to a country where they can be put to death
as a result of a secret military tribunal?
BTW, hasn't the US vociferousy objected to such treatment
of its own citizens by other countries? Hypocrites.
--- Tony Jebson
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> As a 'foreign alien' it sure as hell bothers me. It seems
> that I can not only be detained without trial indefinitely
> and without right of appeal just 'cos the Attorney General
> doesn't like my face.
I should make this clearer as the mechanics aren't
obvious. Technically I could only be held without
charge for 7 days but the AG can begin deportation
procedures (without stating a reason) at any time
within this period. Once deportation procedings are
started, the authorities are *required* to detain you
(without the possibility of bail).
Such deportation is not subject to appeal and can
proceed at whatever pace the goverment feels like
(past cases have taken up to 8 years!).
[snip]
--- Tony Jebson
tiglath
Today on C-span radio, there was a congressional hearing on airline safety.
The committee went through all the holes in commercial aviation security. I
was astounded.
They enumerated the several ways in which bombs can be put on planes, and
how the sterile areas of the airports are still breached, and how weak the
recruitment of airport personnel is. I didn't know most the these. Had I
been a terrorist I would have taped the program and thank Allah that my
enemies are so bloody dumb. Between the listing of our security holes and
fixing them, if ever, many moons will pass, I know it and our enemies know
it -- the window of opportunity.
For instance, I was under the impression that if one checks a bag and
doesn't board the plane it will be noticed and the bag will be removed from
the plane. I thought we had that one sewn up. According to the testimony
in this hearing this is not the case. The pairing of baggage to passengers
happens in most major airports but not all by all means. Another example
is the existence of nameless cargo shippers. Cargo goes on planes that
cannot be traced to anyone, apparently.
There you go.
D. Spencer Hines
1. Jebson has told us that he is here in the United States because he
can make more money than in the U.K.
2. Has he ever sought to become an American citizen?
3. Does he want to assume the burdens of American citizenship, as well
as enjoy the benefits?
4. Or, does he just want a free ride?
Food for Thought.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Tony Jebson" <je...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:VAGI7.25409$jp.18...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Cook SLC
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:29 PM
To: WH Press Releases
Subject: MILITARY ORDER: DETENTION, TREATMENT, AND TRIAL OF CERTAIN NON
-CITIZENS IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release November 13, 2001
MILITARY ORDER
DETENTION, TREATMENT, AND TRIAL
OF CERTAIN NON-CITIZENS IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM
By the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the
Armed Forces of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the
United States of America, including the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224) and sections 821
and 836 of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
(a) International terrorists, including members of al Qaida, have carried
out attacks on United States diplomatic and military personnel and
facilities abroad and on citizens and property within the United States on a
scale that has created a state of armed conflict that requires the use of
the United States Armed Forces.
(b) In light of grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism, including
the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, on the headquarters of the
United States Department of Defense in the national capital region, on the
World Trade Center in New York, and on civilian aircraft such as in
Pennsylvania, I proclaimed a national emergency on September 14, 2001 (Proc.
7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist
Attacks).
(c) Individuals acting alone and in concert involved in international
terrorism possess both the capability and the intention to undertake further
terrorist attacks against the United States that, if not detected and
prevented, will cause mass deaths, mass injuries, and massive destruction of
property, and may place at risk the continuity of the operations of the
United States Government.
(d) The ability of the United States to protect the United States and its
citizens, and to help its allies and other cooperating nations protect their
nations and their citizens, from such further terrorist attacks depends in
significant part upon using the United States Armed Forces to identify
terrorists and those who support them, to disrupt their activities, and to
eliminate their ability to conduct or support such attacks.
(e) To protect the United States and its citizens, and for the effective
conduct of military operations and prevention of terrorist attacks, it is
necessary for individuals subject to this order pursuant to section 2 hereof
to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of
war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.
(f) Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of
international terrorism, and to the extent provided by and under this order,
I find consistent with section 836 of title 10, United States Code, that it
is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the
principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the
trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.
(g) Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries,
and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism
against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I
have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense
purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling
govern-ment interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet
the emergency.
Sec. 2. Definition and Policy.
(a) The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual
who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from
time to time in writing that:
(1) there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,
(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;
(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of
international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused,
threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse
effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign
policy, or economy; or
(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in
subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order; and
(2) it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be
subject to this order.
(b) It is the policy of the United States that the Secretary of Defense
shall take all necessary measures to ensure that any individual subject to
this order is detained in accordance with section 3, and, if the individual
is to be tried, that such individual is tried only in accordance with
section 4.
(c) It is further the policy of the United States that any individual
subject to this order who is not already under the control of the Secretary
of Defense but who is under the control of any other officer or agent of the
United States or any State shall, upon delivery of a copy of such written
determination to such officer or agent, forthwith be placed under the
control of the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 3. Detention Authority of the Secretary of Defense.
Any individual subject to this order shall be-
(a) detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of
Defense outside or within the United States;
(b) treated humanely, without any adverse distinction based on race, color,
religion, gender, birth, wealth, or any similar criteria;
(c) afforded adequate food, drinking water, shelter, clothing, and medical
treatment;
(d) allowed the free exercise of religion consistent with the requirements
of such detention; and
(e) detained in accordance with such other conditions as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe.
Sec. 4. Authority of the Secretary of Defense Regarding Trials of
Individuals Subject to this Order.
(a) Any individual subject to this order shall, when tried, be tried by
military commission for any and all offenses triable by military commission
that such individual is alleged to have committed, and may be punished in
accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life
imprisonment or death.
(b) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1,
including subsection (f) thereof, the Secretary of Defense shall issue such
orders and regulations, including orders for the appointment of one or more
military commissions, as may be necessary to carry out subsection (a) of
this section.
(c) Orders and regulations issued under subsection (b) of this section shall
include, but not be limited to, rules for the conduct of the proceedings of
military commissions, including pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures,
modes of proof, issuance of process, and qualifications of attorneys, which
shall at a minimum provide for-
(1) military commissions to sit at any time and any place, consistent with
such guidance regarding time and place as the Secretary of Defense may
provide;
(2) a full and fair trial, with the military commission sitting as the
triers of both fact and law;
(3) admission of such evidence as would, in the opinion of the presiding
officer of the military commission (or instead, if any other member of the
commission so requests at the time the presiding officer renders that
opinion, the opinion of the commission rendered at that time by a majority
of the commission), have probative value to a reasonable person;
(4) in a manner consistent with the protection of information classified or
classifiable under Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995, as amended, or
any successor Executive Order, protected by statute or rule from
unauthorized disclosure, or otherwise protected by law, (A) the handling of,
admission into evidence of, and access to materials and information, and (B)
the conduct, closure of, and access to proceedings;
(5) conduct of the prosecution by one or more attorneys designated by the
Secretary of Defense and conduct of the defense by attorneys for the
individual subject to this order;
(6) conviction only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the
commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present;
(7) sentencing only upon the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the
commission present at the time of the vote, a majority being present; and
(8) submission of the record of the trial, including any conviction or
sentence, for review and final decision by me or by the Secretary of Defense
if so designated by me for that purpose.
Sec. 5. Obligation of Other Agencies to Assist the Secretary of Defense.
Departments, agencies, entities, and officers of the United States shall, to
the maximum extent permitted by law, provide to the Secretary of Defense
such assistance as he may request to implement this order.
Sec. 6. Additional Authorities of the Secretary of Defense.
(a) As a military function and in light of the findings in section 1, the
Secretary of Defense shall issue such orders and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this order.
(b) The Secretary of Defense may perform any of his functions or duties, and
may exercise any of the powers provided to him under this order (other than
under section 4(c)(8) hereof) in accordance with section 113(d) of title 10,
United States Code.
Sec. 7. Relationship to Other Law and Forums.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to-
(1) authorize the disclosure of state secrets to any person not otherwise
authorized to have access to them;
(2) limit the authority of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed
Forces or the power of the President to grant reprieves and pardons; or
(3) limit the lawful authority of the Secretary of Defense, any military
commander, or any other officer or agent of the United States or of any
State to detain or try any person who is not an individual subject to this
order.
(b) With respect to any individual subject to this order-
(1) military tribunals shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to
offenses by the individual; and
(2) the individual shall not be privileged to seek any remedy or maintain
any proceeding, directly or indirectly, or to have any such remedy or
proceeding sought on the individual=s behalf, in (i) any court of the United
States, or any State thereof, (ii) any court of any foreign nation, or (iii)
any international tribunal.
(c) This order is not intended to and does not create any right, benefit, or
privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by any
party, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other
entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
(d) For purposes of this order, the term "State" includes any State,
district, territory, or possession of the United States.
(e) I reserve the authority to direct the Secretary of Defense, at any time
hereafter, to transfer to a governmental authority control of any individual
subject to this order. Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit the
authority of any such governmental authority to prosecute any individual for
whom control is transferred.
Sec. 8. Publication.
This order shall be published in the Federal Register.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
November 13, 2001.
Glen A. Cook
Attorney (US)
Solicitor (England & Wales)
Cook, Skeen & Robinson, L.L.C.
5788 S. 900 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84121
USA
Phone: *01-801-266-7414
Fax: *01-801-892-5067
glen...@cooklaw.org
EricWiener
>>
>>Fair Enough.
