First helmet laws, now this...
Peckham
allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of terrorist
activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught to
be shaking in our boots.
The extraordinary sweep of the Bush order covers millions of resident aliens
in this country: people with green cards. Any one of them could be brought
before a military tribunal, instead of a regular court, if the president
said he or she has "aided" terrorism or "harbored" a terrorist. In our
system of guilty until proven innocent... wait a minute -- something is
wrong here.
Mostly from the New York Times:
- Military officers, who are dependent on their superiors for promotion,
would act as judge and jury.
- A two-thirds vote of commission members present at the time would be
sufficient to convict - and to impose any sentence.
- The defendant could be barred, on security grounds, from seeing the
evidence against him.
- The defendant could not appeal to "any court of the United States or any
state."
- The trials could be held in secret.
What confidence could the world have in the justice of such a proceeding?
Such confidence is crucial. The Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders, in open
court before an international tribunal, had a profound long-term effect in
bringing Germans back to democracy and humanity.
If Mr. Bush's order had been limited to suspected foreign terrorists
captured in Afghanistan or other foreign countries, it would have been more
persuasive legally. It would parallel the use of a military commission to
try Nazi saboteurs who were landed in the U.S. by submarine in World War
II - a use upheld by the Supreme Court. Sweeping millions of resident
aliens under the order seems to violate the principle that civilians should
not be subject to military law in this country. The Supreme Court held that
imposing martial law in Hawaii in World War II was unconstitutional.
In recent years conservatives have given striking support to civil liberty.
So it was sad to find some conservative voices enlisting behind the Bush
order. Terrorists deserve no better, they argued. But of course the question
to be decided at a trial -- a fair trial -- is whether they are terrorists.
Not just the nature of Mr. Bush's order but the way it was done smacked of
illegitimacy. It was sudden, peremptory, without even a nod to consulting
Congress.
Hey, you guys were right -- first they took away our right to ride without a
helmet, and now they are starting to take away our right to a fair trial --
the slippery slope. It's funny how when we see this stuff happening in other
countries we start howling about human rights violations. Hell, I hear more
howling when someone proposes emissions standards. I guess it's all in your
priorities.
Klam
citizen should or shouldn't have in the first place..............!
Don't think Girl Wonder needs to worry about because she doesn't fit the
profile!
Kenny
Proud US Citizen since June 19, 1993.
"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
news:A0ZM7.86168$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
culprit
"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
news:A0ZM7.86168$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
<snip a bunch of fascinating and thought provoking, but totally off topic
stuff.>
no offence, but i'm curious, aren't there a whole shitload of political
newsgroups where people are actually looking to have political discussions?
any particular reason you post this here instead of one of these other
newsgroups? i don't particularly disagree with your viewpoint here, but it
seems silly to post it to a ng where no one really cares.
ObMoto: looks like aprilia is going to produce the blue marlin after all.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/detail?sectionID=50677&documentID=113064
--
-kelly
01 Aprilia Falco
00 Aprilia Pegaso
Nikita Synytskyy
"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote
> Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
> allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of
terrorist
> activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught
to
> be shaking in our boots.
And you know why this thing made it to law?..
Because for an average US citizen, "foreign nationals" are always "them",
and never "us". "Them" are perceived as human junk that wash dishes in
restaurants for $5 an hour, guys with bad teeth who murder their grandmas
while smoking marijuana, the unwashed who live on the streets. So who cares
if they are arrested, right?
Too many people forgot that the only true Americans are those that lived
here before Columbus. The rest are simply descendants of dish-washing scum
with bad teeth, and not too many generations removed.
Sooner than you know, the children of foreign nationals will also be fair
game, and members of their family, their friends and acquaintances...
everyone, in short.
Now, the big question is how to stop shit like that from happening without
going into politics or starting a revolution. Any ideas?
Nikita.
--
We are what we repeatedly do. Failure, then, is not an act, but a habit.
Pococj
>Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
>allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of terrorist
>activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught to
>be shaking in our boots.
(Snip some stuff)>- Military officers, who are dependent on their superiors for
promotion,
>would act as judge and jury.
>- A two-thirds vote of commission members present at the time would be
>sufficient to convict - and to impose any sentence.
>- The defendant could be barred, on security grounds, from seeing the
>evidence against him.
>- The defendant could not appeal to "any court of the United States or any
>state."
>- The trials could be held in secret.
>
(Snip some more stuff)
While not quite the same, these rules are very similar to regular military
courtsmartial proceedings. Haven't heard any one concerned about them,
recently.
PocoCJ
72XLCH 42WLA 73XLH 85XL 72XLH 78FLH 87FLST
FREEDOM AIN'T NEVER BEEN FREE!
John 3:16
Christian Motorcyclists Association #82636
Gospel Riders, Longview, TX
Timberwoof
"Klam" <kenn...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> I think we need to out line what kind of "constitution rights" a "non" U.S.
> citizen should or shouldn't have in the first place..............!
>
> Don't think Girl Wonder needs to worry about because she doesn't fit the
> profile!
>
> Kenny
> Proud US Citizen since June 19, 1993.
Well, you seem qualified to render an impartial opinion on that
question. What constitutional rights do non-citizens have in the US? Can
you point out where in the Constitution any exceptions are made based on
citizenship?
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com>
a motorcycle faq: http://www.infernosoft.com/timberwoof/motorcycle/faq.shtml
Holly Ober
: no offence, but i'm curious, aren't there a whole shitload of political
: newsgroups where people are actually looking to have political discussions?
: any particular reason you post this here instead of one of these other
: newsgroups? i don't particularly disagree with your viewpoint here, but it
: seems silly to post it to a ng where no one really cares.
Gosh, he mentioned helmet laws. Maybe he should've mentioned gun
control, too. Since when are politics off-topic for reeky?
Timberwoof
"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote:
> Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
> allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of terrorist
> activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught to
> be shaking in our boots.
Where was this reported?
When I was younger, I studied the signs that were to be seen by Germans
during the '30s and thought about under what circumstances one should
leave a country. I gave up on this during the '90s, for that sort of
paranoid thinking is not healthy, and the Clinton Administration wasn't
bent on ruining people's civil rights. This new development has me
worried ... if such a thing were to happen, there could be no appeal,
for of the US wanted to get rid of someone, they'd just do it with
impunity and manufactured evidence.
The witch-hunts are going to begin soon.
culprit
"Holly Ober" <ez05...@logan.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:9u1oaj$ddn$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> Gosh, he mentioned helmet laws. Maybe he should've mentioned gun
> control, too. Since when are politics off-topic for reeky?
are non-moto related politics off topic? absolutely. out of character?
perhaps not. i'm just curious why certain people post more non-moto stuff
than on topic posts. that's all. i'm not criticizing, i'm just curious.
Peckham
"Pococj" <poc...@aol.comfergitit> wrote in message
news:20011127230420...@mb-fz.aol.com...
> While not quite the same, these rules are very similar to regular military
> courtsmartial proceedings. Haven't heard any one concerned about them,
> recently.
Remotely similar. Bush's rules permit secret arrests, secret charges using
secret evidence, secret prosecutions, secret witnesses, secret trials,
secret convictions, secret sentencing and secret executions.
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
>Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
>allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of terrorist
>activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught to
>be shaking in our boots.
Overreacting, as usual. The feds could care less about non citizens,
like GW. And in case you didn't notice, we're at war. Maybe if they'd
have knocked down the space needle, you'd be singing out of the other
side of your mouth. IOW, easy to talk shit, when it all went DOWN 3K
miles away.
Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about. OTOH,
it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
military>;)
[...]
01 Sprint ST "RED"
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Barbara Standley
"culprit" <kelly_...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9u1os0$5ki00$1...@ID-58739.news.dfncis.de...
ipso factoid, it must be true!!! I was kinda wondering meself. Dunno
Aprillas' just don't do "it" for me. Must "drain bamaged" now a 'Guzzi
on the other hand...'scue me gotta wipe my chin.
keith,s
--
Need Money For : BEER, HORSE & HOOKER!
(Hey at least I'm not bullshitting you)
>
>
>
Barbara Standley
"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
news:A0ZM7.86168$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
<whack the newspaper crap>
hmmph, Peck the Military officers" have the errors of the past to warn
them of tommorow. You are more likely to get justice in a military court
of law than in civilian courts.
keith,s (DoD member since '83)[1]
[1] not this DOD the other one.
--
"I realize that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred or
bitterness towards anyone."
-Edith Cavell, Last words
Peckham
>
> "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
> news:A0ZM7.86168$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
> <snip a bunch of fascinating and thought provoking, but totally off topic
> stuff.>
>
> no offence, but i'm curious, aren't there a whole shitload of political
> newsgroups where people are actually looking to have political
discussions?
> any particular reason you post this here instead of one of these other
> newsgroups?
Yeah... it's where I hang out. As a motorcyclist I hang out with other
motorcyclists, and we tend to discuss more than blue pipes, the best tires,
and counter-steering. When I first started lurking here, I thought this was
a firearms newsgroup.
I find it interesting that on all four mc related lists/ngs that I regularly
participate in or follow (LA Biker List, Sprint RS List, Trimph Digest and
rec.moto) they all seem to have similar content.
>and I
i don't particularly disagree with your viewpoint here, but it
> seems silly to post it to a ng where no one really cares.
I think you'll find that a lot of people do care about these issues -- or at
least a sizable number of 'em will post reponses.
> ObMoto: looks like aprilia is going to produce the blue marlin after all.
>
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/detail?sectionID=50677&documentID=113064
>
Cool bike. I'd like to see it in person. I also think it would be cool to
sell them on the net like Ducati did with their limited edition last year.
At the same time, I like the idea of being able to see one at moto-i.
Peckham
"Timberwoof" <sp...@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:spam-73239D.2...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In article <A0ZM7.86168$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com>,
> "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote:
>
> > Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
> > allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of
terrorist
> > activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us
aught to
> > be shaking in our boots.
>
> Where was this reported?
I read this in the NY Times, but this has also been all over the news.
Tonight I watched the Newshour with Jim Leher, which was the catalyst for a
post.
csoto
>In article <KbZM7.5840$Da6.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
> "Klam" <kenn...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> I think we need to out line what kind of "constitution rights" a "non" U.S.
>> citizen should or shouldn't have in the first place..............!
>>
>> Don't think Girl Wonder needs to worry about because she doesn't fit the
>> profile!
>>
>> Kenny
>> Proud US Citizen since June 19, 1993.
>
>Well, you seem qualified to render an impartial opinion on that
>question. What constitutional rights do non-citizens have in the US? Can
>you point out where in the Constitution any exceptions are made based on
>citizenship?
Matters of State are fundamentally goverened by treaties and standards of
international accord. Mostly, U.S. citizens convicted of crimes abroad don't
get tried as war criminals. Every nation on the planet should immediately stop
diplomatic relations with us and detain illegal U.S. citizens within their
borders. Elian Gonzales, my ass!
Charles
--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1979 KZ650, 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"
Free Tibet!*
* With purchase of equal or greater value. Not available in all stores.
While supplies last. Void where prohibited by law. As seen on TV.
(If you can't figure out my email, you should unplug the WebTV and lie down.)
Holly Ober
: Overreacting, as usual. The feds could care less about non citizens,
: like GW. And in case you didn't notice, we're at war. Maybe if they'd
: have knocked down the space needle, you'd be singing out of the other
: side of your mouth. IOW, easy to talk shit, when it all went DOWN 3K
: miles away.
An illegal law threatens all of us. This decision makes it possible for
the government to deny people rights guaranteed to every individual
regardless of citizenship status for trial by jury, right to counsel, and
due process. How far are you willing to let them eat away at the
Constitution? http://www.aclu.org/action/dueprocess107.html
: Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about. OTOH,
: it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
: cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
: military>;)
: [...]
: 01 Sprint ST "RED"
: Bob Nixon
: http://members.home.net/bigrex/
--
csoto
_Bob Nixon_ <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:40:16 GMT, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
>>allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of terrorist
>>activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught to
>>be shaking in our boots.
>
>Overreacting, as usual. The feds could care less about non citizens,
>like GW. And in case you didn't notice, we're at war. Maybe if they'd
>have knocked down the space needle, you'd be singing out of the other
>side of your mouth. IOW, easy to talk shit, when it all went DOWN 3K
>miles away.
We haven't been at war for nearly six decades.
And, it's GOING DOWN right here in my town. "Arab" foreigners are being
harassed and treated entirely not how this citizen wants them to be.
>Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about. OTOH,
>it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
>cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
>military>;)
>
>
>[...]
> 01 Sprint ST "RED"
> Bob Nixon
>http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Oh, they have TONS to worry about. If I were here on a visa, I would NOT agree
to be "interviewed" whatsoever. If any of the many foreigners I know are
harassed, I'll do whatever I can to protect them from this. Don't assume that
the only way to serve one's country is to carry a weapon. Dr. Martin Luther
King might have something to say about that.
Peckham
"_Bob Nixon_" <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:H2YEPNE5nasdA8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:40:16 GMT, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
> >allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of
terrorist
> >activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught
to
> >be shaking in our boots.
>
> Overreacting, as usual. The feds could care less about non citizens,
> like GW.
Bullshit. She comes from a country full of terrorists.
>And in case you didn't notice, we're at war.
Show me the declaration.
>Maybe if they'd
> have knocked down the space needle, you'd be singing out of the other
> side of your mouth.
My family lives in NY. My father worked in the WTC for years. It was three
days after the WTC attack that I was finally able to account for their
whereabouts. Thus, no matter which side of my mouth I talk out of, I would
be saying the same thing.
