Court strikes down "enemy combatant" status - UPDATE Obama signs indefinite detetion

[gabosaurus]

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The Bush administration cannot use new anti-terrorism laws to keep U.S. residents locked up indefinitely without charging them, a divided federal appeals court said today.

The ruling was a harsh rebuke of one of the central tools the administration believes it has to combat terror.

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country," the court panel said.

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court. It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

The government intends to ask the full 4th Circuit to hear the case, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

"The President has made clear that he intends to use all available tools at his disposal to protect Americans from further al-Qaida attack, including the capture and detention of al-Qaida agents who enter our borders," Boyd said in a statement.

Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.

"This is a landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power," al-Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, said in a statement. "It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals — citizens and immigrants — in the United States."

The court said its ruling doesn't mean al-Marri should be set free. Instead, he can be returned to the civilian court system and tried on criminal charges.

"But the government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention," the opinion said. "For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians — let alone imprison them indefinitely."

Al-Marri is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.

Jose Padilla had been held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.

Federal investigators found credit card numbers on Al-Marri's laptop computer and charged him with credit card fraud. Upon further investigation, the government said, agents found evidence that al-Marri had links to al-Qaida terrorists and was a national security threat. Authorities shifted al-Marri's case from the criminal system and moved him to indefinite military detention.

Al-Marri has denied the government's allegations and is seeking to challenge the government's evidence and cross-examine its witnesses in court.

Lawyers for al-Marri argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus — defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.

If the government's stance was upheld, civil liberties groups said, the Justice Department could use terrorism law to hold any immigrants indefinitely and strip them of the right to use civilian courts to challenge their detention.

[avatar4321]

That's going to get overturned, The Supreme Court already acknowledged the status in Hamdi and Hamdan.

I have to wonder what the court was thinking. i have to read this opinion.

[LiberalNation]

US citizens should not be able to be locked up indefinitely. We do have rights & protections under the constitution ya know.

[nevadamedic]

US citizens should not be able to be locked up indefinitely. We do have rights & protections under the constitution ya know.

Yea and our Government has a duty to protect us from people like these.

[Dilloduck]

US citizens should not be able to be locked up indefinitely. We do have rights & protections under the constitution ya know.

Until terrorist groups follow the Geneva Convention to the letter of the law, I could give a shit what happens to enemy combatants.

[Doniston]

That's going to get overturned, The Supreme Court already acknowledged the status in Hamdi and Hamdan.

I have to wonder what the court was thinking. i have to read this opinion.I certainly hope you are wrong.

[avatar4321]

US citizens should not be able to be locked up indefinitely. We do have rights & protections under the constitution ya know.

American citizens are locked up indefinately all the time. its called life inprisonment. it wastes tons of money that could be saved with an execution.

[avatar4321]

I certainly hope you are wrong.

cause capturing terrorists is ooh so bad...

[LiberalNation]

Until terrorist groups follow th Geneva Convention to the letter of the law, I could give a shit what happens to enemy combatants.
and that should be the case with non-citizens but US citizens like you and I should have the protections guaranteed us by the constitution, specifically the bill of rights.

You could just be taken off the streets and locked up without any hope of a trial/lawyer nothing, just because someone claimed you were an enemy combatent. DO you really want that. I say it's giving the federal government wayyy to much power it shouldn't have.

[LiberalNation]

American citizens are locked up indefinately all the time. its called life inprisonment. it wastes tons of money that could be saved with an execution.
After a fair trial under our laws.

[Dilloduck]

and that should be the case with non-citizens but US citizens like you and I should have the protections guaranteed us by the constitution, specifically the bill of rights.

You could just be taken off the streets and locked up without any hope of a trial/lawyer nothing, just because someone claimed you were an enemy combatent. DO you really want that. I say it's giving the federal government wayyy to much power it shouldn't have.

I figured it would come down to " How would you like for this to happen to you ?" Actually I wished it would have happened to OJ but I digress. I'd scream bloody murder if it happen to me as I would be devastated if my son was killed in Iraq HOWEVER I will suggest to you that they will always someone who gets the shaft in order to continue with a relatively ordered society. And those who claim that they could handle the results of no one making sacrifices is full of shit.

[LiberalNation]

Well our nations has survived this long with those rights intact so I think we should keep em. They are hwat makes this country great.

I don't even mind Gitmo for foreign enemies but not our own people. We have a justice system for that.