I have a small problem with the new law in that it could apply to legal
resident aliens. I think Resident Alien status should also provide the
protection of civilian due process of law.
tiglath
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:sAHI7.1323$tg4....@eagle.america.net...
..."the burdens of American citizenship..."
"Decapitation of the Government."
Stop scaring me.
Chris Keller
************************
If you are not a terrorist you have nothing to fear. If you do not like the
idea of terrorists getting tried by the military, get the fuck out of my
country.
For my part I think Bin Laden should be hung and allowed to strangle slowly.
Then he could dance the Devil's dance while he shits and pisses all over
himself.
Chris----...@aol.Com
tiglath
"Chris Keller" <mtlo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011115111534...@mb-cu.aol.com...
A noble warrior kills efficiently and reluctantly and never gloats.
Let's grant this Jihad warriors their wish to be with God as quickly
as possible. We are (or should not be) in the business of revenge and
torture. Quickly eliminate them and return to what we do best,
enjoying life and fulfilling our personal hopes and dreams. Or is
our advance to be technological only as we remain philosophically
medieval?
I deplore that in fighting a third world country and a few hotheads we
find necessary to set aside part of the freedom that is being attacked
and we are trying to defend, and so many have died for. Turning into
a police state to fight those who live under a police state is
ludicrous. There is no need for a permanent constrain on our
freedom, if the government is so desperate, an emergency state would
give it the temporary police powers it needs to get rid of the
nuisance.
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>[snip]
>> >I agree that normal trials are not effective against
>> >terrorists as formal evidence is hard to find, intelligent
>> >sources have to be disclosed etc. But I think the nation
>> >has to be very careful here and military commissions
>> >against US citizens would disturb me greatly. Foreign
>> >aliens is another case. We need an entire overhaul of
>> >the alien laws. Hope that happens but carefully. I like
>> >to think we are a just nation. Very much against the
>> >UN handling all this as many suggest.
>>
>> Well, the entire thing bothers me greatly too. We can't
>> expect to treat non-citizens this way.
>As a 'foreign alien' it sure as hell bothers me. It seems
>that I can not only be detained without trial indefinitely
>and without right of appeal just 'cos the Attorney General
>doesn't like my face. Now it seems that I could be tried
>by a secret military tribunal where it is unclear what
>access the defendant has to lawyers or even to such
>procedures as cross-examination . . . oh, and I nearly
>forgot that any conversations with a lawyer are not
>private either.
It is very likely unconstitutional as well. I find
it appalling that a supposedly civilized country is
contemplating star chamber proceedings against foreign
nationals.
There is no need for this. We've prosecuted spies
(i.e. the Rosenbergs) in cases involving top secret
materials with no trouble. We've prosecuted terrorists
(i.e. the 1993 WTC bombers) using classified material
with no problems. And the notion that Roosevelt did
this too is quite wrong. It was wartime and the people
prosecuted were spies. They were treated as spies often
are in wartime. In spite of the rhetoric to the contrary
this is not war. No war has been declared by Congress.
If we are to classify terrorists as spies, whom else may
we classify as spies? That poor fellow accused by the
FBI as being the Chinese spy at Los Alamos would likely
be dead now instead of having the charges against him
dropped.
We said that we would not let THEM take our freedoms
away. But we are doing an excellent job of it ourselves.
Tony did not even mention the worst part of this. The
accused is to be tried offshore on a navy vessal. That
way any attempt to serve a write of Habeus Corpus on
the proceedings will be stymied.
Did we not object when the Taliban arrested the eight
Europeans and Americans and held them for trial, providing
them only with one of *their* folks as a lawyer? The charges
against the eight were silly from our point of view. How
is this new American policy different?
>Add to this the US's appalling record on the Vienna
>Convention on Consular Relations (e.g. not allowing aliens
>access to their consulates!) and it paints a very disturbing
>picture. I suspect you'll find that the wheels of extradition
>to the US will grind very slowly . . . would you extradite
>someone to a country where they can be put to death
>as a result of a secret military tribunal?
I find it exceptionally upsetting.
>BTW, hasn't the US vociferousy objected to such treatment
>of its own citizens by other countries? Hypocrites.
Yes. See above.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Exactly. I find it very ugly. Especially the part about
not having to file a reason for the deportation order.
It bothers me that a party that always talks about wanting
LESS government and limiting government power does things
like this.
I hope it is just stupidity.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>There you go.
You should also mention that a bill to cure much of this
passed the Senate by a unanimous vote. The bill has been
stalled in the House for weeks now because the Republican party
doesn't want the folks doing the security to be government
employees. Neither does the President.
In today's paper there was a story about one of the major
private security companies going bankrupt. It seems that
even during a recession they can't get people to work for
the wages they pay. How hard does anyone think it would
be to bribe such employees?
------ Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
"Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942).
Facts: The petitioners were all born in Germany. All lived in the
United States and returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941.
Petitioners attended sabotage school. After completing this training,
Quirin and two others boarded a submarine and proceeded to Amagansett
Beach, N. Y. They landed on or about June 13, 1942, carrying a supply
of explosives and wearing German infantry uniforms. They buried their
uniforms and proceeded to New York City. The four remaining petitioners
proceeded by submarine to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. These men were
wearing caps of German marine infantry and carrying explosives. They
buried uniform parts and proceeded to Jacksonville, Florida, and thence
to various points in the United States. All were taken into custody by
agents of the F.B.I. All had received instructions to destroy war
industries and war facilities in the United States.
The President of the United States by order of July 2, 1942 appointed a
Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses
against the law of war and Articles of War, and prescribed regulations
on trial and review of record of the trial and any decision handed down
by the Commission.
Issue: Was trial by a military commission without jury legal?
Decision: Yes. (vote 8-0)
Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Stone (for a brief biography click here)
Reason: It is necessary for the federal government to provide for the
common defense. The President has the power to carry into effect all
laws that Congress passes regarding the conduct of the war and all laws
defining and punishing offenses against the law of nations, including
those that pertain to the conduct of the war. These men were nothing
more than spies. They fall under this category by their actions. "It
has not hitherto been challenged, and, so far as we are advised, it has
never been suggested in the very extensive literature of the subject
that an alien spy, in time of war, could not be tried by military
tribunal without a jury.
"We conclude that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not restrict
whatever authority was conferred by the Constitution to try offenses
against the law of war by military commission, and that petitioners,
charged with such an offense not required to be tried by jury at common
law, were lawfully placed on trial by the Commission without a jury."
[...]
http://lawbooksusa.com/cconlaw/quirinexparte.htm
David C. Pugh
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
(...)
> >Add to this the US's appalling record on the Vienna
> >Convention on Consular Relations (e.g. not allowing aliens
> >access to their consulates!) and it paints a very disturbing
> >picture. I suspect you'll find that the wheels of extradition
> >to the US will grind very slowly . . . would you extradite
> >someone to a country where they can be put to death
> >as a result of a secret military tribunal?
I don't *think* that European countries ever do extradite to the US in
cases where the death penalty is possible.
David
Paul J Gans
My comments on the order:
In other words, this order can apply to you if you are NOT
a citizen of the US and one or more of the following apply:
1) The US calls you a terrorist or accuses you of some
connection, no matter how tenuous, with terrorism.
2) The US says you "harbored" a person in my paragraph
above.
3) And, more ambiguously, perhaps just if the US says that
it wants you put away.
Under the order it is legal to remove you from the US and
hold you somewhere else.
If you are already under the jurisdiction of another
police agency or court, you may be summarily removed
from that jurisdiction on the simple presentation of
the appropriate papers. No reason need be given.
The normal standards of evidence and justice are not to
apply. The Commission is to be both judge and jury and
cases, including the death penalty, are to be decided by
a vote of 2/3 of the members present and voting, NOT
even 2/3 of the entire membership.
The other courts in the US, including the Supreme Court,
are *explicitly* denied any jurisdiction in these cases.
No appeal to another court is possible under these rules.
------ Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Small problem? I'd say that resident aliens ought to be
quaking in their boots.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Sadly Chris, as I hope you never find out, the loss of
liberties start with the prosecution of a despised few.
There is no need for this executive order. The excuse
given, that military secrets are involved, won't hold
water. We've prosecuted many such cases in the ordinary
courts without any trouble or leaks.
A major departure from the norms of "The Land of the Free"
needs to be justified. No justification was given.
I especially do not like the provision that allows the
accused to be removed from the United States and held
outside its borders. That seems to me to be a preventive
strike. If a Federal Court finds this order unconstitutional
the persons being held will be beyond the reach of the
court.
Can you see what an unscrupulous government could do with
such an order?
Being free means having to live with certain limitations
on what the Government can do, even if that makes life
a bit more difficult. Since non-citizens can already
be held for long periods of time without filing charges
against them, this executive order was not made to keep
dangeroups persons out of circulation. The only new
thing introduced is the possibility now of killing them
without a fair trial. And you'll never know it happened.
There is no requirement to tell the public *anything*
about what went on, or even *if* it went on.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>David
Tony wrote that, but I agree with it.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
terrorists.
Perhaps Gans should emigrate ---- then he won't be so frightened of
these things.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9t0sfb$1bv$2...@news.panix.com...
tiglath
U.S. alien permanent residents -- I was one for years -- pay taxes.