>IOW, easy to talk shit, when it all went DOWN 3K
> miles away.
I think that you might be the one with stinky breath here.
> Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about.
Bullshit. If you gave shelter to someone who turned out to be a terrorist,
you could find yourself before a secret tribunal.
OTOH,
> it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
> cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
> military>;)
Man, you are batting zero today -- better stay away from your bike or you'll
end up with another broken foot. FYI, I have spent at least an hour in the
military, but they sent me home for medical reasons.
Alan Moore
wrote:
Yeah, my wife thought it was OK under the circumstances, until I asked
her the question, what do you say when the FBI comes around for one of
us, or one of the kids, and says "well, you (or I or whomever) was
named in the trial of xxxx as a financial supporter of yyyyy terrorist
organization."
The public trial provisions of our system of civil rights protect more
than just the one accused at the trial.
Al Moore
DoD 734
Alan Moore
wrote:
>
>"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
>news:A0ZM7.86168$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
><snip a bunch of fascinating and thought provoking, but totally off topic
>stuff.>
>
>no offence, but i'm curious, aren't there a whole shitload of political
>newsgroups where people are actually looking to have political discussions?
None taken, and yes, there are.
>any particular reason you post this here instead of one of these other
>newsgroups? i don't particularly disagree with your viewpoint here, but it
>seems silly to post it to a ng where no one really cares.
Well, for one thing, a lot of us do care. And for another, all
motorcycle conversations generally boil down to the following.
"I like my bike, do you like my bike? I used to like the bike I used
to have, but now I like this one better."
That gets pretty dull after a while.
Al Moore
DoD 734
Dave Green
: "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
: news:A0ZM7.86168$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
: <snip a bunch of fascinating and thought provoking, but totally off topic
: stuff.>
: no offence, but i'm curious, aren't there a whole shitload of political
: newsgroups where people are actually looking to have political discussions?
none as happenin' as Reeky.
: any particular reason you post this here instead of one of these other
: newsgroups? i don't particularly disagree with your viewpoint here, but it
: seems silly to post it to a ng where no one really cares.
You might not care, but this is a discussion group for bikeriders. We
don't always talk about bikes. <big hint>
: ObMoto: looks like aprilia is going to produce the blue marlin after all.
: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/detail?sectionID=50677&documentID=113064
Kewl I guess, but I couldn't care less. the original post is more
interesting.
YMODV.
--
!!!!!!!!!
!! ^ ^ !! Dave Green
(.(0)-(0).) '83 CB750SC DoD#1468
!! U !!
| (---) |
w http://imagearts.ryerson.ca/dgreen
Timberwoof
"Nikita Synytskyy" <nikitaLI...@mondenet.com> wrote:
> "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote
>
> > Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's
> > order allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is
> > suspected of terrorist activity to be tried by a special military
> > tribunal. The rest of us aught to be shaking in our boots.
>
> And you know why this thing made it to law?..
>
> Because for an average US citizen, "foreign nationals" are always
> "them", and never "us". "Them" are perceived as human junk that wash
> dishes in restaurants for $5 an hour, guys with bad teeth who murder
> their grandmas while smoking marijuana, the unwashed who live on the
> streets. So who cares if they are arrested, right?
>
> Too many people forgot that the only true Americans are those that
> lived here before Columbus.
*Everybody* in America is descened of immigrants.
>The rest are simply descendants of
> dish-washing scum with bad teeth, and not too many generations
> removed.
Humpf! I'll have you know I'm descended from German peasant farmers who
became scientists and engineers with the Industrial Revolution.
> Sooner than you know, the children of foreign nationals will also be
> fair game, and members of their family, their friends and
> acquaintances... everyone, in short.
Oh, but the United States has such a long and honorable history of
protecting the rights of the accused. American secret military tribunals
will *never* become permanent or expand their scope they way they have
in every other case they were ever convened.
> Now, the big question is how to stop shit like that from happening
> without going into politics or starting a revolution. Any ideas?
Write your congresscritters and encourage them to stand up for America's
tradition of defending the rights of the accused. Remind them that
secret trials will lead to secret executions, and that this was the sort
of thing the British did to American colonists until the Revolution.
I'm wondering whether I should lie low until this blows over, or get the
hell out while the getting is good.
Timberwoof
"Barbara Standley" <steven...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> hmmph, Peck the Military officers" have the errors of the past to warn
> them of tommorow. You are more likely to get justice in a military court
> of law than in civilian courts.
The only guarantee that these trials are not kangaroo courts is that
they are held in public with an independent judiciary, not in secret by
officers who have to make the right decisions to get promoted.
Timberwoof
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:40:16 GMT, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
> >allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of terrorist
> >activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught to
> >be shaking in our boots.
>
> Overreacting, as usual. The feds could care less about non citizens,
> like GW. And in case you didn't notice, we're at war.
Ahh, yes, war. A good excuse for rubbing out people's civil rights.
>Maybe if they'd
> have knocked down the space needle, you'd be singing out of the other
> side of your mouth. IOW, easy to talk shit, when it all went DOWN 3K
> miles away.
I can't imagine how anyone seeing the events on TV could not be affected
emotionally. You do an injustice to the West Coast, not to mention all
of Europe, where people were just as shocked and upset as in the US.
> Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about.
Klingon justice!
>OTOH,
> it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
> cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
> military>;)
So only people who have served in the military should be allowed to have
full citizenship? Is that where you're going?
Alan Moore
<bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:40:16 GMT, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
>>allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of terrorist
>>activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught to
>>be shaking in our boots.
>
>Overreacting, as usual. The feds could care less about non citizens,
>like GW. And in case you didn't notice, we're at war. Maybe if they'd
>have knocked down the space needle, you'd be singing out of the other
>side of your mouth. IOW, easy to talk shit, when it all went DOWN 3K
>miles away.
You'd be amazed at the dullness of the people selected for persecution
in the past. Read up on the history of the House Committee on
Un-American Activities, or the Army McCarthy hearings sometime. My
parents were nobody special, my father served with some distinction
during WWII, but that didn't keep them from having him blacklisted,
and the hysteria of the times was such that at the same time his
income was cut off, he had to put his kids (three of us) in a private
school, where nobody knew any of us.
>
>Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about.
Hmmmm...
>OTOH,
>it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
>cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
>military>;)
You can shove that right up your ass, guy. In my dad's case, it was 30
missions over Germany, once shot down, several decorations...
The guy who named him (and my mother) to the congressional committee
in 1950 had never served, however.
Al Moore
DoD 734
Timberwoof
"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote:
I went and did research on Yahoo! It's all over the place. Eeegh. But
many in Congress seem to be looking at this with proper suspicion, and
there is a balance of pro- and contra- articles in the press.
The articles against the idea are based mostly on history, and the
articles in support of the idea are based mostly in popular sentiment.
Timberwoof
poc...@aol.comfergitit (Pococj) wrote:
> peckhammer writ:
>
> >Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
> >allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of terrorist
> >activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught to
> >be shaking in our boots.
>
> (Snip some stuff)>- Military officers, who are dependent on their superiors
> for
> promotion,
> >would act as judge and jury.
> >- A two-thirds vote of commission members present at the time would be
> >sufficient to convict - and to impose any sentence.
> >- The defendant could be barred, on security grounds, from seeing the
> >evidence against him.
> >- The defendant could not appeal to "any court of the United States or any
> >state."
> >- The trials could be held in secret.
> >
>
> (Snip some more stuff)
>
> While not quite the same, these rules are very similar to regular military
> courtsmartial proceedings. Haven't heard any one concerned about them,
> recently.
Regular military courts martial deal with the behavior of soldiers.
We're talking about civilian non-US citizens, possibly in the US. The
stuff you snipped talked about who this executive order could be used
against, and under what circumstances.
Sunny
news:A0ZM7.86168$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of
terrorist
> activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught
to
> be shaking in our boots.
>
aliens
> in this country: people with green cards. Any one of them could be brought
> before a military tribunal, instead of a regular court, if the president
> said he or she has "aided" terrorism or "harbored" a terrorist. In our
> system of guilty until proven innocent... wait a minute -- something is
> wrong here.
>
> Mostly from the New York Times:
>
> - Military officers, who are dependent on their superiors for promotion,
> would act as judge and jury.
> - A two-thirds vote of commission members present at the time would be
> sufficient to convict - and to impose any sentence.
> - The defendant could be barred, on security grounds, from seeing the
> evidence against him.
> - The defendant could not appeal to "any court of the United States or any
> state."
> - The trials could be held in secret.
>
> Such confidence is crucial. The Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders, in open
> court before an international tribunal, had a profound long-term effect in
> bringing Germans back to democracy and humanity.
>
> If Mr. Bush's order had been limited to suspected foreign terrorists
> captured in Afghanistan or other foreign countries, it would have been
more
> persuasive legally. It would parallel the use of a military commission to
> try Nazi saboteurs who were landed in the U.S. by submarine in World War
> II - a use upheld by the Supreme Court. Sweeping millions of resident
> aliens under the order seems to violate the principle that civilians
should
> not be subject to military law in this country. The Supreme Court held
that
> imposing martial law in Hawaii in World War II was unconstitutional.
>
> In recent years conservatives have given striking support to civil
liberty.
> So it was sad to find some conservative voices enlisting behind the Bush
> order. Terrorists deserve no better, they argued. But of course the
question
> to be decided at a trial -- a fair trial -- is whether they are
terrorists.
> Not just the nature of Mr. Bush's order but the way it was done smacked of
> illegitimacy. It was sudden, peremptory, without even a nod to consulting
> Congress.
> Hey, you guys were right -- first they took away our right to ride without
a
> helmet, and now they are starting to take away our right to a fair
trial --
> the slippery slope. It's funny how when we see this stuff happening in
other
> countries we start howling about human rights violations. Hell, I hear
more
> howling when someone proposes emissions standards. I guess it's all in
your
> priorities.
>
Quite often I have discussions and trade opinions and ideas with my
daughter.
No... she's not a child. She's a very intelligent, well informed 26 year
old.
I sent your post to her as a topic of discussion. I hope you don't mind...
This is what she had to say.
======
Maybe instead of getting the information and slant from the NYT, the actual
executive order should be examined:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
I think it's interesting how quickly the line gets blurred, then erased, and
suddenly
these are our rights that are being infringed. Please be reminded that the
executive
order applies to the individuals defined in section 2. (And I don't care
what Jann
says, "and" does *not* mean "or"!!!!)
Refer also to rules governing the prosecution of pirates. Terrorism, truly,
is the
piracy of the 21st century. Hijacking is already recognized as such. I see
no
substantial difference here. That these pirates (roughly defined as
international
criminals, independent of a particular state even though they might be
supported
by one or more, operating for their own gain--economic, political, or
otherwise)
have managed to infiltrate our country should not grant them a free pass to
avoid
being prosecuted for what they are: pirates!
====
I must say that I agree with her completely.
A couple of things I would like to add:
In 1987 during the Iran-Contra hearings, Oliver North warned of Osama bin
Laden
and was laughed at. Who's laughing now? We've been warned for years of
these threats to our security. No one listened. We now pay the price in
lives
and liberties. Who is to blame? Not G.W. Bush. Look in the mirror.
And, I might add.... If one happens to be Foreign National who is not and
never
was a terrorist/pirate, then they have nothing to worry about. This is not
the
black helicoptor theatre.
Also, I suppose one can sell our national secrets to other countries as long
as that
person is a Liberal Democrat... but if your name is Bush and you are a
Republican,
then it's ok to equate them to the next Stalin or Hitler out to destroy our
liberties.
Little minds... big conspiracies. Go figure.
mmn...@mmnnoo.org
I don't mind off-topic posts, but it's more polite to start the title with
OT: . And it's less than polite to give a misleading title to make it
sound like the post will be on-topic.
Holly Ober
: Maybe instead of getting the information and slant from the NYT, the actual
: executive order should be examined:
: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
And an official White House press release *doesn't* have a slant? Give
me a break!
Due process, right to counsel, and trial by jury are fundamental rights
in this country-- regardless of the crime a defendant is accused of
committing. How pussy-whipped are the people of this nation that we will
accept any encroachment on our basic rights in the name of "combatting
terrorism"? Yes, I use that expression because I am sickened by the
chickenshit attitudes of the vast majority of people who think that "I
couldn't possibly be affected by this law, so it's probably OK." Turn off
fucking CNN and read real news! You're going to let the White House, the
mainstream media, and public relations agencies tell you how to think?
FWIW, here's another piece from the NY Times-- an opinion piece by a
fairly conservative William Safire denouncing the military tribunal
decision as "kangaroo
courts":http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/26/opinion/26SAFI.html
Michael Young
1) Because it's home, where you wash and hang up your undies.
2) Because basic driving skills and handlebar manipulation discussions have
limited entertainment value. Making them seem complicated, or digressing
into anecdotes of road rage, are no more on topic than taliban phone
marketing jokes.
3) Because of the wide and varied demographics of the correspondents, many
with passionately held beliefs.
4) Because the maturity and quality of thought, and the skill in their
articulation, is much higher here than in alt.rant.rave.politics. (Not that
this should be considered praise.)
5) Because motorcycles are inanimate objects, and take on meaning only in
context of motorcyclists (and their multi-hued collections of dysfunction).
1) Because it's home, where we wash and hang up our undies.
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
[...]
>OTOH,
>> it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
>> cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
>> military>;)
>
>Man, you are batting zero today -- better stay away from your bike or you'll
>end up with another broken foot. FYI, I have spent at least an hour in the
>military, but they sent me home for medical reasons.
>
Yeah, I was right, no military. And you polish it off with a cheap shot.