[Gaffer]

To be an enemy combatant you have to be captured fighting against our military. Usually some place like iraq or afganhistan. They just don't pull people randomly off the streets and lock them up under that status. Those being held earned it. Nobody here, except maybe rahul, needs to worry about it.

[Dilloduck]

Well our nations has survived this long with those rights intact so I think we should keep em. They are hwat makes this country great.

I don't even mind Gitmo for foreign enemies but not our own people. We have a justice system for that.

These "rights' have been violated throughout our nations history. Fair or unfair, someone always takes a turn getting the shitty end of the stick. If you personally think this guy is getting screwed, go help him. Don't have he time or the money, right?

[LiberalNation]

These "rights' have been violated throughout our nations history. Fair or unfair, someone always takes a turn getting the shitty end of the stick.

Yeah and we've called in wrong looking back so why repeat.


If you personally think this guy is getting screwed, go help him. Don't have he time or the money, right?
No money, no time, and I don't care about him personally at all but the precedent this could set if US citizens can be declared enemy combatents by the exacutive branch and then loose all their rights is one I don't want seen set.

[5stringJeff]

This is a good decision. The government is barred from being able to detain you without charges and a trial, by the Bill of Rights.

[avatar4321]

So basically the military can kill enemy combatants in the battle field, but we cant detain them.

You realize that simply means the military will be required to shoot everyone and take no prisoners dont you? There would be no point to take prisoners if they can't be detained. And if they cant be detained they cant be interrogated.

So the question is do you prefer we just kill them all or do you prefer we actually detain them and get information from them and keep them from harming more people?

[LiberalNation]

If they're US citizens out of country, capture and trial. If their taking up arms kill em. If they're legal US residents on American soil, capture and trial.

[JohnDoe]

Yeah and we've called in wrong looking back so why repeat.


No money, no time, and I don't care about him personally at all but the precedent this could set if US citizens can be declared enemy combatents by the exacutive branch and then loose all their rights is one I don't want seen set.

precisely!

[nevadamedic]

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The Bush administration cannot use new anti-terrorism laws to keep U.S. residents locked up indefinitely without charging them, a divided federal appeals court said today.

The ruling was a harsh rebuke of one of the central tools the administration believes it has to combat terror.

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country," the court panel said.

In the 2-1 decision, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel found that the federal Military Commissions Act doesn't strip Ali al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident, of his constitutional rights to challenge his accusers in court. It ruled the government must allow al-Marri to be released from military detention.

The government intends to ask the full 4th Circuit to hear the case, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said.

"The President has made clear that he intends to use all available tools at his disposal to protect Americans from further al-Qaida attack, including the capture and detention of al-Qaida agents who enter our borders," Boyd said in a statement.

Al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., since June 2003. The Qatar native has been detained since his December 2001 arrest at his home in Peoria, Ill., where he moved with his wife and five children a day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to study for a master's degree at Bradley University.

"This is a landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power," al-Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, said in a statement. "It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals — citizens and immigrants — in the United States."

The court said its ruling doesn't mean al-Marri should be set free. Instead, he can be returned to the civilian court system and tried on criminal charges.

"But the government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention," the opinion said. "For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians — let alone imprison them indefinitely."

Al-Marri is currently the only U.S. resident held as an enemy combatant within the U.S.

Jose Padilla had been held as an enemy combatant in a Navy brig for 3 1/2 years before he was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a U.S. Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.

Federal investigators found credit card numbers on Al-Marri's laptop computer and charged him with credit card fraud. Upon further investigation, the government said, agents found evidence that al-Marri had links to al-Qaida terrorists and was a national security threat. Authorities shifted al-Marri's case from the criminal system and moved him to indefinite military detention.

Al-Marri has denied the government's allegations and is seeking to challenge the government's evidence and cross-examine its witnesses in court.

Lawyers for al-Marri argued that the Military Commissions Act, passed last fall to establish military trials, doesn't repeal the writ of habeas corpus — defendants' traditional right to challenge their detention.

If the government's stance was upheld, civil liberties groups said, the Justice Department could use terrorism law to hold any immigrants indefinitely and strip them of the right to use civilian courts to challenge their detention.

Maybe we should give suspected terrorists Congressional Medals of Honor too?

[JohnDoe]

Maybe we should give suspected terrorists Congressional Medals of Honor too? i guess you HATE our Constitution, it should be burned, thrown out?