The biggest of the burdens of U.S. citizenship, compared to others
like jury duty, voting, etc., of which green card holders are exempt.
What the U.S. government is saying implicitly is that democracy and
the U.S. Constitution are no good to protect us. I don't believe so.
Fine police and intelligence work is not impossible within the frame
of human rights, it surely is expedient and easier to adopt the
methods of gangsters, but is it necessary?
Not an easy question now. While on one hand I don't want to give up
the freedom I traveled long for, how many would object to harsh
measures when a nuclear terrorist attack looms large?
It is an easy choice between, be vaporized or let police do what it
takes to stop the bombers.
Pascal Wager?
But again, how credible is the threat and how credible are those
informing us of it?
If we allow the government unlimited proctoscopic powers must be only
because there is a CLEAR and PRESENT danger and no better alternative,
since once granted it is hardly ever relinquished.
I don't buy the current position: "We know, trust us, we can't tell
how, and what; please sign this civil rights waiver, right here."
D. Spencer Hines
the President's order with the General Counsel of the Department of
Defense and is approaching implementation of the order in a very
measured, prudent, cautious and conservative fashion.
No knee-jerk reactions here.
Further, Rumsfeld said that the document may be a military order from
the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to the Secretary of Defense ----
rather than an Executive Order.
That is a quite interesting point ---- and I suspect we shall be hearing
more about it.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, it is indeed a MILITARY ORDER ---- in Time of War.
Vide infra.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
D. Spencer Hines
DENIAL that the United States is AT WAR.
Hilarious!
How Sweet It Is!
He not only fills other, tender young skulls full of mush ---- but has
now filled his own as well.
Deus Vult.
Fortem Posce Animum.
David C. Pugh
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
(...)
> I especially do not like the provision that allows the
> accused to be removed from the United States and held
> outside its borders. That seems to me to be a preventive
> strike. If a Federal Court finds this order unconstitutional
> the persons being held will be beyond the reach of the
> court
So THAT's what the International Space Station is for....... :-/
David
David C. Pugh
> That's the most scary thing I've read in a long time.
>
> My comments on the order:
>
> In other words, this order can apply to you if you are NOT
> a citizen of the US and one or more of the following apply:
>
> 1) The US calls you a terrorist or accuses you of some
> connection, no matter how tenuous, with terrorism.
(rest snipped)
And remember, a few years ago the State Department tried to get the
even-then-existing anti-terrorist legislation applied to *verbal
advocacy* of the cause of a banned organisation. By US citizens too.
It will be no problem now. I guess some regulars on this board would
qualify under this rule: not that they have advocated knocking down
the WTC, but they *have* suggested certain changes in US foreign
policy along the lines of things al-Qaeda happens to want. Tiglath,
you in particular had better start packing an overnight bag for
leaving permanently by the door.
David
Brian M. Scott
>That's the most scary thing I've read in a long time.
Yes.
[...]
>The normal standards of evidence and justice are not to
>apply. The Commission is to be both judge and jury and
>cases, including the death penalty, are to be decided by
>a vote of 2/3 of the members present and voting, NOT
>even 2/3 of the entire membership.
Size of Min. Nr. Required
Commission to Convict
------------------------------
3 2
4 2
5 2
6 3
7 3
8 4
9 4
10 4
11 4
[...]
Brian
D. Spencer Hines
were to go off *anywhere* in the United States, [think Washington Square
in New York City, for example] God forbid ---- Gans ---- and those of
his ilk ---- dedicated Bush-haters all ---- would be the first to panic,
wring their hands, and tear their hair.
Immediately thereafter, they would revile and condemn Bush, Cheney,
Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Card, Ridge, Mueller and
Tenet for not having taken the necessary actions to PREVENT it and
PROTECT them.
[N.B. These are some of those "idgits in Washington" that Gans keeps
prattling, burbling and babbling about. ---- DSH]
That's the way these pogues and poguettes operate.
They have been crippling, hamstringing, impeding and demoralizing the
Intelligence, Defense and Law Enforcement Agencies of the USG for
*decades*.
Now, they'd *love* for these departments and agencies to fail to stop an
attack again ---- so they can be pilloried, whipped and ridiculed some
more ---- and Bush plummet in the polls.
They see it as just "Good Politics" and to Hell with the larger National
Security interests of the United States and all her citizens. They are
incapable of even *thinking* in those terms.
Appalling!
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| On an amusing note, Gans ---- my pet goose ---- is STILL in stubborn
| DENIAL that the United States is AT WAR.
|
| Hilarious!
|
| How Sweet It Is!
|
| He not only fills other, tender young skulls full of mush ---- but has
| now filled his own as well.
|
| Deus Vult.
|
| Fortem Posce Animum.
|
| "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
| do nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
DSH
tiglath
"David C. Pugh" <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:viUI7.480$B87....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> And remember, a few years ago the State Department tried to get the
> even-then-existing anti-terrorist legislation applied to *verbal
> advocacy* of the cause of a banned organisation. By US citizens too.
> It will be no problem now. I guess some regulars on this board would
> qualify under this rule: not that they have advocated knocking down
> the WTC, but they *have* suggested certain changes in US foreign
> policy along the lines of things al-Qaeda happens to want. Tiglath,
> you in particular had better start packing an overnight bag for
> leaving permanently by the door.
I have company.
Powerful brakes are being applied to Colin Powell's mouth. He is good
to go and ready to launch to propose a peace settlement in the Middle
East with unprecedented consideration to the Palestinians. The
Pentagon is complaining that if he goes ahead with his speech/plan it
can be construed as giving in to bin Laden's demands.
A real quandary.
Those who refuse to change course, never mind U-turns, when painfully
reminded that they are heading for a wall of hurt, must continue their
bad Middle East policies to keep up the appearance that they were
never wrong in the first place. Glad to see not all in the U.S.
government are of this type.
Much fun and games derive from people's obstinacy in not admitting
errors in s.h.m., but in the foreign policy arena the games are
deadly.
Brian M. Scott
[...]
>MILITARY ORDER
>DETENTION, TREATMENT, AND TRIAL
>OF CERTAIN NON-CITIZENS IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM
Our local editorial cartoonist has an apt comment on it in today's
paper. The cartoon shows a statue of Lady Justice completely shrouded
in a burqa labelled 'Bush Military Trials Order', holding a balance in
which the pan 'War on Terror' heavily outweighs the pan 'Checks +
Balances' (which contains a copy of the Bill of Rights).
[...]
Brian
John Kane
I am not sure but I don't think Canada does either.
Ever since Peltier I think we have been a bit cautious overall.
--
------------------
John Kane
The Rideau Lakes, Ontario Canada
John Kane
Not bothering to pack, just running for it?
John Kane
> Only if they are terrorists ---- or sheltering, aiding or abetting
> terrorists.
>
Then you have a rather touchingly nieve faith in the US justice system.
There are good reasons for checks and balances in the legal systems of
Western nations. . Stripping them is not a very good idea.
--
Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi
Right on the money, tiglath!
The constitution of this country does not
state that its laws apply only to its citizens.
I detest bin Laden and his ilk as much as
anyone else. However, the revocation of the
founding principles of this country
(you know, folks, the ones about fair trial
and due process) lead me
to wonder whether or not Terrorist inc has
succeeded in undermining the very tenets
of our system of law and governance.
tiglath wrote in message <9t0qhr$8hs$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
D. Spencer Hines
Now is Effy a citizen of the United States, herself, or not?
Très drôle.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi" <eqk...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:oPWI7.6
[...]
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> I don't *think* that European countries ever do extradite
> to the US in cases where the death penalty is possible.
I think it varies. France won't extradite death penalty
case. I think the UK will but the wheels grind very slow
but now I suspect they'll be glacial.
--- Tony Jebson
Tony Jebson
> If you are not a terrorist you have nothing to fear. If you
> do not like the idea of terrorists getting tried by the military,
> get the fuck out of my country.
<plonk>
--- Tony Jebson
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> Small problem? I'd say that resident aliens ought to be
> quaking in their boots.
Nah. I don't look even slightly Arabic and hence am in
no danger. Am I implying racial profiling? Yup. Whatever
happened to "Equal Protection".
--- Tony Jebson
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> EricWiener <ericw...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>>Some reports say this executive order does not pertain to U.S. Citizens.
>> >>>
>> >>>Fair Enough.
>>
>> >I have a small problem with the new law in that it could apply to legal
>> >resident aliens. I think Resident Alien status should also provide the
>> >protection of civilian due process of law.
>>
>> Small problem? I'd say that resident aliens ought to be
>> quaking in their boots.
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>Not bothering to pack, just running for it?
It isn't quite *that* bad. As far as I know this is the
first time in since the US Civil War (and likely before
that) that we are threatening legal aliens from countries
we are not at war with, with arrest, detention, and trial
before a military tribunal.
When a US citizen was picked up in Peru and the same thing
was done to her, the US protested vigorously. We eventually
forced her to have a retrial in public and with real lawyers,
etc. She was still found guilty, which is OK with me since
I don't know the particulars. But the original behavior
was very much like the executive order just issued.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
>> Only if they are terrorists ---- or sheltering, aiding or abetting
>> terrorists.
>>
>Then you have a rather touchingly nieve faith in the US justice system.