Why didn't you take the shot, when it was appropriate? Nope, just a
bottom dredging lawyer at heart, ain't ya Peck.
Michael Young
> >And in case you didn't notice, we're at war.
>
> Show me the declaration.
Not that I disagree with anything you said...
From the horse's orifice:
[(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. ]
This is a declaration of war, a state of armed conflict.
The portion of this article pertaining to your post:
[(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. ]
In other words, detainees are prisoners of war, and will be tried under
military law.
It reads like a bad Clancy novel, doesn't it? (Clancy was better at spelling
and grammar, however.)
Holly Ober
: The witch-hunts are going to begin soon.
They already have. One example: A student at Durham Tech got hassled by
the Secret Service because she had an anti-Bush poster in her apartment.
They tried to search her apartment, but they didn't have a warrant, and
thankfully she was informed enough to refuse them entry. A "concerned
citizen" supposedly had reported her.
http://www.indyweek.com/durham/current/triangles.html
Andy Woodward
as they can write it down.
Vincerama
"Klam" <kenn...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:KbZM7.5840$Da6.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> I think we need to out line what kind of "constitution rights" a "non"
U.S.
> citizen should or shouldn't have in the first place..............!
>
> Don't think Girl Wonder needs to worry about because she doesn't fit the
> profile!
>
> Kenny
> Proud US Citizen since June 19, 1993.
Interesting question. As a non-US citizen, it pisses me off that the scum
that live in my city (not all bums are scum, but there is a high percentage
of them) but happened to have been spawned in some dump in the US
is a citizen and has the right to vote and live off government cash,
whereas
I had to get proper visas,etc, to work here and pay huge sums of taxes
to pay for said bums and yet I can't vote and now I can get dragged
into some military tribunal if I look at a US citizen bum the wrong way.
V
Barbara Standley
"Timberwoof" <sp...@spam.spam> wrote in message
TW, by our own rules and regs their so called superior 'cannot' use
their position to influence the outcome of a courts-martial hearing. As
these terrs' are being treated as POW's they will have to be
court-martialed...weird I know but that's the way it is. As an aside
court-martials can be closed for various reasons.
keith,s
Henry H. Hansteen
> no offence, but i'm curious, aren't there a whole shitload of political
> newsgroups where people are actually looking to have political discussions?
> any particular reason you post this here instead of one of these other
> newsgroups? i don't particularly disagree with your viewpoint here, but it
> seems silly to post it to a ng where no one really cares.
What makes you think motorcyclists don't care about civil rights
or the constitution?
Henry
PS
bu$h is a laughable moron, and a spoiled brat.
BDWood
BDWood
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:40:16 GMT, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
wrote:
>Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
Peckham
"Klam" <kenn...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:KbZM7.5840$Da6.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> I think we need to out line what kind of "constitution rights" a "non"
U.S.
> citizen should or shouldn't have in the first place..............!
>
> Don't think Girl Wonder needs to worry about because she doesn't fit the
> profile!
GW is a French citizen. From the newspaper:
"Ten to 15 defendants are being held as material witnesses, with most in a
federal detention center in New York. Among them is Zacarias Moussaoui, a
33-year-old French citizen who was arrested in Minnesota on Aug. 17. Senior
Bush administration officials are debating whether to make Mr. Moussaoui the
first person to be tried on terrorism charges before a military tribunal."
You never know who can be made to fit the profile.
Peckham
"Sunny" <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote in message
news:u08u6tp...@corp.supernews.com...
> Quite often I have discussions and trade opinions and ideas with my
> daughter.
> No... she's not a child. She's a very intelligent, well informed 26 year
> old.
> I sent your post to her as a topic of discussion. I hope you don't
mind...
> This is what she had to say.
> ======
> Maybe instead of getting the information and slant from the NYT, the
actual
> executive order should be examined:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
> I must say that I agree with her completely.
I respectfully disagree. First, there are a series of lies or half-truths
coming from the white house and the administration. For example, John
Ashcroft said in defense of the military tribunals, "While I am aware of
various charges being made by organizations and individuals about the
actions of the Justice Department, I have yet to be informed of a single
lawsuit filed against the government charging a violation of someone's civil
rights as a result of this investigation."
As you are aware, under the military tribunal structured by the Bush
administration, you do not have the ability to choose a lawyer. Many of
these people are unaware of their rights and may not have the money to
afford a lawyer, even if they were allowed to. Do you really think it would
be possible to file a lawsuit against the government?
Bush's latest claim is that he is protecting jurors by doing away with
juries. And he believes that the tribunals he has ordered are
"implementations" of the lawful Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is a
disingenuous "belief." The U.C.M.J. demands a public trial, proof beyond
reasonable doubt, a voice in the selection of juries and right to choose
counsel, unanimity in death sentencing and above all appellate review by
civilians confirmed by the Senate. Not one of those fundamental rights can
be found in Bush's military order.
Second, the immigration laws have been used to detain people indefinitely,
without the right of a trial. There have been people in detention for years
already, who have not been convicted of a crime, and now with the recent
events this could get worse.
Third, the executive order reads:
[A]ny individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I
determine there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant
times, is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida... [or] has
knowingly harbored one or more [terrorist] individuals...
All you need is a reason to *believe* that someone is a member of a
terrorist organization and they are subject to secret arrests, secret
Jesse R
> ObMoto: looks like aprilia is going to produce the blue marlin after all.
> http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/detail?sectionID=50677&documentID=113064
Too bad. God damned bike is uglier than sin. With the redesign of
the Falco and the introduction of the Futura and now this monstrosity,
Aprilia has demonstrated their capacity to go beyond ugly, beyond
butt-ugly, beyond even coyote ugly, into the realms of what Mojo Nixon
called "butt-ugly-super-zilla."
I could rant further on the subject, but if I have to think about that
Christ-forsaken wad of ungainly metal any further, I fear I might go
mad.
-J
culprit
"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
> Yeah... it's where I hang out. As a motorcyclist I hang out with other
> motorcyclists, and we tend to discuss more than blue pipes, the best
tires,
> and counter-steering. When I first started lurking here, I thought this
was
> a firearms newsgroup.
fair enough...
> I find it interesting that on all four mc related lists/ngs that I
regularly
> participate in or follow (LA Biker List, Sprint RS List, Trimph Digest and
> rec.moto) they all seem to have similar content.
interesting. i haven't found this to be true on any of my bike specific
lists (falco, pegaso, and northwest GS riders). the two social bike lists
i'm on are different in that we all know each other face to face and
actually ride together. yeah, lots of noise there. the bike list at work
is mostly bikes, but occasionally degrades into theoretical physics or
something. not usually politics, but that probably says more about the
people i work with than anything else. though there is a lot of crossover
between the bike list and the gun list. :-)
> I think you'll find that a lot of people do care about these issues -- or
at
> least a sizable number of 'em will post reponses.
>
looks like you're right. and again, it's not that i don't care, it's just
that i have a political forum i frequent and i choose to keep bikes and
politics as seperate as i can. you see, i like bikers. can't really say
the same for politicians...
--
-kelly
01 Aprilia Falco
00 Aprilia Pegaso
Peckham
"_Bob Nixon_" <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:=oEEPK+jb4C+tV...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:07:56 GMT, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >OTOH,
> >> it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
> >> cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
> >> military>;)
> >
> >Man, you are batting zero today -- better stay away from your bike or
you'll
> >end up with another broken foot. FYI, I have spent at least an hour in
the
> >military, but they sent me home for medical reasons.
> >
> Yeah, I was right, no military.
Earth to Bob... I *cannot* serve my country. I enlisted at age 18 and
failed the physical due to a medical condition. How does that make your
service any better than my attempted service?
>And you polish it off with a cheap shot.
Your entire post was a cheap shot.
> Why didn't you take the shot, when it was appropriate? Nope, just a
> bottom dredging lawyer at heart, ain't ya Peck.
Even if your last two mutterings had a kernel of truth to them, it would
still place me in a much more respectable position than you.
Peckham
"BDWood" <wo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:cp0a0ukokmo8d0kc7...@4ax.com...
> And this is being posted in rec.motorcycles because...
Because GW and I are motorcyclists.
Rick Damiani
wrote:
>Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
>allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of terrorist
>activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught to
>be shaking in our boots.
>
>The extraordinary sweep of the Bush order covers millions of resident aliens
>in this country: people with green cards. Any one of them could be brought
>before a military tribunal, instead of a regular court, if the president
>said he or she has "aided" terrorism or "harbored" a terrorist. In our
>system of guilty until proven innocent... wait a minute -- something is
>wrong here.
Military lawyers I have spoken with say that a military court martial
is better if you are innocent, while a civilian court is better if you
are guilty. Military courts allow more kinds of evidence and can draw
from a larger and more varied pool of jurors.
>Mostly from the New York Times:
Mostly wrong as well, unless these tribunals have no relation
whatsoever to general courts martials. The use of secret evidence and
secret trials is somewhat troubling, though there is some president
for such things in our civil courts. It's hard to see how secret
evidence can fit into a fair trial though.
>What confidence could the world have in the justice of such a proceeding?
>Such confidence is crucial. The Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders, in open
>court before an international tribunal, had a profound long-term effect in
>bringing Germans back to democracy and humanity.
True enough I suppose. Of course finding a truly impartial court that
is acceptable to everyone involved is going to be pretty much
impossible.
>If Mr. Bush's order had been limited to suspected foreign terrorists
>captured in Afghanistan or other foreign countries, it would have been more
>persuasive legally. It would parallel the use of a military commission to
>try Nazi saboteurs who were landed in the U.S. by submarine in World War
>II - a use upheld by the Supreme Court. Sweeping millions of resident
>aliens under the order seems to violate the principle that civilians should
>not be subject to military law in this country. The Supreme Court held that
>imposing martial law in Hawaii in World War II was unconstitutional.
There are a lot of things being done in the name of the war on
terrorism that need to be done differently. Our representatives need
to be reminded that trading liberty for security is a losing game, and
they need to stop legislating out of fear and ignorance.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast ..................... Rick Damiani
and no one will talk to a host that's close .... ri...@nospam.paton.com
Unless the host (that isn't close) ......... ri...@nospam.earthlink.net
is busy, hung or dead ..............................NGI# T695 DoD #2659
'99 Triumph Sprint ST (Guppy) ....... '86 Yamaha Radian (Fire Breather)
Rick Damiani
wrote:
>I think we need to out line what kind of "constitution rights" a "non" U.S.
>citizen should or shouldn't have in the first place..............!
Our legal system holds that these rights are inalienable and inherent
in people simply because they are people. Being a citizen is not a
requirement.
>Don't think Girl Wonder needs to worry about because she doesn't fit the
>profile!
Yet.
Rick Damiani
wrote:
>I find it interesting that on all four mc related lists/ngs that I regularly
>participate in or follow (LA Biker List, Sprint RS List, Trimph Digest and
>rec.moto) they all seem to have similar content.
The LA Biker list is kinda like an LA area reeky. The originators were
all reeky regulars, and being somewhat familiar with reeky helps with
understanding that list.
Rick Damiani
<bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about.
Many of those aliens currently being held indefenantly are
law-abiding. That didn't offer them much in the way of protection.
Timberwoof
"Vincerama" <no...@fakeemail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Vince. You're not the only one who feels that way. I do hope
you have your flameproof suit on!
On a related note, I saw two interesting tidbits on the news recently.
First, they want to fire all the airport security people who are not US
citizens. (Apparently *any* US citizen is more trustworthy than *any*
foreign national, a pretty mean-hearted insult if you ask me.)
Second, they are worried that the serious lack of security people at US
airports will prevent them implementing all the security checks they
want. (Apparently, they don't have enough trustworthy security people.)
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com>
a motorcycle faq: http://www.infernosoft.com/timberwoof/motorcycle/faq.shtml
sf bay concerns: http://www.infernosoft.com/timberwoof/motorcycle/sfbay.shtml
Rick Damiani
>In article <GWZM7.843$Ao6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Barbara Standley" <steven...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> hmmph, Peck the Military officers" have the errors of the past to warn
>> them of tommorow. You are more likely to get justice in a military court
>> of law than in civilian courts.
>
>The only guarantee that these trials are not kangaroo courts is that
>they are held in public with an independent judiciary, not in secret by
>officers who have to make the right decisions to get promoted.
Military trials use officers that are in a different chain of command
than the one calling for the court. The military does this
specifically to avoid the kind of influence you describe. This is
important, as that same internal organization handles internal
investigations and the trials of solders and sailors who have violated
military law. Were they not protected from undue influence, such
trials and investigative actions would be completely without value.
jim rozen
>Our legal system holds that these rights are inalienable and inherent
>in people simply because they are people. Being a citizen is not a
>requirement.
Up until now.
You can go right ahead, and re-post that, changing all the
present tense verbs into past tense ones.
Oh, hell, I'll do it:
Our legal system used to hold that these rights were inalienable
and inherent in people because they were people. Being a citizen
was not a requirement, up until now.
You can thank George W for this.
Though I suspect *any* president would push for the changes,
given the circumstances - he has to prove he's *doing* something.
(aside from trashing the constitution, that is)
Remember, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during
the civil war. Sometimes this stuff heals, sometimes not.
Jim
Timberwoof
"Sunny" <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote:
> Maybe instead of getting the information and slant from the NYT, the
> actual executive order should be examined:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
Thanks for the link to the actual text.
> I think it's interesting how quickly the line gets blurred, then
> erased, and suddenly these are our rights that are being infringed.
> Please be reminded that the executive order applies to the
> individuals defined in section 2. (And I don't care what Jann says,
> "and" does *not* mean "or"!!!!)
Herte's section 2a...