[Lightning Waltz]

Until terrorist groups follow the Geneva Convention to the letter of the law, I could give a shit what happens to enemy combatants.

because we should be no better than terrorists.

[Kathianne]

because we should be no better than terrorists.

I don't know about 'letter of the law', but do know that when they hide amongst civilians; target civilians; do not dress as warriors, but rather hit and melt amongst the civilians; ambush, kidnap, and behead civilians and soldiers alike; to follow the conventions makes a mockery of what is going on.

The Geneva Conventions were established primarily to aid in the protection of civilians, which we do follow. Secondarily was an attempt to treat POW with a bare minimum of compassion, that is really what is the heart of the argument of this war. To say 'no torture' for terrorists, but nary a word about what has happened to our soldiers, Iraqi police and military, is the underpinnings of a suicide pact. Sorry, we should not be playing that game.

[avatar4321]

i guess you HATE our Constitution, it should be burned, thrown out?

The Constitution is not at suicide pact.

[avatar4321]

because we should be no better than terrorists.

The terrorists dont detain people, they behead them. So detaining them rather than killing is much better than the terrorists.

You take away the ability to capture terrorists, then the only alternative is to kill them in the battlefield. but that way we get no information and we are acting like the terrorists.

[Lightning Waltz]

The Geneva Conventions were established primarily to aid in the protection of civilians, which we do follow.

Do we? Other than an accusation, who's to say that they aren't civilians?

American Citizens, at the VERY least, should be innocent until proven guilty...

[Kathianne]

Do we? Other than an accusation, who's to say that they aren't civilians?

American Citizens, at the VERY least, should be innocent until proven guilty...

Um, we are speaking of different contexts. Go back and read what I wrote about the court ruling. I was referring more recently about the Geneva Conventions and Iraqi insurgents, non-American ones.

[Lightning Waltz]

First sentence of the article.

"The Bush administration cannot use new anti-terrorism laws to keep U.S. residents locked up indefinitely without charging them, a divided federal appeals court said today."

Then you hail this decision as a good thing, as I do?

[Kathianne]

First sentence of the article.

"The Bush administration cannot use new anti-terrorism laws to keep U.S. residents locked up indefinitely without charging them, a divided federal appeals court said today."

Then you hail this decision as a good thing, as I do?

Again, see what I wrote about that decision. The later post, the one you were responding to, was about the Geneva Conventions.

[Lightning Waltz]

Again, see what I wrote about that decision. The later post, the one you were responding to, was about the Geneva Conventions.

Er..maybe you should go back and read the conversation...


US citizens should not be able to be locked up indefinitely. We do have rights & protections under the constitution ya know.

Direct reply, below


Until terrorist groups follow the Geneva Convention to the letter of the law, I could give a shit what happens to enemy combatants.

Direct reply, below


because we should be no better than terrorists.

[Kathianne]

Er..maybe you should go back and read the conversation...



Direct reply, below



Direct reply, below

Er, you are having problems reading the latest posts, much less my own post earlier regarding the case. Quoting others, is so :lame2: .

[Lightning Waltz]

Er, you are having problems reading the latest posts, much less my own post earlier regarding the case. Quoting others, is so :lame2: .

:lol:
This is coming from the person that 2 seconds before was claiming I wasn't following the conversation...:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Kathianne]

:lol:
This is coming from the person that 2 seconds before was claiming I wasn't following the conversation...:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
Seriously, you are spinning something that is unnecessary. But whatever floats your boat. :lame2:

[Lightning Waltz]

Seriously, you are spinning something that is unnecessary. But whatever floats your boat. :lame2:

No spin at all. You replied to me. I replied to Dilloduck. Dilloduck replied to Liberal Nation who was directly talking about US Citizens. Liberal Nation was replying to the original article that was directly talking about US residents.

You are the one trying to spin away considering that I have proven you to be a complete fool in this thread. The only thing that makes you look worse is your inability to own up to your mistake...which you are now doing in a most spectacular fashion...

[Kathianne]

No spin at all. You replied to me. I replied to Dilloduck. Dilloduck replied to Liberal Nation who was directly talking about US Citizens. Liberal Nation was replying to the original article that was directly talking about US residents.

You are the one trying to spin away considering that I have proven you to be a complete fool in this thread. The only thing that makes you look worse is your inability to own up to your mistake...which you are now doing in a most spectacular fashion...