>There are good reasons for checks and balances in the legal systems of
>Western nations. . Stripping them is not a very good idea.
No it isn't. Especially since there is no check on whom
the government calls a terrorist. Afte all, who know what
"aiding" and "abetting" really can mean in the hands of
a person who is sure you are guilty of something?
I need to be convinced that a regular trial for such folks
is out of the question -- unless of course the Government is
going to rely on illegally obtained information.
>>
>> Perhaps Gans should emigrate ---- then he won't be so frightened of
>> these things.
>>
I think that I will stay and fight to keep our traditional
liberties. The Constitution of the United States does not
just apply to citizens. Nowhere in it does it say "citizens
only". It promises to all who come here legally that they
will enjoy all the rights we can give them, including the
right to a fair trial in public with lawyer-client privacy.
Those who suggest that I emigrate because I favor the
Constitution perhaps ought to take a good look in the mirror.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
That is not the choice. Right NOW, under existing law,
the Government can pick up and hold any non-citizen
indefinitely. All that has to happen is to accuse them
of violating the terms of their visa, which includes
language against illegal acts.
I do not see what is gained by kangaroo courts holding
secret trials with no judicial review. How does that
protect us?
If we give up our liberties because of this, the terrorists
will have won.
>Pascal Wager?
>But again, how credible is the threat and how credible are those
>informing us of it?
>If we allow the government unlimited proctoscopic powers must be only
>because there is a CLEAR and PRESENT danger and no better alternative,
>since once granted it is hardly ever relinquished.
>I don't buy the current position: "We know, trust us, we can't tell
>how, and what; please sign this civil rights waiver, right here."
I agree with this. NO convincing case has been made that
ordinary trials are impossible. We've had many such in
the past.
And I once again bring up the case of the supposed Los Alamos
spy. Under this executive order he could have been taken away,
tried, convicted, and shot. Of course, he was innocent even
if the FBI *still* doesn't think so.
----- Paul J. Gans
sophia
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>
>The other courts in the US, including the Supreme Court,
>are *explicitly* denied any jurisdiction in these cases.
>No appeal to another court is possible under these rules.
Surely this hideously ill-thought law goes way beyond the limits of
the power that the US ptresident holds, and strikes at the very heart
of both the US Constitution and the rule of law? I hope the Supreme
Court has something to say about it quickly.
Some weeks ago, I said that I was scared that this crisis would be
used to force through dangerous laws of the ilk of Augustus'
Tribunitian power or Hitler's Enabling Act. I did not realise it would
come so quickly, nor how far these fools would dare go.
--
Sophia
Faith in Fabulousness
www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
icq: 93834408
Paul J Gans
It was last seen being mugged in a Florida voting booth. ;-)
----- Paul J. Gans
Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi
And so is my entire family, going back to my great-grandfather.
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message ...
D. Spencer Hines
Effy, A.K.A Medusa, proves that she'll never be mistaken for a lady.
Vide infra pro risibus.
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi" <eqk...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:RuYI7.7$Gy4...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
| >[..]
Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi
nothing more than for us to undermine our
government as a result of their actions
EKL
Jon Meltzer wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:55:10 -0500, "Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi"
><eqk...@nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Right on the money, tiglath!
>>The constitution of this country does not
>>state that its laws apply only to its citizens.
>>I detest bin Laden and his ilk as much as
>>anyone else. However, the revocation of the
>>founding principles of this country
>>(you know, folks, the ones about fair trial
>>and due process) lead me
>>to wonder whether or not Terrorist inc has
>>succeeded in undermining the very tenets
>>of our system of law and governance.
>
>John Ashcroft, Karl Rowe, Dick Cheney, etc.
>
>Oh, and the guy they have out front giving the speeches.
>
>
>
Michael L. Siemon
<jka...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
+ "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
+
+ > Only if they are terrorists ---- or sheltering, aiding or abetting
+ > terrorists.
+ >
+
+ Then you have a rather touchingly nieve faith in the US justice system.
+ There are good reasons for checks and balances in the legal systems of
+ Western nations. . Stripping them is not a very good idea.
What Hines, and similar morons, can't manage to understand is that,
in _this_ context "are terrorists ---- or sheltering, aiding" etc.
is _exactly_ the same as "it is convenient for the people exercising
power to _claim_ that they are terrorists ---- or etc."
Let us suppose that Ashcroft is an honorable man [sorry, I should have
warned you if you're drinking something hot...]. So are they all, all
honorable men (Rumsfeld, Cheney, the axe-wielder at Interior, etc.).
But what happens when they are succeeded by those (e.g. Democrats)
who are -- by definition, apparently -- less honorable?
D. Spencer Hines
Effy is up to her Old Tricks again.
She's having those palpitations and falling-down sickness fits.
Steady On ---- And Someone Give Her Some Sherry or Elderberry Wine To
Calm Her Down.
We are not "undermining our government".
Medusa is like a pig, a sow I *suppose*, who is squealing before she is
even stuck.
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi" <eqk...@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:AzZI7.9$Gy4...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
Michael L. Siemon
<sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote:
+ In article <9t0sdq$1bv$1...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
+ <ga...@panix.com> writes
+ >
+ >The other courts in the US, including the Supreme Court,
+ >are *explicitly* denied any jurisdiction in these cases.
+ >No appeal to another court is possible under these rules.
+
+
+ Surely this hideously ill-thought law
Note that it is _not_ a law! It is an executive order. The
thing _reeks_ of violent unconstitutionality. The only thing
that stands against it is the egos of the current SCOTUS --
as to policy they [the insufferable 1-vote majority] are surely
all behind their corrupt choice for Prexy.
Paul J Gans
>In article <9t0sdq$1bv$1...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
><ga...@panix.com> writes
>>
>>The other courts in the US, including the Supreme Court,
>>are *explicitly* denied any jurisdiction in these cases.
>>No appeal to another court is possible under these rules.
>Surely this hideously ill-thought law goes way beyond the limits of
>the power that the US ptresident holds, and strikes at the very heart
>of both the US Constitution and the rule of law? I hope the Supreme
>Court has something to say about it quickly.
It isn't a law. It is worse. It is a Presidential Order
which is effective unless and until some Federal Court
says otherwise (which in effect means the Supreme Court).
Given the present court, it is likely, but not at all
certain, that they will rule it unconstitutional.
Star chamber proceedings had a large influence on the
founding of the US. Perhaps even "rule of law" conservatives
will realize that.
Even the NYTimes star conservative columnist, William
Safire, had bad things to say about both the order and
the men who put it forward.
>Some weeks ago, I said that I was scared that this crisis would be
>used to force through dangerous laws of the ilk of Augustus'
>Tribunitian power or Hitler's Enabling Act. I did not realise it would
>come so quickly, nor how far these fools would dare go.
As is said, people who trade their liberty for security
do not merit either.
In the Empire of the Elephants, one left all such matters
of justice and security to the state. One was, in fact,
well advised not to worry about such matters.
As for Hitler's Enabling Act, few here have heard of it
or recall the circumstances. Strange that nobody asks
how Hitler actually gained his power. Terrorists had
something to do with it.... ;-(
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: It is said that all threads die when Hitler is mentioned.
I think in this case mention is warranted. Speaking for myself
I've tended to stay out of countries where one can be arrested
on the whim of the government, kept incommunicado, and perhaps
tried and convicted by a court consisting of men in uniform
doing their duty.
Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi
position on the the executive order
allowing military court trials funny.
Indeed, because I happen to have
not one, but two, ethnic last names,
the question of exactly where my allegiance
may lie was brought up by a particularly
jingoistic individual.
My family has been in this country for three
generations and various members of it
have defended its principles by dying
in our nation's wars. I am deeply
angered by people who wish to
give away what those men died for.
I take this issue most seriously.
It is individuals such as the party
I refer to who make this tribunal
a proposition that shakes the very
foundation our country was built upon.
It is entirely too easy for one to make
a few enemies at the wrong time
and be accused of these crimes.
Where are the safe guards here
to protect the innocent? Or are
people convincing themselves
that only the guilty will be brought
to these proceedings?
I
We are a nation of laws, and the laws
have held up for over two centuries because
the have been held as close to sacred as anything
has ever been held here. I may also remind
people here that our country insists that our citizens
be afforded basic human rights when tried in
other countries and is outraged when they are not.
I do not say these things because they
are the easy thing to say. I say them
because I feel they are they are the
right thing to say at this time.
I fear for our judicial values when we dispose of
them so very easily.
I have said all that I have to say on this matter.
One thing more: I believe that lady-like behavior
is neither warranted nor necessary when one is
addressing a jack-ass.
D. Spencer Hines
Yes, indeed.
Medusa/Effy is squealing like a frightened pig ---- before she has even
been stuck.
Rampant Hysteria.
Give her a strong sedative ---- or at least a glass of sherry.
She falsely accuses people of doing things ---- that are complete lies
and fabrications.
Fraud.
This one is another NYU "scientist".
Lord Love A Duck, If This Is The Best They Can Attract To That Allegedly
"Exclusive" University.
Medusa apparently couldn't cut the mustard at Yale ---- and reportedly
did not secure a tenured position.
Not Surprising.
Deus Vult.
How Sweet It Is!