> (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.
The (ii) bit thas some amazingly far-reacing clauses in it. Hell, if I
were to say I'll try to get Cogresscritters to change it, *I* could be
held for threatening to cause adverse effects on United States foreign
policy.
There are some interesting bits later on...
> (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.
In other words, the United States learned the lesson well of the
Nuremberg Trials, and doesn't want to be held accountable to any other
body. Basically, Bush is making an end-run aorund the US Judiciary
branch ... and is thus violating the Constitution.
There's also a section on protecting secrets. Basically, they can accuse
people of anything they want, and withhold the evidence from the
defendant, saying, "That's secret." Of course, the defendant can't
provide any kind of defense against that. This is a witch-hunt: why
should you show you the evidence against you? You already know all about
it. If you'll just sign this letter of confession, things will be easier
for you.
Timberwoof
Holly Ober <ez05...@logan.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
Down the toilet.
To hell in a handbasket.
Sunny
> Sunny <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote:
>
> : Maybe instead of getting the information and slant from the NYT, the
actual
> : executive order should be examined:
>
> : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
>
> And an official White House press release *doesn't* have a slant? Give
> me a break!
Perhaps you do not recognize that it is the actual text of the executive
order?
>
> Due process, right to counsel, and trial by jury are fundamental rights
> in this country-- regardless of the crime a defendant is accused of
> committing.
For the most part, yes. However, there is an exception for "enemy alien
belligerents tried by military tribunals outside the territorial
jurisdiction of
the United States."
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt5.html
The order does provide for counsel, though [Sec. 4(C)]. Heck, it even
provides for "a full and fair trial"! :)
> How pussy-whipped are the people of this nation that we will
> accept any encroachment on our basic rights in the name of "combatting
> terrorism"? Yes, I use that expression because I am sickened by the
> chickenshit attitudes of the vast majority of people who think that "I
> couldn't possibly be affected by this law, so it's probably OK." Turn off
> fucking CNN and read real news! You're going to let the White House, the
> mainstream media, and public relations agencies tell you how to think?
Intriguing...the actual text of the executive order being discussed is
propaganda
simply because it is made available from whitehouse.gov? Now, perhaps if I
had "fucking CNN" I might be tempted to be a raving 'noid, too, but I don't.
So I guess I'll just have to rely on the facts rather than pundopines. I
would also
note that affirming the legitimacy of trying the accused through military
tribunal
and rejecting the slippery slope fallacy given here should not be construed
as
"accepting any encroachment on our basic rights", nor does it even imply
that the
order should be beyond scrutiny. However, it should be scrutinized in its
own
context, and not in hearsay and media babble, imo.
>
> FWIW, here's another piece from the NY Times-- an opinion piece by a
> fairly conservative William Safire denouncing the military tribunal
> decision as "kangaroo
> courts":http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/26/opinion/26SAFI.html
>
Let's see if I have this straight: The actual text of the executive order
is
"tell[ing] you how to think", but Safire's opinion is...what, real news?
Sunny
>
> "Sunny" <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote in message
> news:u08u6tp...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Quite often I have discussions and trade opinions and ideas with my
> > daughter.
> > No... she's not a child. She's a very intelligent, well informed 26
year
> > old.
> > I sent your post to her as a topic of discussion. I hope you don't
> mind...
> > This is what she had to say.
> > ======
> > Maybe instead of getting the information and slant from the NYT, the
> actual
> > executive order should be examined:
> >
> > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
>
>
> > I must say that I agree with her completely.
>
> I respectfully disagree. First, there are a series of lies or half-truths
> coming from the white house and the administration. For example, John
> Ashcroft said in defense of the military tribunals, "While I am aware of
> various charges being made by organizations and individuals about the
> actions of the Justice Department, I have yet to be informed of a single
> lawsuit filed against the government charging a violation of someone's
civil
> rights as a result of this investigation."
Does no one actually follow links? It is the text of the order. How can
the
order itself be a lie and/or half-truth?
>
> As you are aware, under the military tribunal structured by the Bush
> administration, you do not have the ability to choose a lawyer. Many of
> these people are unaware of their rights and may not have the money to
> afford a lawyer, even if they were allowed to. Do you really think it
would
> be possible to file a lawsuit against the government?
>
> Bush's latest claim is that he is protecting jurors by doing away with
> juries. And he believes that the tribunals he has ordered are
> "implementations" of the lawful Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is
a
> disingenuous "belief." The U.C.M.J. demands a public trial, proof beyond
> reasonable doubt, a voice in the selection of juries and right to choose
> counsel, unanimity in death sentencing and above all appellate review by
> civilians confirmed by the Senate. Not one of those fundamental rights can
> be found in Bush's military order.
The accused are servicemembers?
>
> Second, the immigration laws have been used to detain people indefinitely,
> without the right of a trial. There have been people in detention for
years
> already, who have not been convicted of a crime, and now with the recent
> events this could get worse.
Catch any good fish lately?
>
> Third, the executive order reads:
>
> [A]ny individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I
> determine there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant
> times, is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida... [or]
has
> knowingly harbored one or more [terrorist] individuals...
>
> All you need is a reason to *believe* that someone is a member of a
> terrorist organization and they are subject to secret arrests, secret
> charges using
> secret evidence, secret prosecutions, secret witnesses, secret trials,
> secret convictions, secret sentencing and secret executions.
>
>
That it may be morally objectionable doesn't necessarily translate to
illegitimacy.
Check my next post. That will be all that needs be said on this matter.
I'll let it speak for itself.
Sunny
Article 14, section 1 of the Amendments to the US Constitution:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law[*]; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt14.html
*Following due process is the defined exception to the limitation, see
below.
>>FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT SECTION 1.
RIGHTS GUARANTEED:PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS--CRIMINAL
GenerallyThe Supreme Court's guardianship of state criminal justice systems
under the due process clause has never been subject to precise statement of
metes and bounds. Rather, the Court in each case must ask whether the
challenged practice or policy violates ``a fundamental principle of liberty
and
justice which inheres in the[[Page 1746]]very idea of a free government and
is the inalienable right of a citizen of such government.''\1\ >>
>>[[Page 1869]] FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: THE NEW
EQUAL PROTECTION
Classifications Meriting Close Scrutiny Alienage and Nationality.--``It
has long been settled . . . that the term `person' [in the equal protection
clause]
encompasses lawfully admitted resident aliens as well as citizens of the
United States and entitles both citizens and aliens to the equal protection
of
the laws of the State in which they reside.''\1\ . . .
``The Fourteenth Amendment and the laws adopted under its authority thus
embody a general policy that all persons lawfully in this country shall
abide
`in any state' on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under
nondiscriminatory laws.'' Justice Black said for the Court that ``the power
of
a state to apply its laws exclusively to its alien inhabitants as a class is
confined
within narrow limits.''\7\>>
Article V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt5.html
>> Scope of the Guaranty.--Standing by itself, the phrase ``due
process'' would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process
in court, and therefore to be so limited that ``due process of law''
would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not
the interpretation which has been placed on the term. ``It is manifest
that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which
might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well
as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be
so construed as to leave congress
[[Page 1345]]
free to make any process `due process of law' by its mere will.''\9\ All
persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to its
protection, including corporations,\10\ aliens,\11\ and presumptively
citizens seeking readmission to the United States,\12\ but States as
such are not so entitled.\13\ It is effective in the District of
Columbia\14\ and in territories which are part of the United States,\15\
but it does not apply of its own force to unincorporated
territories.\16\ Nor does it reach enemy alien belligerents tried by
military tribunals outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States.\17\>>
>>[[Page 1355]]
There has been a division of opinion in the Supreme Court with
regard to what extent, if at all, proceedings before military tribunals
should be reviewed by the courts for the purpose of determining
compliance with the due process clause. In In re Yamashita,\60\ the
majority denied a petition for certiorari and petitions for writs of
habeas corpus to review the conviction of a Japanese war criminal by a
military commission sitting in the Philippine Islands. It held that
since the military commission, in admitting evidence to which objection
was made, had not violated any act of Congress, a treaty, or a military
command defining its authority, its ruling on evidence and on the mode
of conducting the proceedings were not reviewable by the courts. Again,
in Johnson v. Eisentrager,\61\ the Court overruled a lower court
decision, which in reliance upon the dissenting opinion in the Yamashita
case, had held that the due process clause required that the legality of
the conviction of enemy alien belligerents by military tribunals should
be tested by the writ of habeas corpus.
>>
>>
``The federal sovereign, like the States, must govern
impartially. . . . [B]ut . . . there may be overriding national
interests which justify selective federal legislation that would be
unacceptable for an individual State.''\78\ The paramount federal power
over immigration and naturalization is the principal example, although
[[Page 1359]]
there are undoubtedly others, of the national government being able to
classify upon some grounds--alienage, naturally, but also other suspect
and quasi-suspect categories as well--that would result in invalidation
were a state to enact them. The instances may be relatively few, but
they do exist.
>>
Article VI:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt6.html
Other topics, regarding piracy, aircraft piracy, and terrorism:
http://www.hri.org/docs/LOS/part7-1b.html
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title49/subtitlevii_parta_subpartiv_chapter
465_.html
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/parti_chapter81_.html
Timberwoof
"Sunny" <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote:
Thank you for the references, Sunny.
At least in theory, resident aliens accused of crimes are entitled to
the same protections as citizens accused of crimes.
All of this goes right out the window, however, when the executive
frees itself from judicial review and gives itself the power to
secretly arrest, try, convict, and execute people. If a legal resident
gets spirited away under this executive order, how can anyone do
anything about it? It's all in secret for "national security" reasons.
How will the local police or FBI deal with such a "missing person"
case? Once they're told by the military to drop it because it's a
military matter, what will they do?
Timberwoof
Rick Damiani <rdam...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:19:25 GMT, Timberwoof <sp...@spam.spam> wrote:
>
> >In article <GWZM7.843$Ao6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Barbara Standley" <steven...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> hmmph, Peck the Military officers" have the errors of the past to warn
> >> them of tommorow. You are more likely to get justice in a military court
> >> of law than in civilian courts.
> >
> >The only guarantee that these trials are not kangaroo courts is that
> >they are held in public with an independent judiciary, not in secret by
> >officers who have to make the right decisions to get promoted.
>
> Military trials use officers that are in a different chain of command
> than the one calling for the court. The military does this
> specifically to avoid the kind of influence you describe. This is
> important, as that same internal organization handles internal
> investigations and the trials of solders and sailors who have violated
> military law. Were they not protected from undue influence, such
> trials and investigative actions would be completely without value.
How do we know that these rules will be strictly applied in the cases
brought hefore the tribunals called fofr in Bush's executive order?
Since the trials are held in secret, we can't know that. We have to rely
on the government's promise that it will play fair.
If we can trust the government, then it should have no problem with
reporters covering its military tribunals.
csoto
"Michael Young" <mik...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
>news:Mi_M7.86674$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>> >And in case you didn't notice, we're at war.
>>
>> Show me the declaration.
>
>Not that I disagree with anything you said...
>
>From the horse's orifice:
>
>[(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. ]
>
>This is a declaration of war, a state of armed conflict.
According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of
America, Congress alone has the power to:
"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning
captures on land and water: "
>The portion of this article pertaining to your post:
>
>[(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. ]
>
>In other words, detainees are prisoners of war, and will be tried under
>military law.
>
>It reads like a bad Clancy novel, doesn't it? (Clancy was better at spelling
>and grammar, however.)
But, Congress has not declared war in decades. How can there be prisoners?
These "military courts" are therefore bogus.
Charles
--
Charles Soto - Austin, TX *** 1979 KZ650, 1999 GSF1200S, DoD No. "uno"
Free Tibet!*
* With purchase of equal or greater value. Not available in all stores.
While supplies last. Void where prohibited by law. As seen on TV.
(If you can't figure out my email, you should unplug the WebTV and lie down.)
csoto
You should leave. I might go with you. Any suggestions? If only Canada
weren't so FRICKIN' COLD!
Peckham
Who said the order was a half truth? I said the explanation of the order by
the Administration is a half truth.
> >
> > As you are aware, under the military tribunal structured by the Bush
> > administration, you do not have the ability to choose a lawyer. Many of
> > these people are unaware of their rights and may not have the money to
> > afford a lawyer, even if they were allowed to. Do you really think it
> would
> > be possible to file a lawsuit against the government?
> >
> > Bush's latest claim is that he is protecting jurors by doing away with
> > juries. And he believes that the tribunals he has ordered are
> > "implementations" of the lawful Uniform Code of Military Justice. This
is
> a
> > disingenuous "belief." The U.C.M.J. demands a public trial, proof
beyond
> > reasonable doubt, a voice in the selection of juries and right to choose
> > counsel, unanimity in death sentencing and above all appellate review by
> > civilians confirmed by the Senate. Not one of those fundamental rights
can
> > be found in Bush's military order.
>
> The accused are servicemembers?
My comments are directed to those that believe these tribunals are the same
form of justice afforded to our servicemembers.
> > Second, the immigration laws have been used to detain people
indefinitely,
> > without the right of a trial. There have been people in detention for
> years
> > already, who have not been convicted of a crime, and now with the recent
> > events this could get worse.
>
> Catch any good fish lately?
Got to look at the big picture Sunny. The immigration laws are being used
to, IMO, detain people and deny them of their rights. If you have any
disagreement with my statement, "the immigration laws have been used to
detain people indefinitely, without the right of a trial. There have been
people in detention for years already, who have not been convicted of a
crime" then offer me proof that it is not true. Hint: you won't find the
answer on the white house web page.