Congratulations. I thought I posted earlier yesterday, I was mistaken.

[Lightning Waltz]

Congratulations. I thought I posted earlier yesterday, I was mistaken.

It takes a big person to admit that she was wrong...especially considering the amount of crap I was giving you about it.

My hat is off to you, Ma'am. :salute:

[Kathianne]

It takes a big person to admit that she was wrong...especially considering the amount of crap I was giving you about it.

My hat is off to you, Ma'am. :salute:

Thanks, I tend to think that's what one should do. Now, what I thought I had posted was that Americans have their rights by citizenship, I don't think the foreign born enemy combatants do. The guy should not be held indefinately, without charges being brought. I do NOT think Gitmo should be closed. They should NOT be brought into this country.

[JohnDoe]

I believe that this issue was about whether LEGAL USA residents get the same priviledges, and legal treatment as anyone here that is a citizen.

This is the law of our great land, and this was just upheld.

I believe this is important because of the ramifications if it were not, like people here legally persuing their residency and citizenship would no longer be secure and no longer seek to come here because of such. Businesses from other countries would no longer seek to invest here or open a factory here because they and their foreign employees here in the USA would not be given those same priveledges and the same Justice system as those here as residents. The parents of a legal citizen here legally awaiting their citizenship would no longer be given those priveledges...OFFERING them NOTHING, to come here LEGALLY....and this would be tradgedy to our country and our history and WHAT made us great, our legal melting pot and our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, not Bill of Rights for citizens only, but our Bill of Rights for anyone here LEGALLY.

[Kathianne]

I believe that this issue was about whether LEGAL USA residents get the same priviledges, and legal treatment as anyone here that is a citizen.

This is the law of our great land, and this was just upheld.

I believe this is important because of the ramifications if it were not, like people here legally persuing their residency and citizenship would no longer be secure and no longer seek to come here because of such. Businesses from other countries would no longer seek to invest here or open a factory here because they and their foreign employees here in the USA would not be given those same priveledges and the same Justice system as those here as residents. The parents of a legal citizen here legally awaiting their citizenship would no longer be given those priveledges...OFFERING them NOTHING, to come here LEGALLY....and this would be tradgedy to our country and our history and WHAT made us great, our legal melting pot and our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, not Bill of Rights for citizens only, but our Bill of Rights for anyone here LEGALLY.
Thus, Gitmo. Notice that Reid, not a citizen, but taken into custody on our soil, got his trial.

[5stringJeff]

I'd like to revise my remarks.

I thought the article was only talking about US citizens, who, of course, have legal protections against indefinite imprisonment under the Bill of Rights. I see the article states that this ruling applies to US resident aliens. IMO, this is a wrong ruling. Non-citizens don't get the same rights as citizens. If they want those rights, they should apply to be citizens.

[JohnDoe]

I'd like to revise my remarks.

I thought the article was only talking about US citizens, who, of course, have legal protections against indefinite imprisonment under the Bill of Rights. I see the article states that this ruling applies to US resident aliens. IMO, this is a wrong ruling. Non-citizens don't get the same rights as citizens. If they want those rights, they should apply to be citizens.

fyi
yes they do get the same rights as citizens and the supreme court has ruled they do under our constitution on several different cases in the past.

[Dilloduck]

fyi
yes they do get the same rights as citizens and the supreme court has ruled they do under our constitution on several different cases in the past.

Which begs the question "Is there any advantage at all in having a US citizenship ?"

[LOki]

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The Bush administration cannot use new anti-terrorism laws to keep U.S. residents locked up indefinitely without charging them, a divided federal appeals court said today.

The ruling was a harsh rebuke of one of the central tools the administration believes it has to combat terror.

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the constitution — and the country," the court panel said.No shit.


The President has made clear that he intends to use all available tools at his disposal to protect Americans from further al-Qaida attack, including the capture and detention of al-Qaida agents who enter our borders," Boyd said in a statement.Translation:
The President has made clear that he will nurture a fear of terrorism in Americans, and use that fear to abridge the Consitution in an attempt at a federal power-grab.


"This is a landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power," al-Marri's lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, said in a statement. "It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals — citizens and immigrants — in the United States."Fuck YEAH!


If the government's stance was upheld, civil liberties groups said, the Justice Department could use terrorism law to hold any immigrants indefinitely and strip them of the right to use civilian courts to challenge their detention.No doubt that future of upholding the government's stance would mean a gradual shift from "enemy combatant" to "enemy of the state" to "anyone who disagree's with the state" to "anyone the President points an accusatory finger at."

