This is just plain wrong. Even Clinton didn't do this.


PDA






jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 03:23 AM
Thank God there are still some judges like Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula; although judges of her stripe are becoming rarer.

SOURCE (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&type=printable)

Quarantining dissent
How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech

James Bovard

Sunday, January 4, 2004

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area.

Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"

Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."

One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."

Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined.

Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."

When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone."

Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."

Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."

If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000 fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense. Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.

Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech zone" but refused to cooperate.

The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.

The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat."

The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.

The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries.

When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."

Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.

For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages.

Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom" and declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings."

Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.

Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere.

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.

When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."

Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.

On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."

The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report.

On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official.

Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

James Bovard is the author of "Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil." This article is adapted from one that appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of the American Conservative.

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

If you enjoyed reading about "This is just plain wrong. Even Clinton didn't do this." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
January 5, 2004, 03:51 AM
Ya, I've been tracking these stories. There's too much independent evidence in support of this crap happening.

Every day, it becomes less likely Bush will get my vote.

"Disgusted" doesn't begin.

glocksman
January 5, 2004, 04:16 AM
It happened locally when Cheney visited Evansville.

Story (http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc022002.html)

"I dismissed this case yesterday. I didn't think the evidence established a case that would be successful in court," Stan Levco, prosecuting attorney Vanderburgh County, Indiana, told The Progressive on February 20. "I don't think they were wrong to arrest him under the circumstances. They thought it was a safety issue, and I wouldn't second-guess them."


"They shouldn't even have approached me in the first place," Blair told The Progressive. "Carrying a sign isn't an illegal act in America. At least it wasn't before Bush-Cheney. I'm a little disappointed that Stan thinks there was a safety issue involved, but clearly he understands that I was within my rights."


Strip the left wing rhetoric out of the article and it's essentially the same story as reported in the local paper at the time.

I guess the Administration is forgetting the difference between 'elected' and 'anointed'. :fire:

Hal
January 5, 2004, 07:00 AM
This is just plain wrong. Even Clinton didn't do this.
Correction - this has been going on since at least 1968 that I know of.

I'm not happy with everything about W,,but he's not the one to point a finger at here.

NukemJim
January 5, 2004, 07:20 AM
Hal, regarding:

Correction - this has been going on since at least 1968 that I know of

It sounds like you know more than some of us about this issue.
Could you please go into the history and practice of this a little if possible?


Thank you

NukemJim

JohnBT
January 5, 2004, 07:52 AM
Maybe earlier than 1968, but I don't have time or inclination to research it.

Wasn't there a long discussion of this topic last week?

John

Alan Fud
January 5, 2004, 07:52 AM
I believe it started with Nixon's first term in office.

El Tejon
January 5, 2004, 07:59 AM
Clinton used the Secret Service and the IRS like that guy in Chicago. What a reaming he got.:uhoh:

Doesn't mean that Bush should be doing this rubbish though.:fire:

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 08:27 AM
I was aware of the practice...keeping the opposing groups apart isn't uncommon.

I wasn't aware, however, that they actually referred to the areas as "free speech zones" and "protest zones." Does anyone know if this is correct, or is this some of the San Francisco Chronicle's slant?

jimpeel, Clinton's Secret Service did indeed do it....but so much for w4rma's assertion that you never criticize Dubya, huh?

:D

Highland Ranger
January 5, 2004, 08:39 AM
That reads like protest and get arrested. If it it is true . . . . pretty scary.

El Tejon
January 5, 2004, 08:44 AM
Well, the Supreme did just say that government can control the citizens ability to criticize the government.:uhoh:

WT
January 5, 2004, 09:05 AM
This is nothing new. Vice President Al Gore had US Army Military Police arrest protestors when they tried to interfere with his speech (Autumn 1994, Presidio Army Base, San Francisco). Our government officials have a right to free speech too.

Secondly, a guy carries a sign saying he doesn't like the President. Makes sense to keep these types away from the President for the safety of each.

griz
January 5, 2004, 09:48 AM
When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

Please remember this kind of reasoning the next time you hear a debate about the Patriot Act. While it's true the Act only takes rights away from terrorists, it's also true that our government can define terrorism any way it wants. All they have to is conclude that your anti-war views are a threat, and poof, your rights are gone.

bvmjethead
January 5, 2004, 09:59 AM
No, Clinton just had sex with an intern in the Oval Office AND

lost the top secret launch codes for the football AND

had several people murdered AND

gave ICBM technology to the Communist Chinese,

But, he's cool cuz he let people say what they wanted too.

:rolleyes:

MrAcheson
January 5, 2004, 10:26 AM
This isn't a "presidential" thing, its a Secret Service thing. These sort of security procedures have probably been around for at least 20 years (when Reagan was shot) if not back to the 60s. Now they are ingrained in the civil service methodology unfortunately. By doing this you prevent any militants hiding in the crowd of protestors from getting a clean shot at the POTUS.

I saw Al Gore speak when I was in college and it was much the same.

Jonesy9
January 5, 2004, 10:56 AM
I disagree. It's completely an image thing. Bush's image is highly guarded, hence no press conferences that are not highly scripted, Orwellian "free speech zones" and micromanagement of even the silliest details. Remeber last years flap over Bush's press guys slapping "made in America" stickers over the "made in china" labels that were on some boxes appearing in his backdrop?

Funnier still images of Bush this weekend on the news, cavorting around like a cowboy at his ranch. It takes a lot of work to make a rich northeasterner, former male cheerleader at Yale who has never worked a day in his life look like a good ol' boy but Bush has really picked up the part. He's even got a great Teaxas accent for some one born and raised in the poshest liberal schools of the northeast. I guess it's possible to pick up a new accent in ones 30's though, even Madonna has done it.

TallPine
January 5, 2004, 11:20 AM
By doing this you prevent any militants hiding in the crowd of protestors from getting a clean shot at the POTUS.
Except for a militant who is smart enough to wear a suit and/or carry an "I Love Bush" sign ..... :rolleyes:

Pilgrim
January 5, 2004, 12:04 PM
This is just plain wrong. Even Clinton didn't do this.

I remember a woman and her husband in Chicago who were arrested when she told clinton, "You suck." The statement was in regards to the Army Rangers who were killed at Mogadishu.

The incident occurred when clinton was working the crowd and pressing flesh, so it was a face-to-face encounter.

Secret Service told the Chicago police to arrest the woman and her husband. At the Chicago PD station, the SS questioned her and her husband, I suppose to determine if they posed a viable threat to the president. When the SS was finished, Chicago PD asked them what they were going to do with the couple. The SS said something like, "You arrested them. You charge them."

I think Chicago PD charged them with disorderly conduct in order to deflect a potential suit for false arrest and false imprisonment.

Pilgrim

DaveB
January 5, 2004, 12:12 PM
I suggest that there's a vast difference between busting somebody for talking trash to the Prez's face and requiring that protesters be kept out of line-of-sight of Bush and, coincidentally, news cameras.

The former makes a certain kind of sense.

The latter is simply an attempt to stifle dissent.

db

Pilgrim
January 5, 2004, 12:18 PM
The SS told the Chicago PD to arrest the couple. When asked later on what charge the SS walked away. Does that perhaps suggest there is no federal statute that prohibits talking trash to the president?

Pilgrim

Link to Clinton Story. (http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.html)

Charges dropped, but couple audited by IRS. (http://freedompage.home.mindspring.com/irs.htm)

P.S. My mistake. The trash talk was concerning the 19 airmen killed in the bombing attack on their barracks in Saudi Arabia

Maimaktes
January 5, 2004, 12:37 PM
Jimpeel, Clinton *did* do this. It was done when he and his entourage visited Paducah, Kentucky, around the last of August of 1996. The Secret Service stopped *everybody* with any sort of sign other than official party-issued "Clinton/Gore" signs. If the sign carriers wanted to proceed past the bank of metal detectors they had set up and into the speech audience area, they had to surrender their signs. If they would not give up their signs, they were turned away.

Several blocks away from the place where Clinton was to speak, a "Designated First Amendment Zone" was set up, inside a disused old tobacco warehouse, so that any malcontents were kept well out of sight not only of Clinton and his travelling freak show, but of the general public as well.

It bothers me a lot that Bush is not more different from Clinton, but a lot of this stuff *was* already going on before Bush II came along.

"Misrule breeds rebellion."

Maimaktes

Jonesy9
January 5, 2004, 12:41 PM
Well Jimpeel, it looks like you were off a bit. According to some patriotic posters like Pilgrim, it appears that Bush has just taken a Clinton policy and expanded upon it. That Bush has embraced and expanded such Clintonian devices as "free speech zones" is even more disgusting that if his staff had had the brains to think up such a traitorious and un-American policy on their own. What a buch of scum sucking leaches.

JohnBT
January 5, 2004, 12:44 PM
I personally think that anybody should be allowed to take their protest signs into the Oval Office anytime they like and interrupt the President. We have rights.

And futhermore, they should be permitted to carry their protest signs into his bedroom in the White House any time they like even if he's sleeping. We have rights.

By God, we have rights in this country.

Right?

John

DonP
January 5, 2004, 01:00 PM
Right here in Chicago at the last Democrat National Convention.

The Chicago police, under King Richie the II, established "Free Speech zones" several blocks from the United Center. Press coverage was allowed, but none of the candidates or delegates ever saw a protest sign except as they drove by in their bus or limo.

My nephew is a Chicago cop and had the duty of keeping the protestors "in their place". Daley viewed it as a major success because this time no one had their head banged by Chicago cops on late night TV, like the last convention they had here in '68.

There's a line somewhere between giving protestors the ability to bring another event to a complete halt, thereby infringing on the right to assemble of another group they don't agree with, and fencing in and controlling protest.

This kind of control is ugly and offensive to anyone that really supports the entire BoR.

But it isn't one sided and Bill and Hill took great pains to make sure they were never photographed with protestors. They had one guy in Chicago detained for several days because when Bill was working the rope line shaking hands for a typical photo-op, one guy said to Bill that he thought he should be impeached, or some other similar non-threatening crack. (Looking back, the guy was clairvoyant, hmmm?)