Brian M. Scott
>As a 'foreign alien' it sure as hell bothers me.
>**************************************************************************
>************************
>If you are not a terrorist you have nothing to fear. If you do not like the
>idea of terrorists getting tried by the military, get the fuck out of my
>country.
It's my country, too, and I have no sympathy for this sort of
hysteria. Your attitude is in the long run a greater danger to the
things I like about my country than terrorism on any scale yet
practised.
BMS
David C. Pugh
Michael L. Siemon <m...@panix.com> wrote in message
> What Hines, and similar morons, can't manage to understand is that,
> in _this_ context "are terrorists ---- or sheltering, aiding" etc.
> is _exactly_ the same as "it is convenient for the people exercising
> power to _claim_ that they are terrorists ---- or etc."
Best one-sentence summary of the problem I've seen!
David
John Kane
Well said. Some reader may (?) know something about mh but seems to
have forgotten Judge Lynch and Sen. Joe McCarthy, Stalinist purges and
other fun 20th Century pastimes.
John Kane
Strangely enough I was thinking I might not visit my American relations
for a while :( I just got a copy of C-36, the Canadian Anti-terrorism
bill which is before the House at the moment so I don't know how bad it is
but it does not seem quite as bad as the order;
Gilmore, Phyllis
"Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi" <eqk...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> I have said all that I have to say on this matter.
> One thing more: I believe that lady-like behavior
> is neither warranted nor necessary when one is
> addressing a jack-ass.
Brava.
One thing I find potentially distressing is the wide range of things for
which an individual, foreign born or otherwise, might get into trouble
that might be used as a useful excuse.
For example, I offer grandma's husband number three. He was a
Philippine national who came to the U.S. "in the nick of time," just
before the Japanese invaded. During the war, his first wife figured out
that he was likely never coming home and divorced him and remarried.
Step-Grampa likewise remarried, was widowed, and then married my
grandmother.
Decades later, the man finally attempted to get his U.S. citizenship.
By then, the *official* record of the divorce had gone missing (IIRC,
someone had torched whatever passed for city hall in his old hometown,
sometime late in the Japanese occupation). Lacking a notarized copy of
the paperwork from city hall, he was a bigamist in the eyes of the INS
et al.--something illegal as hell in both countries.
But the testimony of all the other interested parties in both countries
was that the divorce had happened. The INS was willing to listen, and
allowed the parties to undertake, uhm, swift legal corrections. He was
neither deported nor imprisoned. But then, he never did get his
citizenship.
If the country of origin, the history, and the then-current U.S.
political climate had been different, the story might have ended very
differently.
Phyllis
P.S.--It should be pointed out that I hated the man's guts, but that was
on a purely personal level.
tiglath
If the new powers given to our government by Bush's order are ever
used with any kind of vigor we'll be hard pressed in the future to
object about other countries stepping around due process, as we often
do. The process the order allows for is but a hair's breadth away
from summary justice.
(This is not a good time for Mr. Black to bring Little Willie here and
start a new Shining Path cell, probably a life-long dream of his.
You'll be whisked away, Little Willie, into a secret courtroom and
hooded judges will kick your socialist ass until their feet ache.)
Ahem!
As long as the terrorist nuclear threat is presented as credible, the
government will be spared much of the anger the citizenry would
otherwise vent at their irreverence for civil liberties and yielding
to the temptation to jettison civilian justice. But is that threat
credible?
Bin Laden's goal is not to intimidate but to castigate, if he had such
weapons and a viable plan to deploy them he would have done it. What
is he waiting for? Heavier breathing down his neck?
According to the Washington Post, unnamed U.S. officials dismissed bin
Laden threats as bluff, and "the likelihood of bin Laden possessing a
full-scale nuclear weapon as 'not credible,'" At most, they believe,
a radiological dirty bomb is as much as he could manage to deploy.
William Black
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:LUSI7.1422$tg4....@eagle.america.net...
> Only if they are terrorists ---- or sheltering, aiding or abetting
> terrorists.
>
> these things.
I just love it.
Now imagine your pal Hillary Clinton in power with these powers...
All of a sudden it looks different doesn't it.
Idiot
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
tiglath
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9t3j1h$n31$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
> D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
> news:LUSI7.1422$tg4....@eagle.america.net...
> > Only if they are terrorists ---- or sheltering, aiding or abetting
> > terrorists.
> >
> > Perhaps Gans should emigrate ---- then he won't be so frightened
of
> > these things.
>
> I just love it.
>
> Now imagine your pal Hillary Clinton in power with these powers...
>
> All of a sudden it looks different doesn't it.
>
> Idiot
>
And Little Willie comments on other people's manners...
Mr. Black (a.k.a. Little Willie) seems confused. Senator Clinton is
a leftist, somewhere to the left of Mao Zedong and to the right of
William Black. Whereas if there is anything we know about Mr.
Hines, is that he is not a Democrat, or spouses leftist views, which
makes Mr. Black's jab above just one more of his nincompooperies we've
grown accustomed to.
Only a true befuddle idiot would call Hillary Clinton a pal of Mr.
Hines.
D. Spencer Hines
Little Willie is blowing his wee mouth organ again.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton were elected President of the United States
and we were in the present situation and she issued the same military
order that President Bush has issued, with respect to Military
Commissions ---- I would not have any objections to that whatsoever.
FDR, one of her heroes, did it during World War II.
Indeed, I would be *defending* her decision to do so.
That's one of the salient differences between Hines and Little Willie.
Little Willie doesn't THINK ---- he just has calcified ATTIUDES toward
certain things and certain PEOPLE.
He loves some folks and hates others. He is class-bound and extremely
class-conscious.
In other words, he doesn't RATIOCINATE ---- he just EMOTES in the
well-worn grooves of the Hard-Left and reacts in a predictable knee-jerk
fashion to certain stimuli ---- like a lizard on a cold winter day to a
hot match.
OF COURSE, that's what Little Willie does ---- he's a SOCIALIST ---- no
hard thinking about unique and discrete issues required ---- just follow
the current leader of fashion ---- right over the cliff.
Deus Vult.
Exitus Acta Probat.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9t3j1h$n31$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
|
tiglath
"Jon Meltzer" <jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tclavtcbee430a924...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:47:37 -0500, "tiglath" <tig...@usa.net>
wrote:
>
> >
>
> >And Little Willie comments on other people's manners...
> >
> >Mr. Black (a.k.a. Little Willie) seems confused. Senator Clinton
is
> >a leftist, somewhere to the left of Mao Zedong and to the right of
> >William Black. Whereas if there is anything we know about Mr.
> >Hines, is that he is not a Democrat, or spouses leftist views,
which
> >makes Mr. Black's jab above just one more of his nincompooperies
we've
> >grown accustomed to.
> >
> >Only a true befuddle idiot would call Hillary Clinton a pal of Mr.
> >Hines.
>
> different if the Clintons were the ones proposing what Bush and
> Ashcroft have.
Attempting. Well said.
tiglath
> OF COURSE, that's what Little Willie does ---- he's a SOCIALIST ----
no
> hard thinking about unique and discrete issues required ---- just
follow
> the current leader of fashion ---- right over the cliff.
Left over the cliff, that is.
Little Willie pounds on his keyboard without the benefit of reflexion,
not scholarly not gentlemanly. Perhaps the poor chap has had one
too many a hard knock on his thin helmet with a broadsword or war
hammer during the re-enactment fests he is so fond of.
I am told that there is a good method to reconstruct, rehabilitate,
and re-educate scruffy little socialists. The seminar consists of a
few weekends writing this on a large blackboard over and over again.
"If I write right right, I write right rigth, but if I write right
write, I right write wrong."
Emir
<snip>
> According to the Washington Post, unnamed U.S. officials dismissed bin
> Laden threats as bluff, and "the likelihood of bin Laden possessing a
> full-scale nuclear weapon as 'not credible,'" At most, they believe,
> a radiological dirty bomb is as much as he could manage to deploy.
All the stories about "loose suitcase nukes" started with one man:
Gen. Alexander Lebed and his interview with 60 Minutes. At the time he
had been forced out in a Kremlin power struggle ("squabble" is more
accurate) and had every motivation to get his face on television, and
before the congress. He was, temporarily, the most popular politician
in Russia but facing political oblivion.
He had no corroborating evidence and AFAIR was in office for less
than six months. If his story is in fact true, there is a somewhat
more sensible explanation: that his rivals in the Kremlin heard
his demand for a full accounting (not just of loose nukes, but
of everything) and simply didn't want to give it to him.
Since then think tanks and others have run with the story and
everyone forgets where it began, or that the multitude of his
successors, who also fell from power and had similiar desires
to discredit the Yeltsin administration denied that "suitcase
nukes" were unaccounted for. Nearly every story on this quotes
a media whore who is basically guessing: "I would say it's
ENTIRELY POSSIBLE!"
Fearmongering and shoddy journalism. The possibility is there
(especially of a "dirty nuke" as you say, tiglath), but the
rest of this has been blown out of proportion considering the
original source. One man's unsubstantiated claim has launched
thousands of newspaper stories and buttressed not a few careers.
Emir Kaganovich
D. Spencer Hines
I've already posted and put the lie to that Little Willie canard.
Further, President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft are not
"proposing" anything.