[Dilloduck]

No shit.

Translation:
The President has made clear that he will nurture a fear of terrorism in Americans, and use that fear to abridge the Consitution in an attempt at a federal power-grab.

Fuck YEAH!

No doubt that future of upholding the government's stance would mean a gradual shift from "enemy combatant" to "enemy of the state" to "anyone who disagree's with the state" to "anyone the President points an accusatory finger at."

No doubt---every day the Bushies come to my apt to try to grab some of my power. :laugh2:

[Monkeybone]

meh, you fight for another country against ours, citizenship should be revoked.

[Dilloduck]

meh, you fight for another country against ours, citizenship should be revoked.

No worries---your lawyer can get you off on a technicality and you can continue your efforts.

[JohnDoe]

Which begs the question "Is there any advantage at all in having a US citizenship ?"yes, as citizens, we get to vote for our representation that writes the laws.

legal residents, waiting for citizenship or on a legal school visa, or work visa can not vote for representation.

and also as a usa citizen we can be proud to have such a FAIR and just, justice system that ''we'', collectively, put in place through our forfathers!

[Dilloduck]

yes, as citizens, we get to vote for our representation that writes the laws.

legal residents, waiting for citizenship or on a legal school visa, or work visa can not vote for representation.

and also as a usa citizen we can be proud to have such a FAIR and just, justice system that ''we'', collectively, put in place through our forfathers!

It's amazing how easily we will relinquish the right to participate in America to just anybody. No test, no requirements--they can all just come here and play until someone gives them the right to decide who writes our laws too. They can even use American laws to sue American citizens. Damn we're nice folk.
What was the advantage of Amercian citizenship again?

[LOki]

No doubt---every day the Bushies come to my apt to try to grab some of my power. :laugh2:Nah. A little less like that, and a little more like this:<blockquote><i>"Thousands will refuse to be searched, numbered, dehumanized and treated as cattle or subjects of the state. These will be the ones who remember and value what it is to be an American, and refuse to submit. Increasingly brutal enforcement will drive them underground if they don't die in firefights or languish in the new gulags built to house them.

In short order, these people won't be able to fly, take a train or bus, get a driver's license, have bank accounts or credit cards, send their children to school, have telephone, power or water services, or legally own firearms. For support, they will form communities with others like themselves: refugee camps within America for this new class of American refuseniks in our war on terrorism."</i>

<b><a href="http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2002/libe156-20020114-04.html">Anti-terrorist Laws Will Create New Terrorists--John Bottoms</a></b></blockquote>Or this:<blockquote><i>"I fancy myself an honest man. I've never intentionally harmed an innocent soul, and I've never stolen so much as a slice of bread even when I was broke and hungry. I obey every law I can bring myself to, sometimes at the cost of self-contempt. But there are some things I CAN NOT do, and someday those things will be demanded of me. Then I'll be branded a dangerous criminal </i>[or, for the purposes of argument, an "enemy combatant"]<i>. And someone will come for me, and I'll resist. Then the shooting will start, and I'll likely be killed. I just don't want to die alone."</i>

<b><a href="http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2002/libe155-20020107-03.html">I Just Don't Want to Die Alone--Joel Simon</a></b></blockquote>

[Dilloduck]

Nah. A little less like that, and a little more like this:<blockquote><i>"Thousands will refuse to be searched, numbered, dehumanized and treated as cattle or subjects of the state. These will be the ones who remember and value what it is to be an American, and refuse to submit. Increasingly brutal enforcement will drive them underground if they don't die in firefights or languish in the new gulags built to house them.

In short order, these people won't be able to fly, take a train or bus, get a driver's license, have bank accounts or credit cards, send their children to school, have telephone, power or water services, or legally own firearms. For support, they will form communities with others like themselves: refugee camps within America for this new class of American refuseniks in our war on terrorism."</i>

<b><a href="http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2002/libe156-20020114-04.html">Anti-terrorist Laws Will Create New Terrorists--John Bottoms</a></b></blockquote>Or this:<blockquote><i>"I fancy myself an honest man. I've never intentionally harmed an innocent soul, and I've never stolen so much as a slice of bread even when I was broke and hungry. I obey every law I can bring myself to, sometimes at the cost of self-contempt. But there are some things I CAN NOT do, and someday those things will be demanded of me. Then I'll be branded a dangerous criminal </i>[or, for the purposes of argument, an "enemy combatant"]<i>. And someone will come for me, and I'll resist. Then the shooting will start, and I'll likely be killed. I just don't want to die alone."</i>