This is a really a double edged sword with both major parties beiong equally culpable IMNSHO.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 01:09 PM
According to some patriotic posters like Pilgrim, it appears that Bush has just taken a Clinton policy and expanded upon it.

Expanded upon it? I didn't know this...someone was audited (as in Pilgrim's documented example)? Show me where...I assume you have links, at least.

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 01:14 PM
"You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."


:barf: :barf: :barf:

Traitors! Goldstein lovers! To room 101 with them!

Jonesy9
January 5, 2004, 01:16 PM
Thumpy-no, no, no...silly rabbit, keep up with the main topic of the thread please.

jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 01:19 PM
Does anyone remember Clinton's face-to-face confrontation with Luke (Montgomery) Sissyfag? How he told the security to let him talk? How he responded to Sissyfag?

He started shouting at Clinton during a Georgetown University speech on World AIDS Day saying "One year, lots of talk, no action. You're hiding behind the quilts. Talk is cheap and we need action......you're doing nothing while me and my community are dying!"

When the SS started to drag him out, Clinton stopped them and made a statement to him, as an American who deserves answers, before he was removed from the room. "Part of my job is to be a lightning rod," said Mr. Clinton, "to lift the hopes and aspirations of the American people, even though there's no way I can now keep everybody alive who already has AIDS." Mr. "Sissyfag" was not incarcerated.

To eliminate any confusion, Luke Michael Montgomery had his name legally changed to Luke Sissyfag in c.1993. http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/97/5/watchdog.html

jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 01:25 PM
but so much for w4rma's assertion that you never criticize Dubya, huh?He was in my thoughts when I posted this. You would think he would have been on this like a duck on a junebug; but his silence is rather deafening. This is right up his alley; and I would have thought the cut-n-paste king would have innundated us with articles by now; but that would be on-topic.:rolleyes:

jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 01:27 PM
You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act." :what:

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 01:33 PM
Thumpy-no, no, no...silly rabbit, keep up with the main topic of the thread please

Is that your way of saying that you can't back up your assertion? It's common, documented knowledge that Clinton used the IRS to audit his detractors...you make the claim that Bush has expanded upon that. Prove it.

Main topic? Part of the thread title is "even Clinton didn't do this." Main topic, podna...

Jonesy9
January 5, 2004, 02:10 PM
Thumper- we've got some miscomm here. I never once talk about or allude to the IRS. We're talking about squashing dissent by banishing protestors, whcih Bush apologists try to pawn off on Clinton. I merely asserted that with the absolute hatred of Clinton, it's funny that posters would blame Clinton as if that would some how absolve Bush for expanding and institutionalizing the Orwellian free speech zones.

You picked up the IRS thing from another poster who included it as a second link . While the second link is relevant as it follows up on the first, which is about the main topic, no one said anything about the IRS. I hope that clears it up.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing the President in action during the RNC convention in NY. Protestors will be banished to Staten Island, there will be riots and massive violations of protestors civil rights. This one could rival 1968. The GOP under Bush has fallen mightiliy. The abandonment of any and all principles and morals is pursuit of power is sickening.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 02:27 PM
You picked up the IRS thing from another poster who included it as a second link

Wrong...
You specifically mention Pilgrim's post after he talks about Clinton's IRS audit tactic:
According to some patriotic posters like Pilgrim, it appears that Bush has just taken a Clinton policy and expanded upon it.

I'm waiting for you to back up that assertion...Even disregarding the IRS thing, where has Bush "expanded upon it?"

I'm also still wondering if "free speech zones" are what they're actually called or if this is simply a mischaracterization by the "fair and balanced" ( :barf: ) San Francisco Chronicle.

Jonesy9
January 5, 2004, 02:41 PM
what don't you understand Thumper? Yes I pointed out Pilgims' post but why are you latching on to the one small part of it that is not directly to anything we were talking about? Do you really think that you can put words in my mouth and get me to go on some wold goose chase for links for you? LOL!

My intent has been clarified, you can remain stubborn and continue to ignore it or accept it.

As for Bush's expansion of the speech zones, where have you been for the last 3 years? Your comment about "fair and balanced SF Chronicle" give me a clue.

Go to a site called www.google.com and type in "free speech zones" in the search field. This will provide you with pages upon pages of links with which to educate yourself.

I was going to cut and paste a bunch for you but you seem like the kind of poster that would then question the sources I'd pick.

This way, you can choose which links to read yourself. Enjoy and welcome to 2004! :)

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 03:16 PM
Do you really think that you can put words in my mouth and get me to go on some wold goose chase for links for you?

Your statements and the context in which they were made are available for display one page back.

The fallacies in your "words in your mouth" remark are evident to anyone who can manipulate a browser.

Once again:

According to some patriotic posters like Pilgrim, it appears that Bush has just taken a Clinton policy and expanded upon it.

Even giving you the dubious benefit of the doubt that you didn't read the post to which you referred: How has he "expanded upon it."

I was going to cut and paste a bunch for you but you seem like the kind of poster that would then question the sources I'd pick.

I had looked at "free speech zones" already as they related to the president. I understand why you were reluctant to post them.

Jonesy9
January 5, 2004, 03:28 PM
LOL! reluctant? got links? The free speech zones are Bush's way of keeping protestors away. This country has never seen anything like it before. There may have been times under past presidents, clinton and before, when protestors were removed or cordoned off, but now it is a set policy that is strictly adhered to.

I've seen it with my own eyes. I was at Congressman Joe Moakely's funeral, even there Bush had protestors removed far away. There is no precedent for the way Bush's image handlers have institutionalized these so called free speech zones.

It's all about image. It's completely Un-American. But I'm facinated by why you feel compelled to continue defending the policy and look forward to your response.

cameroneod
January 5, 2004, 03:54 PM
I have been on hundreds of Secret Service missions over the years, and I can say that I have NEVER seen this happen. Im sure it is the exception and not the rule. If this did happen, it was for valid security reasons. Every mission I have been on the protestors were in full view.

Waitone
January 5, 2004, 05:36 PM
I can remember this sort of nonsense going on since Nixon was president.

The Secret Service is the base of the problem. The SS has one job, protect the president all all costs. When the 911 attacks happen Bush was criticized because he ended up on Air Force 1 headed away from DC. Well, he had no choice in the matter. SS bodily took him and put him under its protection and executed a plan already in existence which was designed to ensure continunity of government should the country be attacked. Given the 911 concerns I am not surprised it is getting more intensive.

Clinton had the same SS protection. For whatever reason the coverage got a little more agressive in that it is documented that SS and hired muscle did rough up reporters and John Q. Citizen. The special treatment spread to the Assistant President. A special feature implimented by Clinton was the IRS audit as punishment for criticism. Nice touch.

I just love living in a dynamic country. We move, we make changes, we accept challenges. . . . . . and our historical memory is entirely too short. I have no problem jumping up high and screaming loud and long when I see an infringement of consititution rights. However, I will be absolute sure there is a problem before I do so. To quote a good carpenter. . . "Study twice, jump once."

DRC
January 5, 2004, 05:57 PM
I realize that the story has January 4, 2004 on it but either I'm having a bad case of dejavu or I've seen this story verbetim a few months back. I would have to do a little looking to see where I read it but it is scarily familiar all the way down to the protestor with the sign that said "War is good business. Invest your sons."

I'd look a little deeper into the story's origin before I got too up in arms about it. I could be mistaken but I don't think I am. Me thinks it's a repeat of an old story that faded away into obsurity.

Take care,

DRC

greyhound
January 5, 2004, 07:03 PM
Maybe Tim Robbins' "chill wind" will come along and blow over all the protest signs and giant puppets.:D

(Why, for the Love of God, can't I take my own advice and stick to the gun issues? I always get sucked into this stuff. I think I need to stop reading so many political blogs!) :confused:

jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 10:49 PM
Nice catch!

The "War is good business. Invest your sons." comment was on the protest signs. I did a Copernic search on "War is good business Invest your sons" and got several "hits". One of them was this: :what:

"Free-Speech Zone" (http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html)

Same author, different date, different magazine.

December 15, 2003 issue
Copyright © 2003 The American Conservative

“Free-Speech Zone”

The administration quarantines dissent.

By James Bovard

It is posted far and wide but the attribution is consistently to the American Conservative Magazine.

PrudentGT
January 6, 2004, 02:29 AM
Section 241 of Title 18, United States Code:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ...[they shall be guilty of a crime against the United States].

The solution to this is very easy; arrest the SS agents and have a federal prosecutor with the integrity to prosecute. I'd even bring the popcorn.

Ed
January 6, 2004, 10:49 AM
There was a deal on the news here in Little Rock about that a month ago when Bush was here. They moved the Clark supporters away. They had a former Clintonite on and he said that to be fair the SS did the same thing when Clinton was gonna speak somewhere. In 1992 in Jackson MS I was told to move because I had a Bush sign at a Clinton Rally. I didn't move but did hear comments from people how that was not right that I was there and I should leave. I was in College and had the 18 year old attitude so they just stayed mad.

jimpeel
January 6, 2004, 05:25 PM
Turned the ACLU guy on to this case PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=447&invol=74) today. Hope it helps.

I recommend that anyone going to any protest, leafletting, signature gathering, etc carry several copies of Pruneyard v Robins with them to hand to any police officer, or representative of any entity where there is usual and customary public access, to notify them that they are committing a civil rights violation if they in any way attempt to constrain you from peaceful political free speech activities.

jimpeel
January 6, 2004, 05:31 PM
Here's a fun thing to do if the function you are protesting is indoors with a high ceiling.

Get a bunch of red, white, and blue helium balloons on strings. A couple of each will do.

Place a hook -- bent paper clip will do -- at the bottom of the strings.

Dress well and have some indication upon your external person indicating that you are a "friendly".

Have your protest sign rolled up and secreted on you.