> > Third, the executive order reads:
> >
> > [A]ny individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom
I
> > determine there is reason to believe that such individual, at the
relevant
> > times, is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida... [or]
> has
> > knowingly harbored one or more [terrorist] individuals...
> >
> > All you need is a reason to *believe* that someone is a member of a
> > terrorist organization and they are subject to secret arrests, secret
> > charges using
> > secret evidence, secret prosecutions, secret witnesses, secret trials,
> > secret convictions, secret sentencing and secret executions.
> >
> >
> That it may be morally objectionable doesn't necessarily translate to
> illegitimacy.
>
> Check my next post. That will be all that needs be said on this matter.
I seriously doubt that. Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing today. In
response to the claim that Military tribunals can hold secret trials and
afford fewer rights for the accused than civilian U.S. courts, Chertoff
said, "they can be fair if proper rules are applied. The Defense Department
is developing rules now."
WTF? "The Defense Department is *developing* rules." That's a direct quote,
sir.
Your conjecture and attempts at deciphering the order are all in vien and
your arguement based upon said interpretation is meaningless. You do not
have the full set of facts. While many of us are concerned with might
happen here, you remain unconcerned because you *believe* in rules that have
yet to be "developed." Amazing!
Peckham
"Timberwoof" <timberw...@infernosoft.com> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-63...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In article <vega0u04avea36jif...@4ax.com>,
> Rick Damiani <rdam...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:19:25 GMT, Timberwoof <sp...@spam.spam> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <GWZM7.843$Ao6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > > "Barbara Standley" <steven...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> hmmph, Peck the Military officers" have the errors of the past to
warn
> > >> them of tommorow. You are more likely to get justice in a military
court
> > >> of law than in civilian courts.
> > >
> > >The only guarantee that these trials are not kangaroo courts is that
> > >they are held in public with an independent judiciary, not in secret by
> > >officers who have to make the right decisions to get promoted.
> >
> > Military trials use officers that are in a different chain of command
> > than the one calling for the court. The military does this
> > specifically to avoid the kind of influence you describe. This is
> > important, as that same internal organization handles internal
> > investigations and the trials of solders and sailors who have violated
> > military law. Were they not protected from undue influence, such
> > trials and investigative actions would be completely without value.
>
> How do we know that these rules will be strictly applied in the cases
> brought hefore the tribunals called fofr in Bush's executive order?
> Since the trials are held in secret, we can't know that. We have to rely
> on the government's promise that it will play fair.
>
Even better: Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing today. In
response to the claim that Military tribunals can hold secret trials and
afford fewer rights for the accused than civilian U.S. courts, Chertoff
said, "they can be fair if proper rules are applied. The Defense Department
is *developing* rules now."
Sunny
You're welcome. :-)
>
> At least in theory, resident aliens accused of crimes are entitled to
> the same protections as citizens accused of crimes.
>
> All of this goes right out the window, however, when the executive
> frees itself from judicial review and gives itself the power to
> secretly arrest, try, convict, and execute people. If a legal resident
> gets spirited away under this executive order, how can anyone do
> anything about it? It's all in secret for "national security" reasons.
> How will the local police or FBI deal with such a "missing person"
> case? Once they're told by the military to drop it because it's a
> military matter, what will they do?
>
With the stink that is going on in D.C., I believe all this will be a mute
point.
csoto
>Holly Ober <ez05...@logan.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
>news:9u1vnp$j6c$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
>> Sunny <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote:
>>
>> : Maybe instead of getting the information and slant from the NYT, the
>actual
>> : executive order should be examined:
>>
>> : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
>>
>> And an official White House press release *doesn't* have a slant? Give
>> me a break!
>
>Perhaps you do not recognize that it is the actual text of the executive
>order?
Sunny, I think it's you who don't understand. Both Holly and Peck understand
this is the text, and have read and quoted from it. They, as I, believe that
the actual executive order is in fact, full of lies, half-truths and
unbelievably slanted rhetoric that erodes my and your rights, all while
pandering to the type of fears and emotions you and your daughter are confronted
with.
Read the order again. Among other things, Dubya is telling us that because of
"grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism," "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." Oh really? Not practicable? For whom? It's
pretty damn okay in my book to try people in traditional criminal courts. I'm
delighted to serve on a jury. I'll make the time.
Anyway, "telling someone what they should think" is a good strategy whenever
setting policy. You attempt to gain "buy-in" for your idea by convincing them
what you thought up is correct. Dubya's way off, in my book. However, I fear
that there are too many knee-jerk, ignorant Americans who will allow this to
continue or escalate.
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
>
>"_Bob Nixon_" <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:=oEEPK+jb4C+tV...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:07:56 GMT, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
[...]
>> Yeah, I was right, no military.
>
>Earth to Bob... I *cannot* serve my country. I enlisted at age 18 and
>failed the physical due to a medical condition. How does that make your
>service any better than my attempted service?
It doesn't really Peck. A little humility break, if you will. As soon as
I posted this, I recalled two things. 1) you loaning your RS to Andrew,
when he was hurting 2) those great Seattle riding stories.
Bottom line. I need to stick with the meat and potatoes of this group
and steer clear of these political, gun and religious threads, as I
mostly have in the past. You feel the way you do on this issue for some
reason and that's what our political system is all about or Freedom of
Speech.
>>And you polish it off with a cheap shot.
>
>Your entire post was a cheap shot.
At the time it didn't seem so but in retrospect, it does smell a bit
stinky.
>> Why didn't you take the shot, when it was appropriate? Nope, just a
>> bottom dredging lawyer at heart, ain't ya Peck.
>
>Even if your last two mutterings had a kernel of truth to them, it would
>still place me in a much more respectable position than you.
>
>Man, you are batting zero today -- better stay away from your bike or you'll
>end up with another broken foot.
Possibly. And your advise may actually be considered fairly sound,
considering........
In short. These political threads can foster unnecessary bad blood.
That said. Don't make the mistake of taking my left handed apology as a
sign of weakness -:)
01 Sprint ST "RED"
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Holly Ober
: Perhaps you do not recognize that it is the actual text of the executive
: order?
Of course I do. And just because it's the official text it settles all
disagreements? I don't trust much that comes out of the White House. Guess
I feel the same way about it as you do about the NYT.
: For the most part, yes. However, there is an exception for "enemy alien
: belligerents tried by military tribunals outside the territorial
: jurisdiction of
: the United States."
: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt5.html
: The order does provide for counsel, though [Sec. 4(C)]. Heck, it even
: provides for "a full and fair trial"! :)
Using evidence that they do not have to disclose, and they can keep the
proceedings secret. The defense attorneys shall be provided by the
Secretary of Defense. How is this fair? The defense attorneys are provided
by the very same office that's trying the defendant? Conviction
requiring only 2/3 agreement... There's nothing in the constitution
saying there HAS to be unanimous agreement of the jury for conviction in
criminal trials, but it is the law in every state but Oregon, supposedly.
So far, this isn't sounding real fair to me.
And the beautifully opaque language of official resolutions so neatly
conceals the larger machinery of what's going on, and that's why you've
got to look at the big picture. For example, at the same time as the
military tribunals order went out:
"At the same time, the Justice Department
has asked law enforcement authorities
across the country to pick up and question
5,000 men, most from Middle Eastern
countries, who entered the country legally in
the last two years."
http://www.nlg.org/post911/news/tribunal_order.htm
This, in spite of the fact that they have already detained 1,200
immigrants, none of whom have been found to have any connection to al
Qaeda, but many of whom remain in detention anyway.
Better yet, the President gets to determine who gets the military
tribunals, and that's supposedly why they're interrogating thousands and
thousands of people--- mostly Middle Easterners:
"Under the order, the president himself is to determine who is an accused
terrorist and therefore subject to trial by the tribunal. The order states
that
the president may "determine from time to time in writing that there is
reason
to believe" that an individual is a member of Al Qaeda, has engaged in
acts
of international terrorism or has "knowingly harbored" a terrorist.
In order to make such a finding, the president needs information, and
obtaining information about Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorist acts is
the
goal of the Justice Department's effort to find and interview the 5,000
men,
department officials said.
The people being sought are not believed to be terrorism suspects, and
they
will not be placed under arrest, the officials said. The interviews are
intended
to be voluntary.
Nonetheless, officials at the American Civil Liberties Union condemned the
Justice Department effort, as well as the executive order allowing military
tribunals.
Steven Shapiro, the national legal director of the A.C.L.U., called the
effort to interview the 5,000 men a "dragnet approach that is likely to
magnify concerns of racial and ethnic profiling."
http://www.nlg.org/post911/news/tribunal_order.htm
And here's the best part: the military tribunals aren't *even* like
court martials. Since I am not an expert on law, and even less on military
law, I'm quoting from the National Lawyer's Guild again:
But experts in military law said the tribunals would severely limit the
rights of any defendant even beyond those in military trials. The
tribunals, they said, did not provide for proof of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt and would not require strict rules of evidence like those
in military and civilian courts.
"The accused in such a court would have dramatically fewer rights than a
person would in a court- martial," said Eugene R. Fidell, the president of
the National Institute of Military Justice.
Mr. Fidell said he expected the order to be challenged in court, adding,
"It establishes a court that departs in important respects from core
aspects of American criminal justice."
: Intriguing...the actual text of the executive order being discussed is
: propaganda
LOL!!! You've never seen that trick before?
: simply because it is made available from whitehouse.gov? Now, perhaps if I
: had "fucking CNN" I might be tempted to be a raving 'noid, too, but I don't.
: So I guess I'll just have to rely on the facts rather than pundopines. I
: would also
: note that affirming the legitimacy of trying the accused through military
: tribunal
: and rejecting the slippery slope fallacy given here should not be construed
: as
: "accepting any encroachment on our basic rights", nor does it even imply
: that the
: order should be beyond scrutiny. However, it should be scrutinized in its
: own
: context, and not in hearsay and media babble, imo.
I'd say that reading an "official text" has had quite a tranquilizing
effect on you. It all seems so simple and obvious, doesn't it. What's all
the fuss about? C'mon, it's only going to be a few thousand Arabs rounded
up for questioning, and I'm not one of them, so what've I got to fear
about military tribunals? Gosh, the text says "fair trial" so that just
about seals it, eh? No need to read any analysis or commentary by people
who know what they're talking about when we can just accept what the
government tells us and be OK with it all.
Why don't we all just get so scared we'll bend over and take it up the
ass the way Congress already has. It's for our own good, after all.
Peckham
>
> With the stink that is going on in D.C., I believe all this will be a mute
> point.
See below:
Main Entry: moot
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1587
1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED
Timberwoof
"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote:
> > How do we know that these rules will be strictly applied in the cases
> > brought hefore the tribunals called fofr in Bush's executive order?
> > Since the trials are held in secret, we can't know that. We have to rely
> > on the government's promise that it will play fair.
> >
>
> Even better: Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff
> testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing today. In
> response to the claim that Military tribunals can hold secret trials and
> afford fewer rights for the accused than civilian U.S. courts, Chertoff
> said, "they can be fair if proper rules are applied. The Defense Department
> is *developing* rules now."
What's not being reported in the news is that a large number of
Americans are buying this load of bull lock, stock, and barrel; sight
unseen; and no guarantees.
Peckham
> In short. These political threads can foster unnecessary bad blood.
> That said. Don't make the mistake of taking my left handed apology as a
> sign of weakness -:)
It takes a big man to apologize in front of a whole lot of people. No harm
done, sir. Hell, under reeky protocol, I think you've just violated one of
the cardinal rules.
Michael Young
news:4ofa0ugmo9rkv59or...@4ax.com...
> >Don't think Girl Wonder needs to worry about because she doesn't fit the
> >profile!
>
> Yet.
Is she working on it?
Michael Young
news:csoto_ihatespam-EA7E37.17392028112001@news-server...
I think I left out the part where I disclaimed agreement with the quoted
material. In any case, it was a defacto declaration of war, legal or
otherwise. (Impeachment, then, suggests itself.)
Alan Moore
<steven...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
>news:A0ZM7.86168$XJ4.47...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
><whack the newspaper crap>
>
>
>hmmph, Peck the Military officers" have the errors of the past to warn
>them of tommorow. You are more likely to get justice in a military court
>of law than in civilian courts.
Who was it that said "Military courts are to justice as military bands
are to music"?
Al Moore
DoD 734
Ksisanth
>>Holly Ober <ez05...@logan.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
>>news:9u1vnp$j6c$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
>>> Sunny <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> : Maybe instead of getting the information and slant from the NYT, the
>>actual
>>> : executive order should be examined:
>>>
>>> : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
>>>
>>> And an official White House press release *doesn't* have a slant? Give
>>> me a break!
>>
>>Perhaps you do not recognize that it is the actual text of the executive
>>order?
>
>
>Sunny, I think it's you who don't understand.
Since she was quoting me, let us dispense with the mediatrix. I understand
poisoning the well when I see it.
> Both Holly and Peck understand
>
>this is the text, and have read and quoted from it. They, as I, believe that
>
>the actual executive order is in fact, full of lies, half-truths and
>unbelievably slanted rhetoric that erodes my and your rights, all while
>pandering to the type of fears and emotions you and your daughter are
>confronted
>with.
>
With what fear am I confronted? Are you perhaps attempting to paint me as an
emotionalist? [Have you cleaned your scrying mirror lately?]
Would you care to point out the lies and half-truths you speak of and explain
why I should take your opinion as more authoritative than...anyone else's?
Saying you don't agree with it is one thing, but claiming that a particular
judgment is a lie seems rather implausible.
Do you believe that US intelligence works so incredibly well without sources
that we may show their "value" with a knife in the back?