The President, acting as Commander-in-Chief, issued a military order to
the Secretary of Defense. It's not a "proposal". It's a military order
in wartime ---- in the face of a Clear and Present Danger to the lives
of American citizens.
Secretary Rumsfeld is carefully, judiciously, cautiously and reasonably
studying the associated issues. He has asked the General Counsel of the
Defense Department, William J. Haynes II, to research the historical and
legal issues, consider alternative options for implementation of the
military order of the Commander-in-Chief and report his findings and
recommendations back to the Secretary.
There is no "Fascist Plot" here ---- no matter what the wimps and wusses
whine and whimper about.
Rumsfeld indicated all this yesterday, in his press conference. These
hysterical pogues and poguettes, including my pet goose and la femme
Medusa should study the facts before they squeal, scream and run around
like chickens with their heads cut off.
Rumsfeld let the cat out of the bag ---- deliberately or
inadvertently ---- when he said perhaps "one or two" individuals *might*
be assigned to the SECDEF under the provisions of this military order of
the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief.
The administration is obviously thinking of Usama bin Laden and Mullah
Omar ---- IF THEY ARE CAPTURED ALIVE.
A much better solution would be NOT to capture them alive.
But, what if one of them surrenders ---- or is betrayed and turned over
to us ---- or one of the other Al-Qaeda leaders surrenders or is turned
over to us?
This order FILLS THAT CONTINGENCY. Good Management.
It was apparently drafted by Alberto Gonzalez, the White House Counsel,
who just may be President Bush's first appointment to the Supreme Court.
The Honorable Alberto Gonzalez was previously a Justice of the Supreme
Court of the State of Texas.
http://www.politicomagazine.com/gonzaleza121500.html
You people really should keep up with the facts in these matters. I'm
not talking about Joseph in any of this ---- just the pogues and
poguettes ---- the Usual Suspects.
Opinions without facts are worthless.
So, you are all prattling and burbling from the near bottomless pit of
your vast and continuing ignorance.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Jon Meltzer" <jonme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tclavtcbee430a924...@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:47:37 -0500, "tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote:
|
| >
|
| >And Little Willie comments on other people's manners...
| >
| >Mr. Black (a.k.a. Little Willie) seems confused. Senator Clinton is
| >a leftist, somewhere to the left of Mao Zedong and to the right of
| >William Black. Whereas if there is anything we know about Mr.
| >Hines, is that he is not a Democrat, or spouses leftist views, which
| >makes Mr. Black's jab above just one more of his nincompooperies
we've
| >grown accustomed to.
| >
| >Only a true befuddle idiot would call Hillary Clinton a pal of Mr.
| >Hines.
|
D. Spencer Hines
"What the scruffy little socialist meant to say..."
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:9t3lou$gdi$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
D. Spencer Hines
manage to deploy."
Joseph
-------------------------------------------
Indeed. Joseph reports accurately.
A _radiological dirty bomb_, set off in ---- say Washington Square, in
New York City ---- could kill thousands and make for a very messy
clean-up job.
If the radiological agent were Caesium-137, which has a half-life of 30
years, and is easy to come by ---- the lingering effects and the
clean-up would not be a pretty task.
NYU would have to shut down for a while.
Not a great loss in the larger scheme of things. But we don't want
anyone to die ---- even stupid pogues and poguettes, hoist with their
own petards.
How many volunteers do we have for a cleanup? Let's see a show of
hands.
Of course, perhaps the Nervous Nellies are right. Let's wait until
AFTER the next terrorist act to take any of these Clear and Present
Danger steps. There probably isn't any real danger. Hell, it's been
over two months now. Let's get back to normal living.
Why rush into it after all? Let's just leave these tough decisions up
to Barney Frank and Jerry Nadler 'Humpty Dumpty', my pet goose's
Congressman. They probably know best ---- after all. We can just
muddle through.
<Groak!>
Deus Vult.
Dies Irae.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:9t3j35$5dr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
tiglath
One has to consider what would happen if more tragedies occurred and
the government had not created a home security office, passed new
legislation, and give that military order. There is a cover-my-ass
element in all this, ever present in politics.
I listen to Gov. Ridge, and I pity him. He is so busy building Fort
Knox around and empty barn. There is no need for Ridge if we support
and see to market a Palestinian state. Same as the East and West
enmity is a thing of the past, the Middle East conflict soon could be,
if we want. After that and with bin Laden dead, the home security
office will be as busy as a dog with no fleas. Not that work,
progress, and results are necessary to keep a department open, though,
as the Department of Education well attests.
Further, one sees the history of effectiveness of granting new powers
to government to deal with a threat real or perceived. The War on
Drugs has resulted in horrifying abuses. God forbid you are caught
in an airport with say, $9,000 in cash, of your own money. Many
people have had that much and more confiscated by the D.E.A., and
never saw it again, no effective appeal either. The same with
property. Large farms have been confiscated because some hemp was
found growing somewhere on the adjacent land. All for what? Drugs
are still here. And what about the EPA abuses derived from their
weird definition of navigable water ways (a dry creek). .
The Second Amendment is another one. Over 20,000 laws don't seem
enough. They keep asking for more. Yet criminals with guns are
still here. Somehow, local laws find a way to void the Second
Amendment. Why can't New Yorkers or D.C. residents bear arms, and
the people of Phoenix can? Same country, same Constitution, same
right.
We let government slow us down to 55 mph to save gas in 73, but when
gas flowed plentifully again, the speed cap remained. It was as good
as a new tax. Bridges, tunnels, and freeways are paid for and tolls
remain. The pattern is clear. It calls for extreme care letting
government have more power. I thought the party in power were for
less government but they just say so, that's why I didn't vote for
them. They are marginally better than the Democrats, for my taste.
Intelligent, civilized, mature people need very little governing. We
need someone to man the sails to the economic winds, to make foreign
policy, to organize the armed forces and little more. The rest is
nannyism; it is expensive, ineffective, annoying, and... dangerous.
If we capture bin Laden or Omar we should killed them mercifully,
forthwith. A greater good -- it will save lives. We are at war. We
may or may not take prisoners. We don't need another circus.
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:TmdJ7.1710$tg4....@eagle.america.net...
D. Spencer Hines
so, that's why I didn't vote for them. They are marginally better than
the Democrats, for my taste. Intelligent, civilized, mature people need
very little governing. We need someone to man the sails to the economic
winds, to make foreign policy, to organize the armed forces and little
more. The rest is nannyism; it is expensive, ineffective, annoying,
and... dangerous."
Not Clear.
You voted for Bush and Cheney or not?
Perhaps it was Gore or Nader ---- or nobody.
Hmmmmmm.
Who was the Anarchist Party candidate?
tiglath
> "I thought the party in power were for less government but they just say
> so, that's why I didn't vote for them. They are marginally better than
> the Democrats, for my taste. Intelligent, civilized, mature people need
> very little governing. We need someone to man the sails to the economic
> winds, to make foreign policy, to organize the armed forces and little
> more. The rest is nannyism; it is expensive, ineffective, annoying,
> and... dangerous."
> ---------------------
>
> Not Clear.
If I HAD to vote for either party I would vote Republican, but I didn't have
to. My choice is called a "wasted vote" by some, but I can't vote neither
for rampant Democratic nannyism, nor the religious right. Both parties are
also guilty of big government fever, and the inability to police themselves
as far as campaign contributions, lobbying, term limits, and excessive
taxation. Surplus? There shouldn't be any surplus. I got $600 back, just
like the guy who paid half my taxes. I can compete with any Jew when it
comes to tolerating people reaching into my pocket.
> Who was the Anarchist Party candidate?
Still looking.
Anarchy with guns. Try it; you never go back.
D. Spencer Hines
You might find a home here.
http://www.darkhorse2000.com/html/p-utopiananarch.html
THE UTOPIAN ANARCHIST PARTY
"PARTY OVERVIEW
The Utopian Anarchist Party's URL pretty much sums up their approach to
politics. In case you still aren't sure of their stance, their slogan
"militant anti-government anarchism at its best" should remove all
doubt.
Up to this point, the UAP has been hell-bent on changing the face of
school boards all over Maryland, or at least in Montgomery County. Now,
"older and wiser," Bill White, the party's former anarchist-communist
candidate has reformed himself into a libertarian socialist, moved his
campaign to the Libertarian Socialist Party (Not to be confused with
those loveable Enviro-Nazis, the Libertarian National Socialist Green
Party) and whispers are heard of a Campaign 2000É
BTW - the UAP site still exists, but now features a handy guide to the
manufacture and use of various drugs and explosives, including
instructions on how to build your own atomic bomb (Don't they realize
that this kind of stuff gives anarchy a bad name?) and the adventures of
Pyro Girl, a kid who really wants to set the world on fire. We think it
might be an entertaining read, but we didn't get very far because the
boneheads who built the site put black type on a dark red background."
Sounds like they would welcome you with open arms. <g>
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"tiglath" <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:9t47gr$2t8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Michael L. Siemon
wrote:
+ "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
+ news:9t3j1h$n31$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
+ >
+ > D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
+ > news:LUSI7.1422$tg4....@eagle.america.net...
+ > > Only if they are terrorists ---- or sheltering, aiding or abetting
+ > > terrorists.