Have a method of attachment at the top and a couple of weights -- a couple of nickels will do -- glued to the bottom corners. There also needs to be a stiffener across the top of the protest sign -- stiff cardboard will do.

At the appropriate moment, hook the message onto the balloon hook, and let go. The message will unfurl as it glides gracefully ceilingward.

Now the message is up there for the duration of the event for all to see. Make sure the balloon string is long enough to have the message in sight -- not obscured by rafters, etc. -- but not so long that the handlers can get hold of it and tear it down.

If you can scope out the event site prior to the event it helps a lot. If you can blend in with other people bringing balloons into the event for decoration, all the better.

While everyone is distracted and looking up at your message, FLEE.

alan
January 6, 2004, 06:23 PM
From one day to the next, we come ever closer to that outright POLICE STATE.

Funniest thing about it is the following. For the most part, THE SHEEPLE don't even bleat.

jimpeel
January 6, 2004, 08:33 PM
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/7645909.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Bursey found guilty, fined $500

By CLIF LeBLANC
Staff Writer

A judge fined longtime Columbia political dissenter Brett Bursey $500 Tuesday, ruling that Bursey broke a federal law designed to shield the president from harm.

Bursey, 55, said he would appeal and called on President Bush’s opponents to continue criticizing his policies.

U.S. Magistrate Bristow Marchant acknowledged Bursey was not a threat to Bush during the president’s Oct. 24, 2002, visit to Columbia. But the judge dismissed Bursey’s free speech defense and ruled the protester had no right to be as close to Bush as Bursey wanted in his efforts to show that some South Carolinians opposed his plan to attack Iraq.

"The defendant effectively sealed his own fate when he chose to make his principled stand in a location manifestly reasonable for the Secret Service to make secure," Marchant wrote in a 13-page ruling. Federal prosecutor John Barton said Bursey failed to prove his First Amendment rights were violated.

"He is no hero for First Amendment free speech rights," Barton said after the ruling. "As shown by the judge’s verdict today, he’s a criminal."

Bursey, who faced up to six months and a $5,000 fine, told the judge he would not stand for his rights to be "neutralized or sanitized" by the U.S. Secret Service, which sets presidential protection zones.

"I may lose this battle today," Bursey said in a courtroom packed with supporters. "But we’re winning the war over free speech rights in this country."

During a two-day trial in November, Bursey argued that the federal government sought to muzzle his opposition by insulating Bush from political opposition while allowing his supporters closer access. A sign Bursey carried proclaimed, "No more war for oil."

Signs for Republican candidates were allowed in the restricted area, Bursey and his witnesses said. People with tickets were screened by police and allowed inside a hangar at Columbia Metropolitan Airport to hear Bush promote S.C. Republican candidates.

Secret Service agents and local police testified they told Bursey and other protesters to move to a "demonstration zone" about a half-mile from the hangar.

Only Bursey failed to leave the restricted area, became belligerent and was arrested by airport police on a trespassing charge, according to testimony.

Bursey and other protesters testified he was not contentious. They said they were ordered to a "free speech zone" that did not exist and that police kept sending them farther from Bush.

Secret Service agents testified there was no marked protection zone but said police patrolled the area and enforced a clear restricted area. Local police chose the demonstration area.

The state later dropped its trespassing charge against Bursey because he was on public property. Federal prosecutors charged Bursey in March 2003 under a rarely used 1971 law.

Bursey argued that decision showed selective prosecution. The judge disagreed.

Barton said federal officials filed charges because they could not allow anyone to disregard a Secret Service directive.

"There has to be a consequence when people ignore the directions of the Secret Service when they’re protecting the president of the United States," the prosecutor said.

Bursey has a history of civil disobedience dating to the late 1960s. He served nearly two years in state prison for defacing a military draft office in Columbia in 1971 and has been arrested several times since during antinuclear and other protests.

Reach LeBlanc at (803) 771-8664 or cleblanc@thestate.com .

Bob Locke
January 6, 2004, 09:20 PM
I saw this happen with Cheney on a stop in Denver back in the '02 election cycle. He was here stumping for Allard and a few other Republican candidates (including my Representative, Marilyn Musgrave, who won that year).

I "worked" the event at the media credentials table (as a Musgrave volunteer, because I have and had no love for the rest of the politicians assembled), and I could see that the group of people who had gathered to say their peace about Cheney were ushered across the street from the hotel where the event was taking place.

We were also told that anyone who was legally carrying a concealed firearm would do well to leave it in their car. Seems that the V.P. is a staunch supporter of our right to keep and bear arms, just not in his general vicinity. I'm sure that came from the S.S. though (and I mean that honestly, not as a back-handed swipe).

One of the S.S. agents got a little tense when I asked her if she was aware that her piece was making a very distinct outline in the small of her back. :cool:

alan
January 7, 2004, 12:12 AM
Bob Locke:

At the end of your post, you noted the following. "One of the S.S. agents got a little tense when I asked her if she was aware that her piece was making a very distinct outline in the small of her back. "

Pardon me for what might be a dumb question, but given that you were, I assume, stating the facts of the matter, or had made an discerning observation, exactly how does one spell "tense"?

JitsuGuy
January 7, 2004, 12:56 AM
Say "Hello" to the New World Order... Bush's father spoke it about it numerous times... His son is trying to implement it.

J

Ky Larry
January 7, 2004, 10:33 AM
He said, she said, Clinton did it, Nixon did it, you started it, you hit me first, did not, did to, yadayadayada....:barf: This is the kind of stupid, childish,bull sh** that keeps us from ever getting anything accomplished in America. It doesn't matter who started it.
The fact is IT IS GOING ON NOW! When it started is not important. When it stops is what matters. To me,this seems like a clear violation of our rights to assembly, free speech, and to petition the government. As a matter of fact, I think I'll exercise one of my rights and send a letter to my elected representatives about this situation. If enough of us will do this, it will accomplish a lot more than pointing fingers and calling names.

TheeBadOne
January 7, 2004, 10:44 AM
Correction - this has been going on since at least 1968 that I know of.
Correct.

The term is "Designated Protest Zone", and has been going on for quite sometime, ever since some wako decided to kill the President.

In my humble area we've had multiple visits from VIP's, Billy Clinton, Hillary Clinton, G.W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney, etc.

Here's my observations. When Billy & Co. were in power, no whining was heard about the "Designated Protest Zones". The protesters showed up and did their thing, quite well I might add, nicely organzied.
Now that the Democrats are out of power this is just one more thing for them to whine about.
When a Republican visted the protesters who showed up were quite a different breed. It seemed that getting their message across was not the goal. They wanted to interupt the event and to get in the persons face and confront them. These actions brought them into conflict with the Designated Protest Zone. That is why they are whining.
In short, I'm sure there were some problem protesters when the Democrats were in Office, but through my own experiance I didn't see them, and now they abound.

2 cents

Jonesy9
January 7, 2004, 10:48 AM
you didn't see the protestors against Clinton? well, they may not have marched in the streets but they used the system to attempt impeachment.


well said Ky Larry.

TheeBadOne
January 7, 2004, 10:54 AM
you didn't see the protestors against Clinton? well, they may not have marched in the streets but they used the system to attempt impeachment.
You misunderstand Sir. I saw plenty of protesters against Clinton, but they did it in an orderly fashion, didn't flaunt the rules, and didn't try to intrupt the event and get in the face of the person to confront them in an intimidating manner.

Also, Bill Clinton was impeached.

alan
January 7, 2004, 11:22 AM
Speaking for myself only, I find these so called Free Speech Zones to be anathma to Free Speech.

Other than that, with respect to comment regarding Clinton using the IRS against individsuals, Nixon did pretty much the same thing, no?

DRC
January 7, 2004, 11:49 AM
"'There has to be a consequence when people ignore the directions of the Secret Service when they’re protecting the president of the United States,' the prosecutor said.

Bursey has a history of civil disobedience dating to the late 1960s. He served nearly two years in state prison for defacing a military draft office in Columbia in 1971 and has been arrested several times since during antinuclear and other protests.

Reach LeBlanc at (803) 771-8664 or cleblanc@thestate.com ."

...that those most likely to have to face these consequences and know it in advance (such as Bursey, the guy with a history of civil disobedience and a police record) are the first to break the rules and then scream and yell "Unfair! It's a violation of my civil rights!" the minute they have to face said consequences? Plus doesn't serving two years in a state prison constitute a felony conviction, in which case that would make him a felon and I thought felons waived certain rights due to their actions such as gun ownership, voting, etc.? I don't get it.

As to the free speach zone? I don't know about that either. No one is being prevented from protesting and they can say and do as they please within the law, it's just a matter of the proximity in which they can do it. I'm not really seeing it as a free speach violation especially when you can have a person removed from a movie theatre for talking and disturbing during a movie. Those people are just exercising their right to free speach aren't they? But then I could just be an idiot :)

Take care everyone,

DRC

hops
January 7, 2004, 03:48 PM
Free speech is dead. For now, we can consider ourselves that at least our 'thoughts' are still free.

There is a German song, 'Die Gedanken sind Frei..". First heard of it / saw it in some american WWII POW movie, with Doug McClure as an OSS officer and Richard Basehard as the POW Kommandant, years ago.

http://lieder.aus-germanien.de/gedanken.htm

It's in German, starts out ; Die gedanken sind frei, niemand kann sie erraten..

Further on down is a translated version I found.

link: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1185.html

"Thoughts are free, no one can discover them...."

Deutsch:

Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten,
Sie fliehen vorbei, wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jäger erschießen,
mit Pulver und Blei: die Gedanken sind frei.

Ich denke, was ich will, und was mich beglücket.
Doch alles in der Still und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch und Begehren kann niemand verwehren.
es bleibt dabei: die Gedanken sind frei.

Ich liebe den Wein, mein Mädchen vor allen.
Sie tut mir allein am besten gefallen.
Ich bin nicht alleine bei meinem Glas Weine.
mein Mädchen dabei: die Gedanken sind frei.