The interest here is clear and compelling, imo. However, this really is a
whole 'nother ball of wax. It is the domino theory that is really burnt
out--"first hemet laws, now this..."
>Anyway, "telling someone what they should think" is a good strategy whenever
>setting policy. You attempt to gain "buy-in" for your idea by convincing
>them
>what you thought up is correct. Dubya's way off, in my book. However, I
>fear
>that there are too many knee-jerk, ignorant Americans who will allow this to
>continue or escalate.
>
>Charles
Anytime I see the slippery slope being used without a supporting argument for
each link in the chain, I tend to think "ignorant" so-and-so, too....
Ksisanth
>> the
>> order itself be a lie and/or half-truth?
>
>Who said the order was a half truth?
His name is Charles, if I remember correctly.
> I said the explanation of the order by
>the Administration is a half truth.
>
If you can make the determination that the explanation is a half-truth, then
the greater part of the truth must be available to you.
>> >[snip]>
>> > Second, the immigration laws have been used to detain people
>indefinitely,
>> > without the right of a trial. There have been people in detention for
>> years
>> > already, who have not been convicted of a crime, and now with the recent
>> > events this could get worse.
>>
>> Catch any good fish lately?
>
>Got to look at the big picture Sunny. The immigration laws are being used
>to, IMO, detain people and deny them of their rights. If you have any
>disagreement with my statement, "the immigration laws have been used to
>detain people indefinitely, without the right of a trial. There have been
>people in detention for years already, who have not been convicted of a
>crime" then offer me proof that it is not true. Hint: you won't find the
>answer on the white house web page.
>
Newsflash: it's still irrelevant.
>> > Third, the executive order reads:
>> >
>> > [A]ny individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom
>I
>> > determine there is reason to believe that such individual, at the
>relevant
>> > times, is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida... [or]
>> has
>> > knowingly harbored one or more [terrorist] individuals...
>> >
>> > All you need is a reason to *believe* that someone is a member of a
>> > terrorist organization and they are subject to secret arrests, secret
>> > charges using
>> > secret evidence, secret prosecutions, secret witnesses, secret trials,
>> > secret convictions, secret sentencing and secret executions.
>> >
>> >
>> That it may be morally objectionable doesn't necessarily translate to
>> illegitimacy.
>>
>> Check my next post. That will be all that needs be said on this matter.
>
>I seriously doubt that. Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff
>testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing today. In
>response to the claim that Military tribunals can hold secret trials and
>afford fewer rights for the accused than civilian U.S. courts, Chertoff
>said, "they can be fair if proper rules are applied. The Defense Department
>is developing rules now."
>
>WTF? "The Defense Department is *developing* rules." That's a direct quote,
>sir.
>
What is your objection, ma'am?
>Your conjecture and attempts at deciphering the order are all in vien and
>your arguement based upon said interpretation is meaningless. You do not
>have the full set of facts.
I'm not going to take your word for that, especially since you don't even seem
to know what I've been saying.
> While many of us are concerned with might
>happen here, you remain unconcerned because you *believe* in rules that have
>yet to be "developed." Amazing!
>
Do not presume to tell me what I believe, ma'am. I judge what I have the
information to judge--in this case, that the executive order does not apply to
US citizens and that claims of "we're next" are unsupported. I am not one to
make an argument from ignorance, either, that because I don't know these rules
are right, they must be wrong.
Oscar
I see the Cassandras of the world are still predicting doom and gloom.
Ksisanth
>: Perhaps you do not recognize that it is the actual text of the executive
>: order?
>
> Of course I do. And just because it's the official text it settles all
>disagreements? I don't trust much that comes out of the White House. Guess
>I feel the same way about it as you do about the NYT.
>
I'm not talking about the explanations given by the administration, but the
actual wording of the order--the order that is being debated in
this...um...motorcycles newsgroup. If one is going to say that it applies to
people it doesn't apply to, then the actual text of the order can show
otherwise whether one trusts the government or not.
>: For the most part, yes. However, there is an exception for "enemy alien
>: belligerents tried by military tribunals outside the territorial
>: jurisdiction of
>: the United States."
>: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt5.html
>
>: The order does provide for counsel, though [Sec. 4(C)]. Heck, it even
>: provides for "a full and fair trial"! :)
>
> Using evidence that they do not have to disclose, and they can keep the
>proceedings secret. The defense attorneys shall be provided by the
>Secretary of Defense. How is this fair? The defense attorneys are provided
>by the very same office that's trying the defendant? Conviction
>requiring only 2/3 agreement... There's nothing in the constitution
>saying there HAS to be unanimous agreement of the jury for conviction in
>criminal trials, but it is the law in every state but Oregon, supposedly.
>
> So far, this isn't sounding real fair to me.
>
Doesn't sound fair to me, either, but then the Constitution does not exclude
all unfairness, unfortunately.
> And the beautifully opaque language of official resolutions so neatly
>conceals the larger machinery of what's going on, and that's why you've
>got to look at the big picture.
I understand that when one person disagrees with another for any reason, it is
often construed to be disagreement across the board. That's really not the
case here, however. As I stated previously, it should be scrutinized in its
own context.
[snip]
>
>: Intriguing...the actual text of the executive order being discussed is
>: propaganda
>
> LOL!!! You've never seen that trick before?
>
>: simply because it is made available from whitehouse.gov?
Put the sentence back together. Are you familiar with the phrase, "poisoning
the well"?
Now, perhaps if
>I
>: had "fucking CNN" I might be tempted to be a raving 'noid, too, but I
>don't.
>: So I guess I'll just have to rely on the facts rather than pundopines. I
>: would also
>: note that affirming the legitimacy of trying the accused through military
>: tribunal
>: and rejecting the slippery slope fallacy given here should not be construed
>: as
>: "accepting any encroachment on our basic rights", nor does it even imply
>: that the
>: order should be beyond scrutiny. However, it should be scrutinized in its
>: own
>: context, and not in hearsay and media babble, imo.
>
> I'd say that reading an "official text" has had quite a tranquilizing
>effect on you. It all seems so simple and obvious, doesn't it. What's all
>the fuss about? C'mon, it's only going to be a few thousand Arabs rounded
>up for questioning, and I'm not one of them, so what've I got to fear
>about military tribunals?
You do not know me and cannot possibly speak for me.
> Gosh, the text says "fair trial" so that just
>about seals it, eh? No need to read any analysis or commentary by people
>who know what they're talking about
when we can just accept what the
>government tells us and be OK with it all.
>
> Why don't we all just get so scared we'll bend over and take it up the
>ass the way Congress already has. It's for our own good, after all.
>
Try reading for comprehension next time.
Sunny
Peckham <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
Leave it to you to pick out the one misspelled word in any of my posts.
I don't have need of the dictionary or spell checker. I just need to go
back and read over my posts so you can't nit-pick.[1]
I have a deal for you. You stick to your political posts and I'll stick
to those that are more on topic.... Did you get to ride today? I didn't.
It sucks. >8-P
[1] And I thought only old folk like me nit-picked. I didn't
even raise hell when you called me "sir" instead of "madam".
Psssst.... I'm a grandma. So how can I be "sir"?
Pay attention sonny!
-------
Sunny (Like the song)
csoto
_Bob Nixon_ <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:19:49 -0800, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"_Bob Nixon_" <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:=oEEPK+jb4C+tV...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:07:56 GMT, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>[...]
>
>>> Yeah, I was right, no military.
>>
>>Earth to Bob... I *cannot* serve my country. I enlisted at age 18 and
>>failed the physical due to a medical condition. How does that make your
>>service any better than my attempted service?
>
>It doesn't really Peck. A little humility break, if you will. As soon as
>I posted this, I recalled two things. 1) you loaning your RS to Andrew,
>when he was hurting 2) those great Seattle riding stories.
>Bottom line. I need to stick with the meat and potatoes of this group
>and steer clear of these political, gun and religious threads, as I
>mostly have in the past. You feel the way you do on this issue for some
>reason and that's what our political system is all about or Freedom of
>Speech.
Not for long. At least until Dubya *believes* you're a terrorist.
>>>And you polish it off with a cheap shot.
>>
>>Your entire post was a cheap shot.
>
>At the time it didn't seem so but in retrospect, it does smell a bit
>stinky.
>
>>> Why didn't you take the shot, when it was appropriate? Nope, just a
>>> bottom dredging lawyer at heart, ain't ya Peck.
>>
>>Even if your last two mutterings had a kernel of truth to them, it would
>>still place me in a much more respectable position than you.
>>
>
>>Man, you are batting zero today -- better stay away from your bike or you'll
>>end up with another broken foot.
>
>Possibly. And your advise may actually be considered fairly sound,
>considering........
>
>In short. These political threads can foster unnecessary bad blood.
>That said. Don't make the mistake of taking my left handed apology as a
>sign of weakness -:)
>
>
> 01 Sprint ST "RED"
> Bob Nixon
>http://members.home.net/bigrex/
We will just consider your choice of steed and leave it at that :)
Charles
(nice bike)
Timberwoof
csoto <csoto_i...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Not for long. At least until Dubya *believes* you're a terrorist.
Any guesses about when this will be used for more than real terrorists?
Here's my guess: During the next election campaign.
Timberwoof
"Sunny" <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote:
> Peckham <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com> wrote in message
> news:9u407q$ia2$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu...
> >
> > "Sunny" <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote in message
> > news:u0av7pk...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > >
> > > With the stink that is going on in D.C., I believe all this will be a
> mute
> > > point.
> >
> > See below:
> >
> > Main Entry: moot
> > Function: adjective
> > Date: circa 1587
> > 1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED
> >
>
> Leave it to you to pick out the one misspelled word in any of my posts.
> I don't have need of the dictionary or spell checker. I just need to go
> back and read over my posts so you can't nit-pick.[1]
> I have a deal for you. You stick to your political posts and I'll stick
> to those that are more on topic.... Did you get to ride today? I didn't.
> It sucks. >8-P
I rode today ... down to the Office Despot to get a new calendar. It was
fun to sharpen my skills at riding my big beemer slowly in the wet
parking lot.
> [1] And I thought only old folk like me nit-picked. I didn't
> even raise hell when you called me "sir" instead of "madam".
> Psssst.... I'm a grandma. So how can I be "sir"?
> Pay attention sonny!
In the Middle Ages, the few women who where also knights were addressed
as Sir.
Timberwoof
Oscar <majo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's a big leap from helmet laws to constitutional issues.
>
> I see the Cassandras of the world are still predicting doom and gloom.
There is a difference between predicting doom and gloom and warning
about the possibility of gloom and doom.
Timberwoof
ksis...@aol.comspambam (Ksisanth) wrote:
> >WTF? "The Defense Department is *developing* rules." That's a direct quote,
> >sir.
> >
>
> What is your objection, ma'am?
Rules for evidene have been established for all sorts of courts in the
US and in Europe. Why should the Defense Department draw up a whole new
set? Why is the Defense Department in the business of legislating those
rules?
> > While many of us are concerned with might
> >happen here, you remain unconcerned because you *believe* in rules that have
> >yet to be "developed." Amazing!
> >
>
> Do not presume to tell me what I believe, ma'am. I judge what I have the
> information to judge--in this case, that the executive order does not apply to
> US citizens and that claims of "we're next" are unsupported.
The executive order applies to non-US-citizens everywhere in the world.
It lumps the meanest nastiest Taliban terrorist together with my retired
parents who've been living in the US and contributing to this economy
for the past thirty-odd years.
> I am not one to
> make an argument from ignorance, either, that because I don't know these rules
> are right, they must be wrong.
I believe that these rules are wrong. They embody plenty violations of
Constitutional principles and are similar to other such orders which
have been misused in other countries. I have yet to see a convincing
argument that they are correct and that they cannot be misused.
Sunny
I do believe we are well past the Middle Ages. And I don't recall
Queen Liz ever dubbing me with a sword.
Ya know... I'm not *that* damn old! Hmph!
Keith
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:40:16 GMT, "Peckham" <peckh...@ROTMAIL.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Foreign nationals, such as Girl Wonder, are up in arms over Bush's order
> >allowing anyone who is not a U.S. citizen and who is suspected of
terrorist
> >activity to be tried by a special military tribunal. The rest of us aught
to
> >be shaking in our boots.
>
> Overreacting, as usual. The feds could care less about non citizens,
> like GW. And in case you didn't notice, we're at war. Maybe if they'd
> have knocked down the space needle, you'd be singing out of the other
> side of your mouth. IOW, easy to talk shit, when it all went DOWN 3K
> miles away.
>
> Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about. OTOH,
> it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
> cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
> military>;)
>
>
> [...]
Turn this around and consider how we expect US citizens to be treated when
in other countries. Every time we hear of one of our citizens being put on
secret military trial in a foreign country for "suspected" offences there
are strong protests from our government. We will have no credibility if we
treat "their" citizens in a manner that we consider to be unacceptable for
our citizens.
Keith
Ksisanth
> >sir.
> >
>
> What is your objection, ma'am?
Rules for evidene have been established for all sorts of courts in the
US and in Europe. Why should the Defense Department draw up a whole new
set? Why is the Defense Department in the business of legislating those
rules?
>>
What if the rules they come up with turn out to be reasonable?
Do you feel that law is (or should be) a static thing--the square peg patiently
waiting for the square hole? If criminals are digging round holes, is
switching to a round peg verboten? If what we had now were sufficient, we
could have taken care of al-Qaeda, et al, some time ago.
> > While many of us are concerned with might
> >happen here, you remain unconcerned because you *believe* in rules that have
> >yet to be "developed." Amazing!