+ > >
+ > > Perhaps Gans should emigrate ---- then he won't be so frightened
+ of
+ > > these things.
+ >
+ > I just love it.
+ >
+ > Now imagine your pal Hillary Clinton in power with these powers...
+ >
+ > All of a sudden it looks different doesn't it.
+ >
+ > Idiot
+ >
+
+ And Little Willie comments on other people's manners...
+
+ Mr. Black (a.k.a. Little Willie) seems confused. Senator Clinton is
+ a leftist, somewhere to the left of Mao Zedong and to the right of
+ William Black. Whereas if there is anything we know about Mr.
+ Hines, is that he is not a Democrat, or spouses leftist views, which
+ makes Mr. Black's jab above just one more of his nincompooperies we've
+ grown accustomed to.
+
+ Only a true befuddle idiot would call Hillary Clinton a pal of Mr.
+ Hines.
Oh dear.
Tiglath -- you have simply demonstrated your lack of native compentence
in English (at least of the 'Merkin variety, though I think the point
would be the same in the Queen's English.) Mr. Black is _twitting_ Hines
-- and his point is quite good: would Hines favor these powers for an
administration [and Hilary is not really a good example, since Senators
don't have adminstrations, but one more or less takes the point anyway]
run by those he loathes and distrusts?
tiglath
> So, you voted for nobody, Nader ---- or someone else?
Libertarian.
As someone who has more faith in Santa Claus than government should.
I am not a government employee, but I have worked for the government for ten
years. Several departments. I've learned by observation and experience
that most government solutions either don't work or have a horrendous
cost/benefit ratio. Private enterprise does much better. In government,
critical projects succeed only when exceptional conditions are created,
which resemble the normal conditions under which industry operates, or
because outside contractors bring high octane manpower into it. Many
projects, specially software projects, end up as costly failures.
When I was with Price-Waterhouse Coopers, I worked for the Department of
Defense. The first week I was there I witnessed a GS15 (a high-ranking
government employee) order thousands of PCs with Intel 486 CPUs, just weeks
before the Pentium hit the market. By the time the PCs were delivered,
months later, Pentiums were everywhere. There was a tremendous uproar,
followed by a search for the guilty and the punishment of the innocent.
That GS15 female never batted an eyelid. She continue to spend her days
talking on the phone to friends, do little work, and annoy people around
her, who were paid to think, with her loud squeaky voice. When Judgment Day
finally came, she was promoted out of the project into the executive ladder
making over $120,000.
You do that in the private sector and they bury you. The less government
does, the more of the country is being run as a business -- always a good
thing.
As I said before, secrecy, which is necessary in many projects, is used
routinely as a shield to circumvent accountability. There are genuine
secrets and there are other type of secrets which are nothing but
well-hidden gross acts of negligence.
What I've seen of government tells me that there is a dire need to minimize
it. The libertarians seem to understand that. They have no chance in hell
but at least their message is some faint reminder of the problem: a large
part of each dollar we pay in taxes is mismanaged or wasted away. In "The
Government Racket 2000 : All New Washington Waste from A to Z" by Martin L.
Gross, Gross estimates it is as high as 50 cents of each dollar. I am not
surprised.
D. Spencer Hines
mired in British class-consciousness and Hard-Left "Us versus Themism".
Little Willie knows that if HE and his MATES were in the saddle
politically ---- and could do all sorts of things to injure their
adversaries ---- he would do so in a flash.
So, he can't imagine that anyone *else* would not feel the same way.
FEEL is the operative word here, not THINK, when we are referring to
Little Willie.
He doesn't THINK at all, with reference to issues of this sort, he just
has ATTITUDES ---- scruffy-little-socialist attitudes. Proles versus
Toffs.
If Hillary Clinton were President of the United States right now I
should HOPE that she'd have the good sense to sign a military order to
HER Secretary of Defense just like this one President Bush has signed.
I would strongly support her in that action, just as I support President
Bush.
However, Hillary needs to get elected POTUS and Commander-in-Chief
first.
Right now, she's just one of 100 Senators ---- and a very junior
Senator indeed.
Deus Vult.
tiglath
>
> Tiglath -- you have simply demonstrated your
> in English (at least of the 'Merkin [sic]
> variety, though I think the point
> Mr. Black is _twitting_ Hines -- and his point is
> quite good: would Hines favor these powers for an
> is not really a good example, since Senators [sic]
> don't have adminstrations [sic],
> but one more or less takes the point anyway]
> run by those he loathes and distrusts?
Good Lord. How would you know?
David C. Pugh
tiglath <tig...@usa.net> wrote in message news:9t4qkv$sh6
(...)
> When I was with Price-Waterhouse Coopers, I worked for the
Department of> Defense. The first week I was there I witnessed a
GS15 (a high-ranking> government employee) order thousands of PCs with
Intel 486 CPUs, just weeks> before the Pentium hit the market. By
the time the PCs were delivered,> months later, Pentiums were
everywhere. There was a tremendous uproar,> followed by a search for
the guilty and the punishment of the innocent.> That GS15 female never
batted an eyelid. She continue to spend her days> talking on the
phone to friends, do little work, and annoy people around> her, who
were paid to think, with her loud squeaky voice. When Judgment Day>
finally came, she was promoted out of the project into the executive
ladder> making over $120,000.
>
> You do that in the private sector and they bury you.
(...)
Nice story, and I'm sympathetic up to a point, but I'm not sure of
that last sentence there. Like yourself, I'm a private contractor,
with both government and business clients. It seems to me that
"management" is simply the art of shifting blame for incompetence --
punishing the innocent, as you put it -- and that this applies in both
the public and the private sectors. Why else would Scott Adams be such
a huge success? People recognise Mr. Pointy-hair in their own
private-sector workplaces. And the Peter Principle, of which your GS15
seems to be an example, was meant to apply to both, surely?
David
"How many people work in government?"
"About half of them"
D. Spencer Hines
Commission or Tribunal of seven officers, all generals, in 1942, at the
direction of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ---- was actually a
U.S. citizen.
His name was Herman Haupt. He was found guilty and electrocuted in
Washington, D.C. on 8 August 1942, along with five other German
terrorists ---- saboteurs.
FDR himself determined the time and place for the executions. FDR was a
very "liberal" Democrat ---- not some sort of "Fascist Republican" ----
as some think President Bush to be.
"The youngest member of the team, Herbert Haupt, had gone back to his
parents in Chicago and told them everything. He used some of his
sabotage money to buy a new car, and he proposed to his girlfriend, who
had had a miscarriage. Then he dropped into the local FBI office to
clear up his draft problems. He explained that he had been away when he
should have registered and had since reported to his draft board.
The FBI seemed to accept the explanation, but when Haupt left the
office, agents followed him. They trailed him for three days in hopes
he would lead them to Neubauer. When that did not happen, they arrested
him, and he told them where they could find the last member of his
team."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=
631
http://www.thehistorynet.com/worldwarii/articles/1997/02973_text.htm
Deus Vult.
Dies Irae.
William Black
I can't tell in the mess below who posted what
I'd given up using <irony-on> and <irony-off> flags for a bit, but Hines
and Tiggy are obviously so dense I'm going to have to start using them
again...
Hey ho, Christmas is coming...
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:QAdJ7.1713$tg4....@eagle.america.net...
William Black
> I am told that there is a good method to reconstruct, rehabilitate,
> and re-educate scruffy little socialists. The seminar consists of a
> few weekends writing this on a large blackboard over and over again.
>
> "If I write right right, I write right rigth, but if I write right
> write, I right write wrong."
And this is no doubt done in a re-education camp of some sort, complete
with guards and jackboots and all the rest of the machinery of oppression.
You just get nastier don't you.
Paul J Gans
>I have said all that I have to say on this matter.
>One thing more: I believe that lady-like behavior
>is neither warranted nor necessary when one is
>addressing a jack-ass.
<APPLAUSE!!!!>
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>>I have said all that I have to say on this matter.
>>One thing more: I believe that lady-like behavior
>>is neither warranted nor necessary when one is
>>addressing a jack-ass.
>He misses the old days, when military intelligence officers were
>Harvard and Yale graduates given jobs through their family and school
>connections; when all that one had to do at work was to sit all day at
>the officer's club sipping sherry and sneering at the local wogs.
Which is precisely why we had no clue as to what was going on.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Brava.
Oh yes. I am not reassured by being told that the rules will
be crafted very carefully. I've lived through several "scares"
in this country. With that order on the books, will the next
gang of folks running the country be as careful? For that matter,
will *this* gang of folks be careful?
>Phyllis
>P.S.--It should be pointed out that I hated the man's guts, but that was
>on a purely personal level.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
>news:LUSI7.1422$tg4....@eagle.america.net...
>> Only if they are terrorists ---- or sheltering, aiding or abetting
>> terrorists.
>>
>> Perhaps Gans should emigrate ---- then he won't be so frightened of
>> these things.
>I just love it.
>Now imagine your pal Hillary Clinton in power with these powers...
>All of a sudden it looks different doesn't it.
>Idiot
It is a standard tactic of those who do not believe in
the Constitution of the United States to say "leave the
country" to those whose opinions they do not like. I
think I'll stay and keep making my opinions known.
What ever happened to the "free market place of ideas?"
Hines is an excellent example of why the President's order
scares me. Can you imagine *him* as a member of a tribunal?