Und sperrt man mich ein im finsteren Kerker,
das alles sind rein vergebliche Werke.
Denn meine Gedanken zerreißen die Schranken
und Mauern entzwei. die Gedanken sind frei.

Drum will ich auf immer den Sorgen absagen,
Und will mich auch nimmer mit Grillen mehr plagen.
Man kann ja im Herzen stets lachen und scherzen
Und denken dabei: die Gedanken sind frei.

English:

Die Gedanken Sind Frei (Our Thoughts Are Free)

Die Gedanken sind frei
My thoughts freely flower,
Die Gedanken sind frei
My thoughts give me power.
No scholar can map them,
No hunter can trap them,
No man can deny:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

I think as I please
And this gives me pleasure,
My conscience decrees,
This right I must treasure;
My thoughts will not cater
To duke or dictator,
No man can deny--
Die Gedanken sind frei!

And if tyrants take me
And throw me in prison
My thoughts will burst free,
Like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble,
The structure will tumble,
And free men will cry:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

Neither trouble or pain
Will ever touch me again.
No good comes of fretting,
My hope's in forgetting.
Within myself still
I can think as I will,
But I laugh, do not cry:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

-- Traditional

jimpeel
January 7, 2004, 04:08 PM
No one is being prevented from protesting and they can say and do as they please within the law, it's just a matter of the proximity in which they can do it.Did you miss this part of the article?Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' " Whether you like it or not, that would qualify as a mass arrest of political dissenters. The fact that they were later allowed to go home without being booked does not negate the fact that while they were in that area they were technically under arrest.

buzz_knox
January 7, 2004, 04:17 PM
Free speech is dead. For now, we can consider ourselves that at least our 'thoughts' are still free.

The fact that you felt free to post that proves that the statement is without merit.

JitsuGuy
January 7, 2004, 06:12 PM
Geez, anyone that can argue in favor of the President or his clan acting in this way probably needs to be reminded of history and/or the frog over the flame experiment.

J

DRC
January 7, 2004, 06:45 PM
"'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

And this means what exactly to you? I know what it means to me and by your post our interpretations are diametrically opposed. An area that CAN BE SECURED is not the same as a prison or prison camp and if protests got out of hand I would hope it would be in an area that the police or Secret Service could easily secure to protect the innocent. What's your take?

"Whether you like it or not, that would qualify as a mass arrest of political dissenters. The fact that they were later allowed to go home without being booked does not negate the fact that while they were in that area they were technically under arrest."

Please forgive me for pointing out the painfully obvious when the merely obvious would do but your comment is completely obsurd and without merrit. These people are given an area they can protest in so could you please prove that they are placed there and locked up while there?
Mr Jitsuguy,

perhaps you need to stop reading into a situation what isn't there. History (the unskewed version of course) shows more than just abuses of power and the taking away of civil rights. If you would be so kind as to qualify your statement I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

DRC

Bob Locke
January 7, 2004, 08:48 PM
Pardon me for what might be a dumb question, but given that you were, I assume, stating the facts of the matter, or had made an discerning observation, exactly how does one spell "tense"?
Not sure I understand what you're asking here.

The agent in this incident looked like she was surprised that someone had "made" her, and didn't look too pleased about it. That's why I meant by "tense".

But that's sort of off-topic for this discussion.

I've been to a couple of protests where we were confined to a specific area. Didn't like it one bit. Public space is public space, in my opinion, and one group has just as much right to it as another. If you're going to allow supporters within a few feet of a V.I.P., then those who have dissenting opinions ought to be allowed in similar proximity.

Private locations are another thing, obviously, but that's not what's being discussed here.

jimpeel
January 7, 2004, 09:15 PM
"'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

And this means what exactly to you?That they could, without notice, ensnare the people within the confines of the "place that is able to be secured" and not allow them to leave. They could effect a mass arrest of everyone there for whatever reason they wished -- lawful or not. I know what it means to me and by your post our interpretations are diametrically opposed. An area that CAN BE SECURED is not the same as a prison or prison camp and if protests got out of hand I would hope it would be in an area that the police or Secret Service could easily secure to protect the innocent. What's your take?The point is that they could secure the area for any reason they wished -- even if there were no disturbances; or the protestors did not get "out of hand". The area is, as you stated, "not the same as a prison or prison camp" but could become one at a moment's notice.

What would your opinion be if the authorities did ensnare the assemblage and not allow them out? What if they started demanding ID, mugshots, and fingerprints from everyone within the enclosure prior to allowing them to leave, including minor children? What if they jailed anyone who failed to produce ID or refused to have their fingerprints taken? Would our opinions still be diametrically opposed after this eventuality? What level of government abrogation will it take for you to be in my camp?

Jeff Thomas
January 7, 2004, 09:41 PM
I've seen this happen in Arizona, and it definitely occurred during the Clinton years. It is indeed an outrage, by either party.

Regards from TX

AZRickD
January 7, 2004, 11:02 PM
TheBadOne:
but they did it in an orderly fashion, didn't flaunt the rules,
You mean flaunting the rules, like, the First Amendment? Rules are way down the list of Supreme Laws of the Land.

As for happening in Arizona Ernie Hancock (http://www.ernesthancock.com) was arrested in 1994 in Phoenix because he held a sign that said, "Legalized Freedom. Vote Libertarian." He was put in Madison Street Jail just long enough for Janet Reno's motorcade to enter the basement parking garage where she was speaking.

I guess she couldn't take dissenting opinions either.

Rick

JPM70535
January 7, 2004, 11:50 PM
What it seems we have here is just a replay of the ever occurring I LOVE BUSH-I HATE BUSH battle. Nothing ever changes and the players on either side remain the same.

Love him or hate him, he is the President and the SS has the duty to protect him from harm. A protester with a stick (poster) in his hands is I guess a potential weapon, and a possible threat. IMO better to err on the side of caution than to have another shot Prez ala Reagan.

romulus
January 8, 2004, 12:13 AM
an attempt to stifle dissent.

Maybe they go overboard with their notions of public safety and public order (I have no problem with it...) When they shut down this board because you're criticising POTUS or they forbid any street demonstration far from POTUS's person, then I'll believe this tripe...

jimpeel
January 8, 2004, 12:28 AM
When they shut down this board because you're criticising POTUS or they forbid any street demonstration far from POTUS's person, then I'll believe this tripe...So all of those things that will come before are acceptable? They can do as they will and until you see those things the rest is tripe?

By the way, which one is you; the one in the front or the one in the back? :evil:

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/statues/romulus2.jpg
Bronze replica of original Romulus and Remus sculpture at the
Pallazio Del Conservatori in Rome, Italy.

romulus
January 8, 2004, 01:12 AM
No, not all things that will come before are acceptable. On the other hand, the things that have been described in this thread I have no objection to.

Regards,
The baby on the right

corncob
January 8, 2004, 12:06 PM
The problem with the argument that the "free speech zone" is nessecary to keep the president safe is that here in SC, ONLY THE DISSENTERS WERE SENT TO THE FREE SPEECH ZONE!

jimpeel
January 8, 2004, 12:36 PM
That's right. Abdul Mohammed Bin Laden, who snuck into the U.S. from Canada, carrying a red, white, and blue "I love Bush!" sign, and three grenades strapped to his body, would be able to stay in the presence of the President; while patriotic Americans, petitioning the government for redress of grievances, would be ostracised.

romulus
January 8, 2004, 01:22 PM
The problem with the argument that the "free speech zone" is nessecary to keep the president safe is that here in SC, ONLY THE DISSENTERS WERE SENT TO THE FREE SPEECH ZONE!
I can't imagine his supporters presenting a potential threat to the Prez's life...

I doubt they let the guys with the "I love Bush sign" in and leave it at that. The "dissenters" are kept at a distance so the the threat near the Prez is more manageable...

DaveB
January 8, 2004, 01:43 PM
I can't imagine his supporters presenting a potential threat to the Prez's life...

I doubt they let the guys with the "I love Bush sign" in and leave it at that. The "dissenters" are kept at a distance so the the threat near the Prez is more manageable...

Oh, for pity's sake.

Does anyone really think that a mad bomber would carry a "Bush Sucks!" sign?

db

romulus
January 8, 2004, 02:00 PM
You never know, just as you can't assume that someone with an "I love bush sign" will NOT carry one. I think we're saying the same thing. It's just about lowering risks by making the crowd's numbers more manageable...

Obiwan
January 8, 2004, 02:57 PM
You don't think having a bunch of confusion, from mixing the two groups, makes the secret service agents job more difficult???

I do...

And for the last time...nobody is limiting your speech...just telling you where to go do it.

Want to get your point out....schedule your own event.

I have a lot of things I would like to say to the world at large....but I still gotta pay for the TV slot:p

DRC
January 8, 2004, 07:04 PM
"That they could, without notice, ensnare the people within the confines of the "place that is able to be secured" and not allow them to leave. They could effect a mass arrest of everyone there for whatever reason they wished -- lawful or not."

And this was done when? And in what way could it be secured other than a fenced in lockup? There are many ways to designate an area that can be easily secured.

"The point is that they could secure the area for any reason they wished -- even if there were no disturbances; or the protestors did not get "out of hand". The area is, as you stated, "not the same as a prison or prison camp" but could become one at a moment's notice."

Please explain and give detail on the area designated in this case please.

"What would your opinion be if the authorities did ensnare the assemblage and not allow them out?"

For what reason did they ensnare the assemblage? Gotta give me more info than that. Did they start shooting? Did someone have a bomb? Was someone positively IDed as being a high danger risk? Or wanted terrorist? Etc., etc. "What if's" work better when there is a scenario to base them on.

"What if they started demanding ID, mugshots, and fingerprints from everyone within the enclosure prior to allowing them to leave, including minor children?"

Did they do this? Was it on the agenda? I don't recall this even being suggested except by you.

"Would our opinions still be diametrically opposed after this eventuality?"