<b><a href="http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2002/libe155-20020107-03.html">I Just Don't Want to Die Alone--Joel Simon</a></b></blockquote>

Ya----lots of that stuff has been happening around my neighborhood too! :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

It's amazing how easily we will relinquish the right to participate in America to just anybody. No test, no requirements--they can all just come here and play until someone gives them the right to decide who writes our laws too. They can even use American laws to sue American citizens. Damn we're nice folk.
What was the advantage of Amercian citizenship again?

Dillo, we did not create our country, constitution and laws within it because WE felt we deserved all of these humane and just and fair rights for us ONLY, we felt they were inalienable rights-for ALL human beings.

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are in some sense fundamental, are not awarded by human power.

don't they teach you guys this stuff in school anymore?

[JohnDoe]

It's amazing how easily we will relinquish the right to participate in America to just anybody. No test, no requirements--they can all just come here and play until someone gives them the right to decide who writes our laws too. They can even use American laws to sue American citizens. Damn we're nice folk.
What was the advantage of Amercian citizenship again?


And stop being silly!

Our country IS GREAT because we offer these fairness rights and protections from a gvt filled with tyrants to ALL that come here. WHY? Because they are FAIR AND JUST....and ALL human beings deserve to have them.

Foreign businesses would not have invested in America the way they did, and do, which makes or helps us greatly!

[Dilloduck]

And stop being silly!

Our country IS GREAT because we offer these fairness rights and protections from a gvt filled with tyrants to ALL that come here. WHY? Because they are FAIR AND JUST....and ALL human beings deserve to have them.

Foreign businesses would not have invested in America the way they did, and do, which makes or helps us greatly!

And the American citizenship part? Why is that important again?

[JohnDoe]

And the American citizenship part? Why is that important again?it's apparently only important to those that care about our god given human/civil rights, to those that want to be a part of such a great, fair country....

are you purposely being obtuse?

if you don't like it, then leave, or get your representative to bring up an amendment to the constitution so you can change our constitution to only allow us citizens the rights that all human beings deserve, like ''innocent'' until proven guilty, like habeas corpus, the right to be CHARGED with the crime you are being incarcerated for and the right to defend oneself of such a crime...

[Dilloduck]

it's apparently only important to those that care about our god given human/civil rights, to those that want to be a part of such a great, fair country....

are you purposely being obtuse?

if you don't like it, then leave, or get your representative to bring up an amendment to the constitution so you can change our constitution to only allow us citizens the rights that all human beings deserve, like ''innocent'' until proven guilty, like habeas corpus, the right to be CHARGED with the crime you are being incarcerated for and the right to defend oneself of such a crime...

Are you stunned or something, Joe ? Are you in denial maybe ? What does your American citizenship provide you with that everyone in America, citizen or not, doesn't have ?

[JohnDoe]

Are you stunned or something, Joe ? Are you in denial maybe ? What does your American citizenship provide you with that everyone in America, citizen or not, doesn't have ?
i've already told you about 2 different things that come to my mind in this thread, i am not going to repeat them, just because YOU can't comprehend them Dillo.

[LOki]

No doubt---every day the Bushies come to my apt to try to grab some of my power. :laugh2:
Ya----lots of that stuff has been happening around my neighborhood too! :laugh2:Look. The power grab I speak of, is not a myth--it has happened. You may be comfortable with it because it's not being excersised in your localized, personal, sphere of awareness; or it is being excersised, and you just don't consider it terribly abusive--that's fine. The Bush administration may never excersise it in your localized, personal, sphere of awareness in an abusive manner, but it still has happened, and it won't go away when Bush does.

I just wonder if you're going to still be chuckling in your jester hat when President Hillary Rodham Clinton (and I predict she will be President because the majority of the chuckle headed sheeple in this country will not consider another term of Republican Presidency because they've been manipulated into senselssly reviling everything GWB) starts excersising the powers that GWB managed to obtain through exaggerating the terrorist threat, and nurturing a sense of panic toward that exaggerated terrorist threat.