> >
>
> Do not presume to tell me what I believe, ma'am. I judge what I have the
> information to judge--in this case, that the executive order does not apply
to
> US citizens and that claims of "we're next" are unsupported.
The executive order applies to non-US-citizens everywhere in the world. It
lumps the meanest nastiest Taliban terrorist together with my retired
parents who've been living in the US and contributing to this economy
for the past thirty-odd years.>>
Are they suspected of terrorism?
The rules governing the prosecution of an innocent accused is the same as for a
guilty accused individual in the US criminal justice system. Should I be
offended?
> I am not one to
> make an argument from ignorance, either, that because I don't know these
rules
> are right, they must be wrong.
I believe that these rules are wrong.>>
Have they been developed, then?
>> They embody plenty violations of
Constitutional principles and are similar to other such orders which
have been misused in other countries.>>
Can you be more specific? To what violations of Constitutional principles are
you referring, and at what point have the courts affirmed these
interpretations? And which orders in which countries are similar?
>> I have yet to see a convincing
argument that they are correct and that they cannot be misused.>>
Why should "rules that have yet to be developed"' be proven correct before they
are developed? This is the argument from ignorance I am rejecting. Laws and
regulations may not be innocent until proven guilty, but neither should the
opposite be the case.
And, minimally related to the above...if the passing of helmet laws has
anything to do with Constitutional rights, it is an example that when public
interest is weighed against the interest of an individual, it is only when the
individual's interest is also in the greater public interest to protect that it
wins. The rights enumerated in the US Constitution are those which it is in
the greater public interest to preserve (perhaps just to contribute a sense of
civility and fairness)...but the rules may change--within reason--in a state of
war or national emergency, because the greater interest may temporarily change.
JMO.
Compassionate Conservative
said:
>
>"Klam" <kenn...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:KbZM7.5840$Da6.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>> I think we need to out line what kind of "constitution rights" a "non"
>U.S.
>> citizen should or shouldn't have in the first place..............!
>>
>> Don't think Girl Wonder needs to worry about because she doesn't fit the
>> profile!
>
>GW is a French citizen. From the newspaper:
And is she familiar with the French legal system? Do the French have
trial by jury?
>"Ten to 15 defendants are being held as material witnesses, with most in a
>federal detention center in New York. Among them is Zacarias Moussaoui, a
>33-year-old French citizen who was arrested in Minnesota on Aug. 17. Senior
From the Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001529
"Fewer than two dozen are now being held as material witnesses, but
they include Zacarias Moussaoui, a Frenchman of Moroccan descent who
was picked up in Minnesota on immigration charges after a flight
school reported he wanted lessons only on how to steer a plane. Not
exactly a poster boy for Amnesty International."
>Bush administration officials are debating whether to make Mr. Moussaoui the
>first person to be tried on terrorism charges before a military tribunal."
>
>You never know who can be made to fit the profile.
>
--
Islam is Evil
Compassionate Conservative
<ez05...@logan.ucdavis.edu> said:
>_Bob Nixon_ <bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>: Overreacting, as usual. The feds could care less about non citizens,
>: like GW. And in case you didn't notice, we're at war. Maybe if they'd
>: have knocked down the space needle, you'd be singing out of the other
>: side of your mouth. IOW, easy to talk shit, when it all went DOWN 3K
>: miles away.
>
> An illegal law threatens all of us. This decision makes it possible for
>the government to deny people rights guaranteed to every individual
>regardless of citizenship status for trial by jury, right to counsel, and
>due process. How far are you willing to let them eat away at the
>Constitution? http://www.aclu.org/action/dueprocess107.html
Are you sure? As the Wall Street Journal pointed out
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001529
"There is ample precedent, not the least being FDR's use of military
tribunals for German saboteurs caught in World War II. And if we want
to get technical, those picked up in America who are part of al Qaeda
are really spies--who don't even qualify for the POW protections of
the Geneva conventions."
Those being detained were picked up on immigration vi lotions.
>
>
>: Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about. OTOH,
>: it's pretty obvious, you've never put your ass on the line for your
>: cushy lifestyle <reads yuppie brat, who's never spent an hour in the
>: military>;)
>
>
>: [...]
>: 01 Sprint ST "RED"
>: Bob Nixon
>: http://members.home.net/bigrex/
--
Islam is Evil
Compassionate Conservative
<rdam...@newsguy.com> said::
>On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 04:32:38 GMT, _Bob Nixon_
><bi...@nospam.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Law abiding aliens in this country have nothing to worry about.
>
>Many of those aliens currently being held indefenantly are
>law-abiding. That didn't offer them much in the way of protection.
They are being held because they violated immigration laws.
They did break immigration regulations.
--
Islam is Evil
Compassionate Conservative
>In article <GWZM7.843$Ao6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Barbara Standley" <steven...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> hmmph, Peck the Military officers" have the errors of the past to warn
>> them of tommorow. You are more likely to get justice in a military court
>> of law than in civilian courts.
>
>The only guarantee that these trials are not kangaroo courts is that
>they are held in public with an independent judiciary, not in secret by
>officers who have to make the right decisions to get promoted.
Judger are appointed for political reasons and are just as likely to
make the "right" decision to be appointed to a higher court.
--
Islam is Evil
James Clark
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <GWZM7.843$Ao6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Barbara Standley" <steven...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > hmmph, Peck the Military officers" have the errors of the past to warn
> > them of tommorow. You are more likely to get justice in a military court
> > of law than in civilian courts.
>
> The only guarantee that these trials are not kangaroo courts is that
> they are held in public with an independent judiciary, not in secret by
> officers who have to make the right decisions to get promoted.
>
Depends on you idea of an "independent" judiciary.
An Orange County Superior Court judge was visited by US Customs
agents. From the published reports, he seemed a little confused why
the would be concerned about his collection of child pornography
that he downloaded from Denmark, or his diary entries in which he
expresses a desire to meet privately with young boys in the soccer
league in which he referees.
Of course, local authorities are hot on the trail of the snitch who
fingered the judge.
At least in a military setting, those that do the judging have an
understanding that the same UCMJ applies to themselves, as well.
Timberwoof
ksis...@aol.comspambam (Ksisanth) wrote:
> > >WTF? "The Defense Department is *developing* rules." That's a
> > >direct quote, sir.
> > >
> >
> > What is your objection, ma'am?
>
> Rules for evidene have been established for all sorts of courts in
> the US and in Europe. Why should the Defense Department draw up a
> whole new set? Why is the Defense Department in the business of
> legislating those rules?
> >>
>
> What if the rules they come up with turn out to be reasonable?
>
> Do you feel that law is (or should be) a static thing--the square peg
> patiently waiting for the square hole? If criminals are digging
> round holes, is switching to a round peg verboten? If what we had
> now were sufficient, we could have taken care of al-Qaeda, et al,
> some time ago.
"Some time ago" is a nicely slippery phrase. Do you mean a few months or
a few years? Nobody had ever heard of them before September 11.
What your'e telling me, basically, is that the rules of evidence which
protect innocent people wrongfully accused are inconvenient barriers in
the prosecution of terrorists and must be done away with for all
non-US-citizens.
> > > While many of us are concerned with might
> > >happen here, you remain unconcerned because you *believe* in rules
> > >that have yet to be "developed." Amazing!
> > >
> >
> > Do not presume to tell me what I believe, ma'am. I judge what I
> > have the information to judge--in this case, that the executive
> > order does not apply to US citizens and that claims of "we're next"
> > are unsupported.
>
> The executive order applies to non-US-citizens everywhere in the
> world. It lumps the meanest nastiest Taliban terrorist together with
> my retired parents who've been living in the US and contributing to
> this economy for the past thirty-odd years.>>
>
> Are they suspected of terrorism?
Did you read the executive order? it covers not just terrorism, but
anyone who "... 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. ..." The President makes
the determination of harm.
I suppose that if he thinks he has a better economic plan than the
challenger during the next campaign, then any foreigner who speaks his
mind about whom he'd prefer for president could be seen as advocating
harm to the US economy.
> The rules governing the prosecution of an innocent accused is the
> same as for a guilty accused individual in the US criminal justice
> system. Should I be offended?
>
> > I am not one to make an argument from ignorance, either, that
> > because I don't know these rules are right, they must be wrong.
>
> I believe that these rules are wrong.>>
>
> Have they been developed, then?
Yes. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html
outlines them in general terms.
> >> They embody plenty violations of Constitutional principles and are
> >> similar to other such orders which have been misused in other
> >> countries.>>
>
> Can you be more specific? To what violations of Constitutional
> principles are you referring, and at what point have the courts
> affirmed these interpretations? And which orders in which countries
> are similar?
The executive order, as published in
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html,
violates US Amendments 4, 5, 7, and 14. Do you need a comparison
item-by-item, or can you read the sources for yourself?
I've been reading editorials and articles listed by Yahoo that comment
on how such executive orders have been misused. The fact that I can't
cite them one by one doesn't invalidate that such broad powers are open
for misuse.
> >> I have yet to see a convincing argument that they are correct and
> >> that they cannot be misused.>>
>
> Why should "rules that have yet to be developed"' be proven correct
> before they are developed? This is the argument from ignorance I am
> rejecting. Laws and regulations may not be innocent until proven
> guilty, but neither should the opposite be the case.
Read the executive order for yourself and tell me whether you think it
is entirely constitutional.
> And, minimally related to the above...if the passing of helmet laws
> has anything to do with Constitutional rights, it is an example that
> when public interest is weighed against the interest of an
> individual, it is only when the individual's interest is also in the
> greater public interest to protect that it wins. The rights
> enumerated in the US Constitution are those which it is in the
> greater public interest to preserve (perhaps just to contribute a
> sense of civility and fairness)...but the rules may change--within
> reason--in a state of war or national emergency, because the greater
> interest may temporarily change.
> JMO.
:Boggle: Are you suggesting that because of September 11, it may be in
the national interest to pass strict helmet laws?
Timberwoof
"Sunny" <su...@nospampkriders.org> wrote:
> > In the Middle Ages, the few women who where also knights were addressed
> > as Sir.
> >
>
> I do believe we are well past the Middle Ages. And I don't recall
> Queen Liz ever dubbing me with a sword.
> Ya know... I'm not *that* damn old! Hmph!
You should learn to accept a compliment when it is given, Sir. }: )
Henry H. Hansteen
> Islam is Evil
Bible Atrocities Compiled by Donald Morgan
(Note: In the Bible, words having to do with killing significantly
outnumber words having to do with love.)
GE 4:2-8 God's arbitrary preference of Abel's offering to that of
Cain's provokes Cain to commit the first biblically recorded murder and
kill his brother Abel.
GE 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of
their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and
children.
GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and
decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the
face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself
the greatest mass murderer in history.
GE 19:26 God personally sees to it that Lot's wife is turned to a
pillar of salt (for having looked behind her while fleeing the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah).
GE 38:9 "... whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his
semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
What he did was wicked ..., so the Lord put him to death."
EX 2:12 Moses murders an Egyptian.
EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7 The purpose of the devastation that
God brings to the Egyptians is as follows:
to show that he is Lord;
to show that there is none like him in all the earth;
to show his great power;
to cause his name to be declared throughout the earth;
to give the Israelites something to talk about with their children;
to show that he makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt.
EX 9:22-25 A plague of hail from the Lord strikes down everything in
the fields of Egypt both man and beast except in Goshen where the
Israelites reside.
EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.
EX 17:13 With the Lord's approval, Joshua mows down Amalek and his
people.
EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death
with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't die
too quickly.
EX 32:27 "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from
gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and
every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
EX 32:27-29 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay 3000 men.
LE 26:7-8 The Lord promises the Israelites that, if they are obedient,
their enemies will "fall before your sword."
LE 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you
of your children."
LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will
cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and
fathers and friends.
LE 27:29 Human sacrifice is condoned. (Note: An example is given in JG
11:30-39)
NU 11:33 The Lord smites the people with a great plague.
NU 12:1-10 God makes Miriam a leper for seven days because she and
Aaron had spoken against Moses.
NU 15:32-36 A Sabbath breaker (who had gathered sticks for a fire) is
stoned to death at the Lord's command.
NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men
and their households (including wives and children) because the men had
been rebellious.
NU 16:35 A fire from the Lord consumes 250 men.
NU 16:49 A plague from the Lord kills 14,700 people.
NU 21:3 The Israelites utterly destroy the Canaanites.
NU 21:6 Fiery serpents, sent by the Lord, kill many Israelites.
NU 21:35 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay Og "... and his
sons and all his people, until there was not one survivor left ...."
NU 25:4 (KJV) "And the Lord said unto Moses, take all the heads of the
people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun ...."
NU 25:8 "He went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both
of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly."
NU 25:9 24,000 people die in a plague from the Lord.
NU 31:9 The Israelites capture Midianite women and children.
NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites
to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has
known man ...." (Note: How would it be determined which women had known
men? One can only speculate.)
NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty. Thirty-
two are set aside (to be sacrificed?) as a tribute for the Lord.
DT 2:33-34 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children
of Sihon.
DT 3:6 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of
Og.
DT 7:2 The Lord commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" and
shown "no mercy" to those whom he gives them for defeat.
DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword
all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and
everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for
yourselves."
DT 20:16 "In the cities of the nations the Lord is giving you as an
inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."
DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to
take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives.
If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife,
he can simply let her go.
DT 28:53 "You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and
daughters the Lord your God has given you."
JS 1:1-9, 18 Joshua receives the Lord's blessing for all the bloody
endeavors to follow.
JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of
Jericho men, women, and children with the edge of the sword.
JS 7:19-26 Achan, his children and his cattle are stoned to death
because Achan had taken a taboo thing.