Not so much so if this were to occur but presently that is my point to you. This did not happen, has not been suggested (except by yourself and a few others perhaps) and was never the intent of the designated area. You're basing your statements on "What if" I'm basing mine on what happened based on the information given not by embellishing.

"What level of government abrogation will it take for you to be in my camp?"

What level of government abrogation has there been? Show me something besides conjecture and I'll be in your camp. I'll even be incharge of building the fire. ;)

Obiwan has it down pat:

"You don't think having a bunch of confusion, from mixing the two groups, makes the secret service agents job more difficult???

I do...

And for the last time...nobody is limiting your speech...just telling you where to go do it.

Want to get your point out....schedule your own event.

I have a lot of things I would like to say to the world at large....but I still gotta pay for the TV slot"

That says it pretty well.

Take care.

DRC

jimpeel
January 8, 2004, 10:23 PM
My new posted responses
My old posted responses
No enhancement: Your previous posted comments

I presented you with a list of hypotheticals and you came back demanding for me to present you with times and dates. The best I can answer is "Some time in the future.""That they could, without notice, ensnare the people within the confines of the "place that is able to be secured" and not allow them to leave. They could effect a mass arrest of everyone there for whatever reason they wished -- lawful or not."

And this was done when?Not yet. Key words: That they could ... And in what way could it be secured other than a fenced in lockup?This is what was specified by the SS to the local police. There are many ways to designate an area that can be easily secured.Anything from barbed wire topped chain link to concrete walls."The point is that they could secure the area for any reason they wished -- even if there were no disturbances; or the protestors did not get "out of hand". The area is, as you stated, "not the same as a prison or prison camp" but could become one at a moment's notice."

Please explain and give detail on the area designated in this case please.The story quoted gives no details of the designated place -- only that it is "... a place that is able to be secured.' ""What would your opinion be if the authorities did ensnare the assemblage and not allow them out?"

For what reason did they ensnare the assemblage? Gotta give me more info than that. Did they start shooting? Did someone have a bomb? Was someone positively IDed as being a high danger risk? Or wanted terrorist? Etc., etc. "What if's" work better when there is a scenario to base them on.My premise was they could do this for any reason or no reason at all."What if they started demanding ID, mugshots, and fingerprints from everyone within the enclosure prior to allowing them to leave, including minor children?"

Did they do this? Was it on the agenda? I don't recall this even being suggested except by you.Again, keywords: "What if ". It is a hypothetical for which you have presented no answers, only questions."Would our opinions still be diametrically opposed after this eventuality?"

Not so much so if this were to occur but presently that is my point to you. This did not happen, has not been suggested (except by yourself and a few others perhaps) and was never the intent of the designated area. You're basing your statements on "What if" I'm basing mine on what happened based on the information given not by embellishing.Everyone here assembled knows what happened and what did not happen. The point of my interrogatories was to ascertain how you would feel if the things I presented were to occur. Apparently, until they do occur you have no opinion at all."What level of government abrogation will it take for you to be in my camp?"

What level of government abrogation has there been? Show me something besides conjecture and I'll be in your camp. I'll even be incharge of building the fire. If you want examples of what has been instead of what could be, here are a few:

1) American citizens being declared "enemy combatants" who were arrested within the United States and held incommunicado, without legal representation, held in a military brig even though they are civilians, without charges, and with no evidence of any overt act.

2) Political free speech squelched during voting periods with felony prosecution for offenders.

3) T.H.E.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T.

4) Do I need to mention the AWB?

Now, about that fire.

http://www.platuglen.dk/Ild/Campfire%2003.gif

DRC
January 9, 2004, 01:47 PM
Hello again Mr. peel,

Since hypotheticals seem to be the course of discussion what if all of your suppositions are wrong based on a misunderstanding of the situation. My point is that your assuming these protestors were placed in some kind of area that could be immediately turned into a maximum security holding tank at a moments notice. My contention is that they could have just as easily been sent to an open field not far from where the speach was taking place, could move around freely, say what they wanted to, scream and holler and come and go as they pleased. Two very different schools of thought here. The open field that I mentioned could just as easily be secured if need be because all of the protestors were in one place. By what your suggesting those in the building to hear the Presidents speach could just as easily be contained at a moments notice, so are they under arrest the minute they walk into the building? Based on what you've said they are.

"Not yet. Key words: That they could ..."

And a police officer "could" stop you and detain you if he felt he had probable cause to do so. I agree with your concerns believe me, but what you're failing to understand is that these things can and are done, Secret Service or other, if a danger presents itself or if a potential danger or problem could be imminant. It's called doing ones job in security and or law enforcement and is done in rare instances and usually for good reason. If the protestors want to protest, more power to them but that doesn't mean they have to get free reign of the facility where these speaches are being given. If they were to get free reign wouldn't it be easier to contain them or secure the building than some other location. Again, I think, actually I know, we both understand exactly what the other is saying and I'll give you credit for your concerns and have the same concerns myself but your casting aspersions at someone for "being able" to do something that they didn't do. They could, but didn't and you're arguing something suggested not something that was or is done.

"Anything from barbed wire topped chain link to concrete walls."

And sadly you don't know if either were a part of the area in question. Could have been a public park, open field, parking lot, etc. Again you're suggesting that this is, was or will be the reality. I'm suggesting that other than a perimeter set up to allow the protestors their voice in a close enough proximity to require quick action by the Secret Service should it become necessary is all that was, is and will be done. That's not quelling free speach or their rights as American citizens nor is it an unlawful confinement because they aren't being confined UNLESS something happens an it's required that the Secret Service take action. You suggest that confinement could take place for no reason and I would suggest that there would have to be a reason before action was taken. You're right but I too am right based on the same deductive reasoning used by you for your hypothesis.

"Again, keywords: "What if ". It is a hypothetical for which you have presented no answers, only questions."

I must ask regarding the above; Why do I need to give the answers when you brought up the hypothetical to begin with? You suggest things could happen and I asked; Why would they? Seems like a logical question to me.

"Everyone here assembled knows what happened and what did not happen. The point of my interrogatories was to ascertain how you would feel if the things I presented were to occur. Apparently, until they do occur you have no opinion at all."

Quite the contrary my good man. Were this to be setup the way you suggest and were the intent to do this I would have a problem with it, but I do not believe it to be intended nor setup in the manner you suggest it "could" be done or "could" be used. "Could the things you've suggested happen? Sure! But these things could be done for any or no reason regardless and without saying anything about it to rile the masses if security, Secret Service or law enforcement felt so inclined as long as they didn't mind dealing with the consequences.

"1) American citizens being declared "enemy combatants" who were arrested within the United States and held incommunicado, without legal representation, held in a military brig even though they are civilians, without charges, and with no evidence of any overt act."

Details please.

"2) Political free speech squelched during voting periods with felony prosecution for offenders."

CFR. I'm aware of it and don't like it but that's not what is going in this situation and infact free speach isn't being quelled at all in this situation.

"3) T.H.E.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T."

Have you read it? I'm in the process and from what I've read so far you might be surprised at what's in there if you haven't already read it in it's entirety. I've found some very intresting things that have been atributed to the Bush administration through the Patriot Act that were in place long before the Patriot Act came about.

"4) Do I need to mention the AWB?"

We will have to see if it sunsets first before I can agree with you on that one especially since it was signed into being before the Bush administration. I realize he said he would sign it if it came to his desk but it has to get there first. If the AWB sunsets and no bill is sent to Bush's desk then it's a moot point. So we'll have to wait and see.

"Now, about that fire."

I'll tell you what. I'll come over to your camp and tend to the fire because I agree with your concerns, but we're gonna have to sit around that fire for a few days and discuss my differing views on this situtation so you can understand the paranoia you possess about a suggested situation that never occured. Fair enough?

Take care,

DRC

jimpeel
January 9, 2004, 06:45 PM
Ah, Meester DRC, eef zat ees your rrreal nem!

Details please.

How about Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla.

Your assignment, if you should choose to accept it, is to read the following thread posts:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55303&postid=#672629post672629

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55303&postid=#673391post673391

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55318=&postid=#672865post672865

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55318&postid=#674626post674626

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55318&postid=#675696post675696

The USSC decided, today, to hear the case of Yaser Hamdi who has beed similarly held. Supreme Court to Hear U.S.-Born Detainee's Case (http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107920,00.html)

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55318&postid=#672865post672865

I have had less that stellar success in getting the thread and post id to work so I hope it does.

jimpeel
January 9, 2004, 07:00 PM
I'll tell you what. I'll come over to your camp and tend to the fire because I agree with your concerns, but we're gonna have to sit around that fire for a few days and discuss my differing views on this situtation so you can understand the paranoia you possess about a suggested situation that never occured. Fair enough?I need for you to read a part of that paragraph again.but we're gonna have to sit around that fire for a few days and discuss my differing views on this situtation so you can understand the paranoia you possess about a suggested situation that never occured. That is the point! It never occurred. It was merely a hypothetical scenario to ascertain your opinion if such a scenario should be played out in real life.

I am not paranoid about about "a suggested situation that never occured". I am paranoid that such a scenario could occur at some time in the future. To say that I am paranoid over non-events is silly. I only have, what I consider to be, valid concerns that this could happen.

Noone thought that the U.S. government would use American citizens as guinea pigs in nuclear testing -- but it happened.

Noone thought that the U.S. government would inject American citizens with radioactive isotopes without their knowledge or consent -- but it happened.

Noone thought that the U.S. government would use Black American citizens as guinea pigs in Syphlis testing-- but it happened.

Noone thought that the U.S. government would lie to American citizens about an attack on an American warship in the Gulf of Tonkin -- but it happened.

American citizens, including myself, have been given good reason to distrust the government. They have lied and they have harmed American Citizens.

I'll keep the fire burnin'

http://www.platuglen.dk/Ild/Campfire%2003.gif

hardhead
January 10, 2004, 08:38 PM
HAL: "I'm not happy with everything about W,, but he's not the one to point a finger at here."

Sir, W could end this egregious practice with just one word to the Secret Service. That he does not, and the practice continues, is a very good reason to point the finger directly at him.