[Dilloduck]

Look. The power grab I speak of, is not a myth--it has happened. You may be comfortable with it because it's not being excersised in your localized, personal, sphere of awareness; or it is being excersised, and you just don't consider it terribly abusive--that's fine. The Bush administration may never excersise it in your localized, personal, sphere of awareness in an abusive manner, but it still has happened, and it won't go away when Bush does.

I just wonder if you're going to still be chuckling in your jester hat when President Hillary Rodham Clinton (and I predict she will be President because the majority of the chuckle headed sheeple in this country will not consider another term of Republican Presidency because they've been manipulated into senselssly reviling everything GWB) starts excersising the powers that GWB managed to obtain through exaggerating the terrorist threat, and nurturing a sense of panic toward that exaggerated terrorist threat.

Sorry--I ain't buying the slippery slope argument on this one. My life has been WAYYY more screwed up by environmentalmidgets, the PC crowd and bleeding heart liberals who demand that everyone should get "fair" treatment.
That ACLU club hasn't helped me a damn bit either.

[Dilloduck]

i've already told you about 2 different things that come to my mind in this thread, i am not going to repeat them, just because YOU can't comprehend them Dillo.

I can vote and be proud ????? WOWSER. Someone needs to tell the illegals about the voting thing btw.

[JohnDoe]

I can vote and be proud ????? WOWSER. Someone needs to tell the illegals about the voting thing btw.

What? You think the constitution covers you with all of these fundamental rights because you are special, an American citizen?

Is this what you were TAUGHT or what you THINK? That only you are special enough to receive them as a US citizen?

That is both ignorant and arrogant, to think this way Dillo???? I don't understand where your impression of our citizenship comes from???

oh, and
I agree w/u about the illegals...

[LOki]

Sorry--I ain't buying the slippery slope argument on this one. My life has been WAYYY more screwed up by environmentalmidgets, the PC crowd and bleeding heart liberals who demand that everyone should get "fair" treatment.
That ACLU club hasn't helped me a damn bit either.You must be responding to a different post; one that perhaps asserts that the environmentalmidgets, the PC crowd, bleeding heart liberals, and the ACLU club won't use the fruits of GWB's power grab for their own puposes, or if they do, it will be used responsibly, and for "good" only.

[Dilloduck]

You must be responding to a different post; one that perhaps asserts that the environmentalmidgets, the PC crowd, bleeding heart liberals, and the ACLU club won't use the fruits of GWB's power grab for their own puposes, or if they do, it will be used responsibly, and for "good" only.

I got the right post and I know full well who has done the most to screw with my life. ( hint: It ain't GWB )

[LOki]

I got the right post and I know full well who has done the most to screw with my life. ( hint: It ain't GWB )Then you're fucking missing the point. ( hint: It ain't GWB )

[Dilloduck]

Then you're fucking missing the point. ( hint: It ain't GWB )

OK--If you will make you feel better I will be afraid

[MtnBiker]

“He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”These harsh words come courtesy of the executive director of the ACLU, formerly a supporter of the president but also just one of the many dissenters who have since have grown disillusioned with an administration tarnished by unfulfilled campaign promises and continuous constitutional violations.
When he signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans.
Now some of the president’s pals are expressing their agreement with Obama’s own hesitation but say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans.
Under the bill, which approves all defense spending for the 2012 fiscal year, certain provisions allow for the military detainment and torture of US citizens, indefinitely, essentially allowing for Guantanamo Bay-style prisons to be a real possibility for every American. As the act floated around Congress, an underground outrage erupted and activists attempted to keep the bill from leaving the House and the Senate, although a lack of media coverage largely left the matter hidden to the public. Despite this campaign, the legislation made it out of the Capitol Building and into the Oval Office last month, prompting advocates against the act to petition for the president to veto it.


http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/

[jimnyc]

Someone here recently stated that Obama signed away, and has the ability to have indefinite detentions for those at Gitmo that are found not guilty as well. I haven't found proof of that one yet, and the poster who made those comments did nothing to disprove what I posted and never posted proof to backup his words either.

Either way, Obama is still an idiot!

[ConHog]

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/

I'll ask again, knowing full well nothing will EVER change, why are they allowed to put these sorts of riders onto bills? You want a bill saying you can torture Americans? Pass the motherfucker as JUST a bill to do that, don't hide it in an appropriations bill.

PS How could this unconstitutional piece of shit possibly be passed, let alone stand as law?

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/120103detainedRGBfff20120104013305.jpg