JS 8:22-25 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly smites the people
of Ai, killing 12,000 men and women, so that there were none who
escaped.
JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the
Gibeonites.
JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people
of Makkedah.
JS 10:30 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the
Libnahites.
JS 10:32-33 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the
people of Lachish.
JS 10:34-35 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the
Eglonites.
JS 10:36-37 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the
Hebronites.
JS 10:38-39 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the
Debirites.
JS 10:40 (A summary statement.) "So Joshua defeated the whole land ...;
he left none remaining, but destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord
God of Israel commanded."
JS 11:6 The Lord orders horses to be hamstrung. (Exceedingly cruel.)
JS 11:8-15 "And the lord gave them into the hand of Israel, ...utterly
destroying them; there was none left that breathed ...."
JS 11:20 "For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they
should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be
utterly destroyed, and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as
the Lord commanded Moses."
JS 11:21-23 Joshua utterly destroys the Anakim.
JG 1:4 With the Lord's support, Judah defeats 10,000 Canaanites at
Bezek.
JG 1:6 With the Lord's approval, Judah pursues Adoni-bezek, catches
him, and cuts off his thumbs and big toes.
JG 1:8 With the Lord's approval, Judah smites Jerusalem.
JG 1:17 With the Lord's approval, Judah and Simeon utterly destroy the
Canaanites who inhabited Zephath.
JG 3:29 The Israelites kill about 10,000 Moabites.
JG 3:31 (A restatement.) Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with an oxgoad.
JG 4:21 Jael takes a tent stake and hammers it through the head of
Sisera, fastening it to the ground.
JG 7:19-25 The Gideons defeat the Midianites, slay their princes, cut
off their heads, and bring the heads back to Gideon.
JG 8:15-21 The Gideons slaughter the men of Penuel.
JG 9:5 Abimalech murders his brothers.
JG 9:45 Abimalech and his men kill all the people in the city.
JG 9:53-54 "A woman dropped a stone on his head and cracked his skull.
Hurriedly he called to his armor-bearer, 'Draw your sword and kill me,
so that they can't say a woman killed me.' So his servant ran him
through, and he died."
JG 11:29-39 Jepthah sacrifices his beloved daughter, his only child,
according to a vow he has made with the Lord.
JG 14:19 The Spirit of the Lord comes upon a man and causes him to slay
thirty men.
JG 15:15 Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass.
JG 16:21 The Philistines gouge out Samson's eyes.
JG 16:27-30 Samson, with the help of the Lord, pulls down the pillars
of the Philistine house and causes his own death and that of 3000 other
men and women.
JG 18:27 The Danites slay the quiet and unsuspecting people of Laish.
JG 19:22-29 A group of sexual depraved men beat on the door of an old
man's house demanding that he turn over to them a male house guest.
Instead, the old man offers his virgin daughter and his guest's
concubine (or wife): "Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his
concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what
seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." The
man's concubine is ravished and dies. The man then cuts her body into
twelve pieces and sends one piece to each of the twelve tribes of
Israel.
JG 20:43-48 The Israelites smite 25,000+ "men of valor" from amongst
the Benjamites, "men and beasts and all that they found," and set their
towns on fire.
JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the
edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male
and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy."
They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for
their own use.
1SA 4:10 The Philistines slay 30,000 Israelite foot soldiers.
1SA 5:6-9 The Lord afflicts the Philistines with tumors in
their "secret parts," presumably for having stolen the Ark.
1SA 6:19 God kills seventy men (or so) for looking into the Ark (at
him?). (Note: The early Israelites apparently thought the Ark to be
God's abode.)
1SA 7:7-11 Samuel and his men smite the Philistines.
1SA 11:11 With the Lord's blessing, Saul and his men cut down the
Ammonites.
1SA 14:31 Jonathan and his men strike down the Philistines.
1SA 14:48 Saul smites the Amalekites.
1SA 15:3, 7-8 "This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both
man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ....'
And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the
sword."
1SA 15:33 "Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord ...."
1SA 18:7 The women sing as they make merry: "Saul has slain his
thousands and David his ten thousands."
1SA 18:27 David murders 200 Philistines, then cuts off their foreskins.
1SA 30:17 David smites the Amalekites.
2SA 2:23 Abner kills Asahel.
2SA 3:30 Joab and Abishai kill Abner.
2SA 4:7-8 Rechan and Baanah kill Ish-bosheth, behead him, and take his
head to David.
2SA 4:12 David has Rechan and Baanah killed, their hands and feet cut
off, and their bodies hanged by the pool at Hebron.
2SA 5:25 "And David did as the Lord commanded him, and smote the
Philistines ...."
2SA 6:2-23 Because she rebuked him for having exposed himself, Michal
(David's wife) was barren throughout her life.
2SA 8:1-18 (A listing of some of David's murderous conquests.)
2SA 8:4 David hamstrung all but a few of the horses.
2SA 8:5 David slew 22,000 Syrians.
2SA 8:6, 14 "The Lord gave victory to David wherever he went."
2SA 8:13 David slew 18,000 Edomites in the valley of salt and made the
rest slaves.
2SA 10:18 David slew 47,000+ Syrians.
2SA 11:14-27 David has Uriah killed so that he can marry Uriah's wife,
Bathsheba.
2SA 12:1, 19 The Lord strikes David's child dead for the sin that David
has committed.
2SA 13:1-15 Amnon loves his sister Tamar, rapes her, then hates her.
2SA 13:28-29 Absalom has Amnon murdered.
2SA 18:6 -7 20,000 men are slaughtered at the battle in the forest of
Ephraim.
2SA 18:15 Joab's men murder Absalom.
2SA 20:10-12 Joab's men murder Amasa and leave him "... wallowing in
his own blood in the highway. And anyone who came by, seeing him,
stopped."
2SA 24:15 The Lord sends a pestilence on Israel that kills 70,000 men.
1KI 2:24-25 Solomon has Adonijah murdered.
1KI 2:29-34 Solomon has Joab murdered.
1KI 2:46 Solomon has Shime-i murdered.
1KI 13:15-24 A man is killed by a lion for eating bread and drinking
water in a place where the Lord had previously told him not to. This is
in spite of the fact that the man had subsequently been lied to by a
prophet who told the man that an angel of the Lord said that it would
be alright to eat and drink there.
1KI 20:29-30 The Israelites smite 100,000 Syrian soldiers in one day. A
wall falls on 27,000 remaining Syrians.
2KI 1:10-12 Fire from heaven comes down and consumes fifty men.
2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably
according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God.
2KI 5:27 Elisha curses Gehazi and his descendants forever with leprosy.
2KI 6:18-19 The Lord answers Elisha's prayer and strikes the Syrians
with blindness. Elisha tricks the blind Syrians and leads them to
Samaria.
2KI 6:29 "So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to
her, 'Give up your son so we may eat him,' but she had hidden him."
2KI 9:24 Jehu tricks and murders Joram.
2KI 9:27 Ahaziah has Jehu killed.
2KI 9:30-37 Jehu has Jezebel killed. Her body is trampled by horses.
Dogs eat her flesh so that only her skull, feet, and the palms of her
hands remain.
2KI 10:7 Jehu has Ahab's seventy sons beheaded, then sends the heads to
their father.
2KI 10:14 Jehu has forty-two of Ahab's kin killed.
2KI 10:17 "And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained to
Ahab in Samaria, till he had wiped them out, according to the word of
the Lord ...."
2KI 10:19-27 Jehu uses trickery to massacre the Baal worshippers.
2KI 11:1 Athaliah destroys all the royal family.
2KI 14:5, 7 Amaziah kills his servants and then 10,000 Edomites.
2KI 15:3-5 Even though he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord,
the Lord smites Azariah with leprosy for not having removed the "high
places."
2KI 15:16 Menahem ripped open all the women who were pregnant.
2KI 19:35 An angel of the Lord kills 185,000 men.
1CH 20:3 (KJV) "And he brought out the people that were in it, and cut
them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes."
2CH 13:17 500,000 Israelites are slaughtered.
2CH 21:4 Jehoram slays all his brothers.
PS 137:9 Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the
stones.
PS 144:1 God is praised as the one who trains hands for war and fingers
for battle.
IS 13:15 "Everyone who is captured will be thrust through; all who are
caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces
before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished."
IS 13:18 "Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they
shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare
children."
IS 14:21-22 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of
their fathers."
IS 49:26 The Lord will cause the oppressors of the Israelite's to eat
their own flesh and to become drunk on their own blood as with wine.
JE 16:4 "They shall die grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented;
neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face
of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine;
and their carcasses shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the
beasts of the earth."
LA 4:9-10 "Those slain by the sword are better off than those who die
of famine; racked with hunger, they waste away for lack of food. ...
pitiful women have cooked their own children, who became their food ..."
EZ 6:12-13 The Lord says: "... they will fall by the sword, famine and
plague. He that is far away will die of the plague, and he that is near
will fall by the sword, and he that survives and is spared will die of
famine. So will I spend my wrath upon them. And they will know I am the
Lord, when the people lie slain among their idols around their altars,
on every high hill and on all the mountaintops, under every spreading
tree and every leafy oak ...."
EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and
maidens, little children and women ...."
EZ 20:26 In order that he might horrify them, the Lord allowed the
Israelites to defile themselves through, amongst other things, the
sacrifice of their first-born children.
EZ 21:3-4 The Lord says that he will cut off both the righteous and the
wicked that his sword shall go against all flesh.
EZ 23:25, 47 God is going to slay the sons and daughters of those who
were whores.
EZ 23:34 "You shall ... pluck out your hair, and tear your breasts."
HO 13:16 "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed
in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
MI 3:2-3 "... who pluck off their skin ..., and their flesh from off
their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin
from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as
for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron."
MT 3:12, 8:12, 10:21, 13:30, 42, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, LK 13:28, JN 5:24
Some will spend eternity burning in Hell. There will be weeping,
wailing and gnashing of teeth.
MT 10:21 "... the brother shall deliver up his brother to death, and
the father his child, ... children shall rise up against their parents,
and cause them to be put to death."
MT 10:35-36 "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a
daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-
law a man's enemies will be the members of his own family."
MT 11:21-24 Jesus curses [the inhabitants of] three cities who were not
sufficiently impressed with his great works.
AC 13:11 Paul purposefully blinds a man (though not permanently).
GE 3:1-7, 22-24 God allows Adam and Eve to be deceived by the Serpent
(the craftiest of all of God's wild creatures). They eat of the "Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil," thereby incurring death for themselves
and all of mankind for ever after. God prevents them from regaining
eternal life, by placing a guard around the "Tree of Eternal Life."
(Note: God could have done the same for the "Tree of Knowledge of Good
and Evil" in the first place and would thereby have prevented the Fall
of man, the necessity for Salvation, the Crucifixion of Jesus, etc.)
Holly Ober
: You do not know me and cannot possibly speak for me.
No, thank god. You come across as someone clueless enough to think
that the social and political context in which this order was given, the
manner in which it is being implemented, its larger objectives (to try bin
Laden, if caught, outside of regular courts using evidence that, for all
we know might not be admissiable or sufficient to convict him in regular
courts, and denying him the possibility of appeal), and the effect it has
on civil liberties for all of us and most especially for immigrants and
non-citizens, are all somehow completely divorced from the order itself.
: Try reading for comprehension next time.
Why don't you try reading in general. Here's a good place to start:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,608016,00.html
'It's a show trial without the show'
Secret military tribunals. Arrest without charge. No right to a lawyer.
After September 11, this is justice US-style - and critics are warning of
an erosion of civil rights. Edward Helmore reports
Timberwoof
James Clark <cla...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
>
> > In article <GWZM7.843$Ao6....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > "Barbara Standley" <steven...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > hmmph, Peck the Military officers" have the errors of the past to warn
> > > them of tommorow. You are more likely to get justice in a military court
> > > of law than in civilian courts.
> >
> > The only guarantee that these trials are not kangaroo courts is that
> > they are held in public with an independent judiciary, not in secret by
> > officers who have to make the right decisions to get promoted.
> >
>
> Depends on you idea of an "independent" judiciary.
>
> An Orange County Superior Court judge was visited by US Customs
> agents. From the published reports, he seemed a little confused why
> the would be concerned about his collection of child pornography
> that he downloaded from Denmark, or his diary entries in which he
> expresses a desire to meet privately with young boys in the soccer
> league in which he referees.
My idea of an independent judiciary is one publicly elected or appointed
and subject to the same laws as everyone else.
> Of course, local authorities are hot on the trail of the snitch who
> fingered the judge.
>
> At least in a military setting, those that do the judging have an
> understanding that the same UCMJ applies to themselves, as well.
Yes, and they probably also understand that the usual Constitutional
protections of the rights of the accused don't apply in these tribunals.
(I asume you have read the executive order?)
Timberwoof
Compassionate Conservative <Compas...@right.wing> wrote:
But their courts are open and they can't get away for long with
violating the rights of the accused.
Bush's system is set up to violate those rights.
As a conservative, you ought to recognize when people's rights are in
danger.
> --
> Islam is Evil
WTF is this about?
Timberwoof
Compassionate Conservative <Compas...@right.wing> wrote:
They're being held without charge or trial ...
r_kleinschmidt
Seems though like you kinda need public and press scrutiny of the trial
plus a defined path for appeals. Doesn't seem like any of these are
built into the military tribunals.
If I had a family member being held in another country for a trial of
this type, I'd be a lot less than confident they'd recieve any justice.
This is already presenting real interesting problems with extradition
of suspects from foreign countries. Would you support the extradition
of a U.S. citizen for secret trial in another country ? I don't think
I would.