Hal
January 10, 2004, 09:37 PM
hardhead,
My point was/is that Bush didn't just institute this SS - - -policy(?) as the title would seem to imply.

Today, the SS has their creepy little hands into an enourmous number of different cookie jars.

Honestly? I don't think W can control the SS.

jimpeel
January 10, 2004, 09:51 PM
At the point there is any threat against the President, his life is not his own. They will physically pick him up and carry him away by force regardless of his protestations.

After 9-11 the detractors called Bush a coward because he was flying around in AF-1. They claimed he was not acting "presidential".

What they did not know, and will never know because they don't want to, is that Bush had absolutely no say whatsoever about his whereabouts during that time. He was literally a victim of a "friendly kidnap" and he had no choice but to go along; because if he didn't, several large men would take him forcibly to where he was predetermined to be.

Hal
January 11, 2004, 06:30 AM
I investigate this further:

Presidential Threat Protection Act of 1999

DRC
January 12, 2004, 02:41 PM
"How about Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla."

Now I could be cloudy on this but wasn't Yaser Hamdi picked up in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, but due to his US citizenship he was brought to the US not unlike John Lind? I'm not sure that's right but I seem to recall something like that. I also seem to recall that on ones passport it is written that if you take up arms against the US for another country you are technically and legally denouncing your US citizenship which may be why he IS an enemy combatant and why he is being held without being charged. Amazingly I believe that if you have denounced your US citizenship in any way you are not entitled to protections under our BoR or our laws.

As to Jose Padilla this would appear much like a case from several months back but I cannot remember the guys name but I want to say his first name was Mike (Not his birth name but rather a given name because his real name was a bit hard to pronounce) who was held without charges. People on this board were up in arms about this too and I kept saying that there had to be more to this story than meets the eye. Surely people holding these US citizens are aware that if they are truly holding these people for no good reason and denying citizens their rights that there will be a backlash the likes of which have never been seen. So why would they do it? Well, in that particular case Mike was guilty of what he was being accused of but not charged with until several months later. Mike's imprisoners knew what Mike was guilty of and had the evidence which is why they didn't care when people started making a fuss about it. So why did they wait to formally charge the guy? To get information from him.

After it was found that this Mike person was guilty as accused the story faded into obsurity in a big hurry. Jose Padilla may be a different case altogether but to me it appears very much the same.

Again I will state that yes, holding a US citizen without formal charges is a violation of their rights. I do not doubt that nor do I disagree, but when you take up arms against the US on foreign or US soil you should not be afforded those rights and are IMO forfeiting those rights. The arguement is that these people are not being charged with anything but are being held against their will. The truth of the matter is that they are not being FORMALLY charged with anything in a US court of law but have been investigated and accused of conspiracy or crimes against the US. Also there is more to this story than meets the eye I must say. I think the charges being made against keeping these people in custody are a matter of semantics more than a matter of rights violations but I could be wrong.

For now I'll go onto your next post to me,

Take care,

DRC

PS. The letters "DRC" are in fact my initials ;)

Derek Zeanah
January 12, 2004, 03:17 PM
In other words, it's OK to keep Padilla, a US citizen locked up for going on 20 months now, without access to a lawyer or any charges filed as long as the US claims he's somehow involved in terrorism?

Do you see a problem with that? Would you trust that system if someone like McCarthy was in charge of it? How about Hillary Clinton -- "he's a terrorist -- stop asking questions." :what:

jimpeel
January 12, 2004, 03:23 PM
Now I could be cloudy on this but wasn't Yaser Hamdi picked up in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban, but due to his US citizenship he was brought to the US not unlike John Lind? I'm not sure that's right but I seem to recall something like that. I also seem to recall that on ones passport it is written that if you take up arms against the US for another country you are technically and legally denouncing your US citizenship which may be why he IS an enemy combatant and why he is being held without being charged. Amazingly I believe that if you have denounced your US citizenship in any way you are not entitled to protections under our BoR or our laws.You are correct on Hamdi's capture. We had quite a lively discussion on Lind back on TFL at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=101133 entitled "John Walker has done NOTHING wrong".

I was the threadparent, and a quick read of the header post will show that I have more than a passing familiarity with the tenets of 8USC 1481(a)(3), Wiborg v. U.S., 163 U.S. 632 (1985), and Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253. The entire thread is quite an interesting read and graphically illustrates the propensity of the government to grandstand these cases. I would highly recommend it to you.

Padilla, on the other hand, is a civilian being held in a military brig, was picked up within the United States, held without evidence or charges, incommunicado, and without legal representation or Constitutional protections. This is NOT "Mike".

You seem to have no problem with your stated facts (which I will accept as read) that "Mike" was held for several months without charges and was interrogated during that time. That fact seemed to be overshadowed by your statement that he was, indeed, guilty of the charges once they were finally brought.

I, on the other hand, have a very large problem with that. You see, the Fourth through Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights are not for the protection of the innocent. Those are for the protection of persons who have been, or will be, charged with a crime. It limits what the government may do in their interactions with the accused.

You can't say "Well, 'Mike' was guilty anyway; so who cares in what manner he was treated?"

You state in your post:Again I will state that yes, holding a US citizen without formal charges is a violation of their rights.but you seem to have no problem with that exact thing happening to "Mike". Am I reading this wrong?

DRC
January 13, 2004, 03:50 PM
I said:

"Again I will state that yes, holding a US citizen without formal charges is a violation of their rights."

You said:

"but you seem to have no problem with that exact thing happening to "Mike". Am I reading this wrong?"

"formally charged" as in a court of law. And as to reading it wrong I can't and won't say that but I will say it would appear you're not reading it at all. Read the cases, I'll try to find the one on "Mike" since there was a website to help "Mike" with his legal fees and whatnot.

The problem with "Mike" was that he was picked up on charges of terrorist activity and aiding and abetting but not formally charged in a court of law until Mike had given them the information they needed. Once all angles had been reviewed he was brought to trial and was found to be guilty as h*ll on all counts. Once formal charges are brought information becomes public record and they were trying to keep those "Mike" was helping and communicating with from finding out what we knew. Another catch 22 as it were and a "Damned if you do. Damned if you don't." scenario. If you want to catch them you can't let them know you're looking.

I'll expound later and address the rest of your post. I have to go bury a friend right now though.

DRC

Mil Novecientos Once
January 13, 2004, 06:31 PM
"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations."

James Madison (1751–1836)

bountyhunter
January 13, 2004, 07:38 PM
In other words, it's OK to keep Padilla, a US citizen locked up for going on 20 months now, without access to a lawyer or any charges filed as long as the US claims he's somehow involved in terrorism?

Do you see a problem with that? ?

I sure do, and it sure ain't a new problem. It pre-supposes that the guy being held must be guilty of something, and so he isn't entitled to any rights because of that.

My dad was in LE back around 1960 when we were in Louisiana (Shreveport) and he played golf with a bunch of the local LE's. They told him their system was simple: there were three "books". Anybody who got hauled in was "booked" into one of the following:

1) Charged with a crime

2) Charged with suspicion of committing a crime

3) Just suspicion

or, as it was pronounced down there: "spishun". Now what crime exactly is suspicion? Who knows, they just figured that the guy looked shady and if they held onto him long enough, they'd find something to hang on him... so they did, and you didn't get a lawyer or anything else until you were charged. The conviction rate in that county on cases tried was about 100%.

Wholesale human and civil rights violations like this are what led to things like the Miranda ruling. Now that we have the Patriot Act, it's 1960 all over again.

jimpeel
January 13, 2004, 08:39 PM
... I will say it would appear you're not reading it at all.Au contrer, mon frere. By your answer, I apparently read it perfectly.

You stated:"Again I will state that yes, holding a US citizen without formal charges is a violation of their rights."In the same post, however, you also stated:... this would appear much like a case from several months back but I cannot remember the guys name but I want to say his first name was Mike (Not his birth name but rather a given name because his real name was a bit hard to pronounce) who was held without charges. People on this board were up in arms about this too and I kept saying that there had to be more to this story than meets the eye. Surely people holding these US citizens are aware that if they are truly holding these people for no good reason and denying citizens their rights that there will be a backlash the likes of which have never been seen. So why would they do it? Well, in that particular case Mike was guilty of what he was being accused of but not charged with until several months later. Mike's imprisoners knew what Mike was guilty of and had the evidence which is why they didn't care when people started making a fuss about it. So why did they wait to formally charge the guy? To get information from him.You are defending the actions of those who held this man "without charges" for "several months" because he ultimately turned out to be guilty.

The fact is, that the authorities in this nation have a clear Constitutional duty to charge a person in a timely manner, not in "several months".

To say that you are opposed to a person being held without charges, and then giving a case in which you believe that very action to be justified, belies the prior statement.

Given an opportunity to elucidate you gave the case of "Mike" as an example of a justifiable bending of the rules.

I, on the other hand, find the practice of holding someone without charges, including all of the cases under discussion, over seventy-two hours to be un-American, and unconstitutional.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't? No. Just damned if you do in my world.

oldfart
January 14, 2004, 12:35 AM
About umpteen pages and God only knows how many posts back, this thread started about the organized segregation of protestors at Bush speaking events. I don't know if publicity such as this had anything to do with it, but some of the rules seem to have changed.

This afternoon we were 'blessed' with the presence of Dick Cheney here in Portland to raise money for the re-election campaign. As usual, any protestors were shunted off to a fenced-in area and watched carefully. Unlike previous occasions though, the media was allowed to see, hear and acknowledge the presence of the few protestors who managed to show up.

Obviously, I can't say that THR or any of the other internet fora had anything to do with this, but light frequently flushes out all sorts of vermin. It might behoove us to keep the light shining brightly.

DRC
January 14, 2004, 04:15 PM
I've had much on my mind the past few days and wasn't thinking about what I was writing.

"Au contrer, mon frere. By your answer, I apparently read it perfectly."