And there would be no recourse.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Paul J Gans
>Emir Kaganovich
Well said! I agree.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
of the United States to say "leave the country" to those whose opinions
they do not like."
Paul J. Gans
-------------------------
More hyperbolic, hysterical twaddle from my pet goose.
Someone please bring him another change of fresh underwear.
Gans, a charter member of the Leftover Hard-Left, doesn't want to admit
that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, one of his Great Heroes, set up
*precisely* the same sorts of military tribunals or commissions during
World War II.
FDR even tried a U.S. citizen in one of them. President Bush is not
going to do that.
Let Gans prove that FDR didn't believe in the Constitution of the United
States. Indeed that's what Gans MUST do, in order to prove his case.
This should be fun to watch.
How Sweet It Is!
D. Spencer Hines
From _The New York Times_, Holy Bible of the Hard-Left, no less:
"The incident that was uppermost on the minds of Bush administration
officials in setting up tribunals took place in June 1942, when Nazi
Germany dispatched eight saboteurs to this country to blow up war
industries, four landing by submarine at Amagansett Beach, L.I., and
four at Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. After the men were caught, President
Roosevelt ordered them tried by a military tribunal for war crimes, with
no access to civilian courts and juries.
Lawyers for the men persuaded the United States Supreme Court to hear
their case, noting that one of the Germans was the son of naturalized
American citizens. But a unanimous court ruled that both citizens and
noncitizens lose the protections of the American legal system when they
become enemy agents in wartime. Six of the men were executed by
military courts; two were given prison sentences after cooperating with
authorities, and later paroled."
--------------------------------------------------------
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did that ---- for good reason ----
and the Supreme Court backed him up.
D. Spencer Hines
(1946)_ revealed, the Territorial Government of Hawaii and the Army were
adjudged to have overstepped their proper bounds of authority ---- and
the Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Duncan.
The Bush Administration is obviously quite aware of this Supreme Court
decision as well.
http://lawbooksusa.com/cconlaw/duncanvkahanamoku.htm
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
| As I Have Been Saying...
|
| From _The New York Times_, Holy Bible of the Hard-Left, no less:
|
| "The incident that was uppermost on the minds of Bush administration
| officials in setting up tribunals took place in June 1942, when Nazi
| Germany dispatched eight saboteurs to this country to blow up war
| industries, four landing by submarine at Amagansett Beach, L.I., and
| four at Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla. After the men were caught, President
| Roosevelt ordered them tried by a military tribunal for war crimes,
| with no access to civilian courts and juries.
|
| Lawyers for the men persuaded the United States Supreme Court to hear
| their case, noting that one of the Germans was the son of naturalized
| American citizens. But a unanimous court ruled that both citizens and
| noncitizens lose the protections of the American legal system when
| they become enemy agents in wartime. Six of the men were executed by
| military courts; two were given prison sentences after cooperating
| with authorities, and later paroled."
| --------------------------------------------------------
|
| President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did that ---- for good reason ----
| and the Supreme Court backed him up.
|
| Deus Vult.
|
| "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
| do nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
|
D. Spencer Hines
Duncan v. Kahanamoku
Argued December 7, 1945
Decided February 25, 1946*
[*Together with No. 15, White v. Steer, Provost Marshal, on certiorari
to the same court, argued and decided on the same dates.]
327 U.S. 304
Note, in particular, the second petitioner, a civilian stockbroker in
Honolulu. He won his case too.
http://www.usscplus.com/online/index.asp?case=3270304
Fascinating Reading ---- And All Quite Relevant Today ---- Pro *And*
Con.
Learn the facts *first* ---- before going hyperbolic, whiny and
hysterical ---- as some have been doing.
Deus Vult.
Exitus Acta Probat.
Martin Reboul
no-one else (apart from me) has bothered. Is this a cracked record?
Yawn
Martin
D. Spencer Hines
Barr, a Justice Department lawyer -- and later attorney general -- under
the first President Bush, as a way to handle the terrorists responsible
for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
The idea didn't take back then. But Barr floated it to top White House
officials in the days after Sept. 11 and this time he found allies,
Newsweek reports. Barr's inspiration came when he walked by a plaque
outside his office commemorating the trial of Nazi saboteurs captured
during World War II. The men were tried and most were executed in secret
by a special military tribunal."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/1
1-18-2001/0001618256&EDATE=
wba...@panix.com
: Right on the money, tiglath!
: The constitution of this country does not
: state that its laws apply only to its citizens.
: I detest bin Laden and his ilk as much as
: anyone else. However, the revocation of the
: founding principles of this country
: (you know, folks, the ones about fair trial
: and due process) lead me
: to wonder whether or not Terrorist inc has
: succeeded in undermining the very tenets
: of our system of law and governance.
: tiglath wrote in message <9t0qhr$8hs$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
:>
:>"Chris Keller" <mtlo...@aol.com> wrote in message
:>news:20011115111534...@mb-cu.aol.com...
:>> As a 'foreign alien' it sure as hell bothers me.
:>>
:>**********************************************************************
:>****
:>> ************************
:>> If you are not a terrorist you have nothing to fear. If you do not
:>like the
:>> idea of terrorists getting tried by the military, get the fuck out
:>of my
:>> country.
:>>
:>> For my part I think Bin Laden should be hung and allowed to strangle
:>slowly.
:>> Then he could dance the Devil's dance while he shits and pisses all
:>over
:>> himself.
:>
:>A noble warrior kills efficiently and reluctantly and never gloats.
:>
:>Let's grant this Jihad warriors their wish to be with God as quickly
:>as possible. We are (or should not be) in the business of revenge and
:>torture. Quickly eliminate them and return to what we do best,
:>enjoying life and fulfilling our personal hopes and dreams. Or is
:>our advance to be technological only as we remain philosophically
:>medieval?
:>
:>I deplore that in fighting a third world country and a few hotheads we
:>find necessary to set aside part of the freedom that is being attacked
:>and we are trying to defend, and so many have died for. Turning into
:>a police state to fight those who live under a police state is
:>ludicrous. There is no need for a permanent constrain on our
:>freedom, if the government is so desperate, an emergency state would
:>give it the temporary police powers it needs to get rid of the
:>nuisance.
:>
It occurs to me, from what I have been hearing , that everyone is worried
about a O.J.Simpson kind of trial with showy lawyers grandstanding, etc.
It strikes mae that the simplest thing to would be to ban TV from the
courtroom so there was nothing for the 24 hour newsstations to keep
showing over and over endlessly. Without the TV to grandstand for, the
trials should go much faster. It sure beats cancelling the Constitution
Wendy Baker
StNeel
>More hyperbolic, hysterical twaddle from my pet goose.
>
>Someone please bring him another change of fresh underwear.
>
>Gans, a charter member of the ....<snip more hysteria>
No- Hines. Gans is right and personal attacks on him do not make you point of
view correct.
>Let Gans prove that FDR didn't believe in the Constitution of the United
>States. Indeed that's what Gans MUST do, in order to prove his case.
Hogwash. The Constitution stands alone no matter what Mr. Roosevelt believed or
did not believe, or even what you or I 'believe'. That is the way the legal
system works. :-)
By the way, do you do any honest work at Yale? Such as teaching? Hmmm. Just a
thought. Let us all know, if you are so inclinded. :-)
>This should be fun to watch.
>
>How Sweet It Is!
Ah yes. I like your pro-American zeal but with all that blood rushing, heart
pounding and red faced energy, I think you ought to sign up to jump into
Afghanistan. But, in way, I like your postings - sort of like pepper in chili.
Just slow down and think every now and them. Secret trials are of a concern to
us all. Something about Louis 14th and a man in an iron mask. :-)
Regards
StNeel
Efthimia T. Kokotos Leonardi
Paul J Gans
I agree. If by some chance we do take bin Laden alive, he
must be put on public trial and be seen to get a fair trial.
Anything less and we will have created a martyr and a myth.
Both, as anyone who reads medieval history knows, are very
powerful.
This isn't a war in the sense of the Second World War. It
isn't a battle for territory. This is as much a battle for
minds as it is anything else.
The Second World War precedent which is being talked about
in the papers is even more scary in the present context. One
of the Nazi spies was an American citizen. If that is the
precedent the President is using, I think that we are in very
deep trouble indeed.
Just my opinion.
----- Paul J. Gans
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> The Second World War precedent which is being talked about
> in the papers is even more scary in the present context. One
> of the Nazi spies was an American citizen. If that is the
> precedent the President is using, I think that we are in very
> deep trouble indeed.
I think the scariest thing isn't the precedent but the attitude
publicly displayed by the administration which seems to
amount to "these people did X, Y and Z and don't deserve
due process" and which contains a vast presumption of guilt!
Only slightly less worrying is the recent step-up in propaganda
which seems aimed at painting almost all members of the
Taleban as terrorists. Almost every phrase goes something
like "Al Qa'ida and the Taleban . . ." and consciously links
both with terrorism. I wonder if this is setting up military trials
for Taleban leaders, though I guess the "harbouring" clause
covers that anyway.
As pointed out a while ago (by David Pugh I think)
phrases like "terrorist artillery" and "terrorist forces" are
rather jarring but I've heard both from the administration
this weekend.
--- Tony Jebson