I was referring to the cases of "Mike" and the two you mentioned. I should have made that clear but again, my mind was not as focused on where I was or what I was writing. Again, I apologize.

"... this would appear much like a case from several months back but I cannot remember the guys name but I want to say his first name was Mike (Not his birth name but rather a given name because his real name was a bit hard to pronounce) who was held without charges. People on this board were up in arms about this too and I kept saying that there had to be more to this story than meets the eye. Surely people holding these US citizens are aware that if they are truly holding these people for no good reason and denying citizens their rights that there will be a backlash the likes of which have never been seen. So why would they do it? Well, in that particular case Mike was guilty of what he was being accused of but not charged with until several months later. Mike's imprisoners knew what Mike was guilty of and had the evidence which is why they didn't care when people started making a fuss about it. So why did they wait to formally charge the guy? To get information from him."

Should have read "formal charges" (in a court of law) in both scentences.

"You are defending the actions of those who held this man "without charges" for "several months" because he ultimately turned out to be guilty."

I think we're debating more over semantics than anything in this regard. Based on all the information in the "Mike" case he was not picked at random by law enforcement. He was watched, studied and investigated quite thoroughly prior to being taken in. Long story short they had already done the research and made the case against the guy before they picked him up. The intresting thing about this particular case was that the uproar started because some of "Mike's" supporters started rattling cages because the information was not being released publically (which meant that "Mike" had not been "formally charged" in a court of law pending futher questioning and investigation into information being given by "Mike") Strangely enough "Mike" had been charged, just not formally charged so that sensitive information did not get out into the public forum until all information from "Mike" had been verified. Even Mike's" wife was not allowed access to her husband until three or four months after the fact and even after being granted visitation was not allowed (by law) to say anything to anyone about what they talked about.

Once formal charges were levied in a court of law it was amazing how fast the stories disappeared and how quiet "Mike's" supporters got. He wasn't just some unlucky guy who's rights were being violated, he was exactly what the accusations said he was and then some and his captures knew this.

Let me see if I can simplify this. Your contention is that these are US citizens being held without charges which is a violation of their rights as US citizens. I agree that being picked up, and not charged with anything but held indefinitely is a violation of a US citizens rights and is dispicable. My contention is that these people being picked up are not being picked up as US citizens and have actively participated in agression or conspiracy of some form against the US effectively denouncing their US citizenship and therefore are no longer entitled to protection under US law and again I base that on the same logic and law that you've used to make your case. If their US citizenship is in question then I believe that picking them up on charges and holding them for prolonged periods of time without formal charges is just as gray an area.

My perspective:

If I have investigated an individual for alleged crimes against this country and have found that they are, in fact, plotting against this country, that puts their US citizenship into question. If this person has actively participated in any actions directly or indirectly (but knowingly) against this country their citizenship should (IMO) then be null and void regardless of being a US citizen on US soil and I believe that even legally this holds true based on my interpretation of the laws you posted in the link you offered (I read it) regarding John Lind and denunciation of US citizenship. Again semantics.

"The fact is, that the authorities in this nation have a clear Constitutional duty to charge a person in a timely manner, not in "several months"."

Yup. I agree 100% but we're not agreeing on the circumstances and possible actions being made that effectively denounce ones citizenship to the US.

"To say that you are opposed to a person being held without charges, and then giving a case in which you believe that very action to be justified, belies the prior statement."

Were that my intention you would be correct, but in the case where I believe the action to be justified is concerned the action was found to be justified under Constitutional law no less. The would be defense lawyer, "Mike's" supporters and I believe a Governor that was up for re-election were the ones screaming about the unConstitutionality of the detainment and not much of anyone else envolved.

"Given an opportunity to elucidate you gave the case of "Mike" as an example of a justifiable bending of the rules."

Only, if you consider the possibility that "Mike" had effectively denounced his US citizenship by his actions under Constitutional law, if you then consider it to be bending the rules for one who had denounced ones US citizenship as well. Such was the case with John Lind. Catch 22.

"I, on the other hand, find the practice of holding someone without charges, including all of the cases under discussion, over seventy-two hours to be un-American, and unconstitutional."

I agree 100% as long as we are talking about constitutionally legal US citizens that had not, by action or authorization, denounce their US citizenship under the same Constitutional law.

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't? No. Just damned if you do in my world."

Again, I will concur. Damned if you denounce your citizenship to the US and still expect to be protected under US law ;) To me, plotting or committing acts of terror against this country through foreign sources should automatically take away ones rights as a US citizen and make one an enemy since that is exactly what one is when one commits these acts.

Now a short note about Jose Padilla. How much of the story do you have on this guy? What I mean is, was he just walking through the airport and security just came up and arrested him for no reason or just no APPARENT reason to the passer by? And then did the arresting faction have no prior knowledge of Mr. Padillas actions or dealings and if they did would they fall into the catagory of a denunciation of ones citizenship? Well, we just don't know do we, but it's just as plausible as saying they had no reason and no charges to pick him up or hold him on. If Mr. Padilla is a US citizen on US soil that was arrested for no viable reason and detained over 72 hours for no reason as well then it's wrong. If, on the otherhand, Mr. Padilla is a US citizen on US soil that had been previously investigated and found to be involved in terrorist activity against the US, was picked up and found to be cooperative about his activities, then he has effectively denounced his US citizenship and is a viable asset to the investigators gathering information on other potential terrorists and terrorist activities.

Once formally charged what do you think Mr. Padillas lawyer is going to instruct him to do? That's right, he's going to tell Mr. Padilla to sit down and shut up and then he'll try to bargain for the rest of the scentencing. You don't get much information out of an enemy combatant that way.

For now I must go and I do apologize for not paying attention to the specific wording I used. Sorry for the confusion.

DRC

jimpeel
January 14, 2004, 06:50 PM
I did pick up on your state of distraction when you posted that you had to go bury a close friend. My condolences on your loss.

My contention is that these people being picked up are not being picked up as US citizens and have actively participated in agression or conspiracy of some form against the US effectively denouncing their US citizenship and therefore are no longer entitled to protection under US law and again I base that on the same logic and law that you've used to make your case. If their US citizenship is in question then I believe that picking them up on charges and holding them for prolonged periods of time without formal charges is just as gray an area.While the case may be made in the case of Yaser Hamdi that he had participated in armed agression against the United States, Padilla had not. They have produced no co-conspirator, no material evidence, no evidence of a conspiracy, no evidence of any overt action to gain materials for a dirty bomb, NOTHING. Yet he sits in a military brig even though he is a civilian.

If Hamdi is treated in the same way as John Walker Lindh, instead of invoking 8USC 1481(a)(3), he could get off by submitting nothing more than two motions citing 8USC 1481(a)(3) and Wiborg v. U.S., 163 U.S. 632 (1985). If John Walker Lindh had done this, instead of copping a plea, he would likely be out of jail and in seclusion right now.

Re-read the thread and you will see what I mean.

If I have investigated an individual for alleged crimes against this country and have found that they are, in fact, plotting against this country, that puts their US citizenship into question. What is in question is not their citizenship, but their loyalty.

Again, re-read the thread where the tenets of law are discussed as to one's loss of nationality (citizenship). Nothing else qualifies including your opinoion to the contrary.

What anyone who is plotting against the United States should be charged with is treason; and that includes the likes of Timothy McVeigh. Even in the case of a conviction for treason, one does not lose their citizenship. The only way that can happen is under the tenets of 8USC 1481.Section 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own
application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized
agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal
declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political
subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen
years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign
state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities gainst
the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer ...Regardless of your most heartfelt desires to add manners in which a person loses citizenship, 8UCS 1481 is the law.Yup. I agree 100% but we're not agreeing on the circumstances and possible actions being made that effectively denounce ones citizenship to the US.Again, the law, under 8UCS 1481 is quite clear and unambiguous. It does not include your premises. In the case of Hamdi, it could be stated that he was in the employ of a foreign military at the commencement of hostilities with the United States; and he could be declared to have lost his nationality under 8USC 1481(a)(3). The same cannot be said of Padilla. The would be defense lawyer, "Mike's" supporters and I believe a Governor that was up for re-election were the ones screaming about the unConstitutionality of the detainment and not much of anyone else envolved.The fact that not more people spoke up in no way mitigates the actions of those who held "Mike" without formal charges. Only, if you consider the possibility that "Mike" had effectively denounced his US citizenship by his actions under Constitutional law, if you then consider it to be bending the rules for one who had denounced ones US citizenship as well. Such was the case with John Lind. Catch 22.I have yet to see any evidence presented that "Mike" renounced his citizenship or was involved in anything that would cause an automatic loss of citizenship under 8UCS 1481. In the case of Walker, he did not qualify for loss of nationality under 8USC 1481 until hostilities began with the United States. Even at that point, there still exists absolutely no evidence that he took up arms against the United States, only the Northern Alliance.
Now a short note about Jose Padilla. How much of the story do you have on this guy? What I mean is, was he just walking through the airport and security just came up and arrested him for no reason or just no APPARENT reason to the passer by? And then did the arresting faction have no prior knowledge of Mr. Padillas actions or dealings and if they did would they fall into the catagory of a denunciation of ones citizenship? Well, we just don't know do we, but it's just as plausible as saying they had no reason and no charges to pick him up or hold him on. If Mr. Padilla is a US citizen on US soil that was arrested for no viable reason and detained over 72 hours for no reason as well then it's wrong. If, on the otherhand, Mr. Padilla is a US citizen on US soil that had been previously investigated and found to be involved in terrorist activity against the US, was picked up and found to be cooperative about his activities, then he has effectively denounced his US citizenship and is a viable asset to the investigators gathering information on other potential terrorists and terrorist activities.

Once formally charged what do you think Mr. Padillas lawyer is going to instruct him to do? That's right, he's going to tell Mr. Padilla to sit down and shut up and then he'll try to bargain for the rest of the scentencing. You don't get much information out of an enemy combatant that way.I gave several threads where Padilla was discussed here on THR.

I also gave a link to FOXNews at: http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107920,00.html

These guys seem to get it: http://www.chargepadilla.org/

Time magazine printed this about Padilla at: http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,262269,00.html

Friday, Jun. 14, 2002
Padilla entered public life via an announcement from Moscow on Monday, by Attorney General John Ashcroft, that an al-Qaeda operative had been captured at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, en route to contaminate a U.S. city with a radiological bomb. ...Within hours of Ashcroft's announcement, administration officials were pointing out that Padilla had no radioactive material or any other bomb-making equipment. Nor had he chosen a target, or formulated a plan.

DRC
January 16, 2004, 12:19 PM
Thank you for the condolences. It's been a rough couple of weeks but our talks have been therapeutic since it keeps my mind occupied. Also please don't think I'm being antagonistic toward you and what your saying because I do agree with what you're saying but have a very hard time believing that I, you or anyone else (except the FBI, CIA and the Administration) has the whole story on Padilla and are basing our debating points on assumptions of the case.

The law is the law and US citizens are entitled to protection under US law. Padilla is a US citizen and was on US soil when he was arrested and I've read the ruling laws you've posted regarding denunciation of US citizenship. What we know are the reasons why Padilla was picked up but not the reasons for his continued detention in a Naval brig other than he was calssified as an enemy combatant and taken out of the US judicial system.

When I read the stories, the articles and the rules of law for these situations I'm not as convinced as you are about the situation being cut and dry. Where you see definitive law against I see just as much definitive law for these actions. In both cases (yours or mine) we are assuming some very viable points to the case because the details have not been released yet. I will respond in query to hopefully save some writing.

"While the case may be made in the case of Yaser Hamdi that he had participated in armed agression against the United States, Padilla had not. They have produced no co-conspirator, no material evidence, no evidence of a conspiracy, no evidence of any overt action to gain materials for a dirty bomb, NOTHING. Yet he sits in a military brig even though he is a civilian."

The Times:

"Within hours of Ashcroft's announcement, administration officials were pointing out that Padilla had no radioactive material or any other bomb-making equipment. Nor had he chosen a target, or formulated a plan. And while his connections with al-Qaeda operatives were never in doubt , he suddenly began to look a lot more like the accused shoe-bomber Richard Reid (i.e. another disaffected ex-con from the West desperate to get in with al-Qaeda) than like the sophisticated professionals who put together September 11."

Section 1481:

"(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign
state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities gainst
the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer ..."

Here we get into semantics. Al Queda is a terrorist organization so they don't really fall into the catagory of foreign armed forces but they do recruit soldiers for their organization, they are based in a foriegn state and are engaged in hostilities against the US (whether or not any attacks have been made on US soil since 9-11) since their goals have not changed that I'm aware of.

"What is in question is not their citizenship, but their loyalty."

I agree as long as they have not effectively denounced their US citizenship in the manner that I've described. US citizens committing crimes against the US should be tried for treason and those US citizens that commit crimes against the US for a foreign warring organization or military that has and is engaged in hostility against the US should be classified as an "enemy combatant" and treated accordingly. From what information we've been given Padilla was actively seeking enlistment into Al Queda and was receiving training from them on munitions and explosives including dirty bombs as well as being given money by the organization. To me it keeps getting grayer from there because of what we don't know due to information that has not been released yet. Classified is Classified and Top Secret is Top Secret.

"Again, the law, under 8UCS 1481 is quite clear and unambiguous."

Again I agree but it's not the laws ambiguity that I'm discussing is the ambiguous catagory that Al Queda and other terrorist organizations fall into. Other than "terrorist organization" they have no real classification under these laws, but as I said they do actively recruit, are in a foreign state and are engaged in hostilities against the US.

"The fact that not more people spoke up in no way mitigates the actions of those who held "Mike" without formal charges."

Sorry for not being more specific about this. This was meant to say that no one in an authoritative position, other than the Governor, came forward to say anything about the situation or talk about it's unConstitutionality only those with a directly vested intrest did.

"In the case of Walker, he did not qualify for loss of nationality under 8USC 1481 until hostilities began with the United States. Even at that point, there still exists absolutely no evidence that he took up arms against the United States, only the Northern Alliance."

This is your assumption and is so gray it's almost black (imo) as to what qualifies as taking up arms against the US. When the US found him he surrendered claiming he was a US citizen but we don't know now nor will we ever know what he did or was planning to do prior to his capture nor do we know what would have played out had Al Queda and Taliban forces been winning. We just don't know.

The Times also said:

"So Padilla flew back to Chicago under U.S. surveillance, and into the waiting arms of the FBI. That was a month ago; the story broke this week because the authorities had to move him out of the criminal justice system and into military detention, for lack of evidence (at least evidence which the government would be willing to reveal to a judge) to support keeping him in prison."

Even they are admitting they don't know the whole story only that:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, Jun. 14, 2002
Padilla entered public life via an announcement from Moscow on Monday, by Attorney General John Ashcroft, that an al-Qaeda operative had been captured at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, en route to contaminate a U.S. city with a radiological bomb.

And:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within hours of Ashcroft's announcement, administration officials were pointing out that Padilla had no radioactive material or any other bomb-making equipment. Nor had he chosen a target, or formulated a plan.

So because he didn't have the materials on him (which he would have been hard pressed to get onto a plain in the first place) had no target or formulated plan he was not going to do anything. I find it curious that people think that as soon as someone plotting against the US or committing any crime for that matter is picked up that they are going to tell exactly what they were doing and what their future plans were. Typically criminals lie about their intentions until the evidence starts to make them uncomfortable enough to spill the proverbial beans. If they think that by denying everything they can get away with it they will.

To think that when the FBI arrested Padilla he would turn to them and say "Well, you got me. I went to Al Queda and they trained me to make bombs and gave me money. They were going to smuggle in the materials I needed to make a dirty bomb and mail it to this address xxxx and send me the the target list of places they thought would make the biggest impression." Does that not seem a little far fetched or actually perhaps shore up the reasons for the extended detainment? He didn't seek out Al Queda to be a cheer leader.

Sadly the Times article is actually complaining not about Padilla's detainment as an American citizen but rather that Padilla has become the front page runner and not the major blow against Al Queda in Morocco. The Times is almost classifying the Padilla case as an "unstory"

With all that said I do want you to know that I do not disagree with what you're saying only the circumstances of the case much of which we don't know and are not privy to yet. I've not claimed that my assessment of the situation is correct only an assumption that errs on the side of "con" (meaning worst case scenario based on all points of law and legistics), yours too is an assumption that errs on the side of "pro" (meaning based on the rights given to US citizens under the Constitution and best case scenario as directed by law in this situation) Presently I don't believe either of us to be right or wrong but rather in the dark about the reasons why so we speculate.

Take care and thanks again,

DRC

jimpeel
January 16, 2004, 01:07 PM
I am simply unable to permit anyone who is a United States citizen from being afforded the legal protections of the Constitution and BoR regardless of how heinous their crime.

I am including links to the text of the case below for your perusal. This should make the case clear for both of us. I have not read the case citation yet either so while you are reading it I will be also.

Here is an analytical writeup from the Washington Post on the court decision on Padilla. We can use that as a "Cliff's Notes" to begin with and move to the actual text from there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13521-2003Dec18.html

War on Terrorism's Legal Tack Is Rejected
Court Challenges Declaration and Detention of U.S. Citizen as Enemy Combatant
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 19, 2003; Page A22


In ordering the Bush administration to charge al Qaeda suspect Jose Padilla, declare him a material witness or set him free within 30 days, a New York federal appeals court has directly challenged the administration's legal approach to the war on terrorism -- and intensified the clash between the executive and judicial branches, which will ultimately have to be settled at the Supreme Court, legal analysts said yesterday.

The administration's assertion of authority to declare a U.S. citizen within the United States an enemy combatant, and to hold him or her indefinitely and incommunicado, has always been the most controversial of its legal claims, attracting criticism from across the ideological spectrum.

And the 2 to 1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit attacked that claim at its roots.

In an opinion that encapsulated the misgivings about the administration's assertions of executive power that many judges and lawyers have expressed almost since the war began, Judges Rosemary S. Pooler and Barrington D. Parker rejected President Bush's view that the Constitution gives him the authority as commander in chief to decide on his own who is an enemy of the United States in wartime -- or even to decide where the battlefield begins and ends.

"Presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum," Pooler and Parker wrote.

Rather, the court ruled, Bush needs express authorization from Congress to fight the war at home by detaining U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The Sept. 18, 2001, joint resolution authorizing the president to use force against all "persons" linked to al Qaeda is not sufficient -- especially given that a federal law passed in 1971 bans the detention of citizens without express congressional authorization.

The court noted that the 1971 law had been passed in part to make amends for the mass detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Yesterday's ruling was the first time any court of appeals had rebuked the president so directly and so broadly on these issues. And Padilla, as the only U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil and declared an enemy combatant, presents a clearly defined test case of a policy whose wider application will probably depend on what the courts say.

Even the dissenting judge on the 2nd Circuit court, Richard C. Wesley -- while agreeing that the president does have the authority to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant -- rejected the administration's claim that he should have no right to counsel.

As a result, legal analysts said, the 2nd Circuit ruling was a more significant event than the ruling yesterday by the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which said that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees being held by U.S. authorities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a right to sue for their freedom in federal court. The Supreme Court has already agreed to rule on that question next year, so its opinion will quickly overtake the 9th Circuit's.

"The 2nd Circuit has struck a body blow to the whole theory of fighting the war on terrorism, which was to move it out of the criminal justice system and treat it as a war," said John C. Yoo, a former Justice Department official who helped design the administration's approach. "The 2nd Circuit essentially said, no, this is like crime. And if that sticks, a lot of other pieces that underlie what the government does in the war on terror are going to collapse, too."

That is precisely what civil libertarians are hoping for.

"War with terrorists is a metaphor that takes you too far," said Susan Herman, general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, which supported Padilla in the 2nd Circuit. "Presidential powers during war are usually limited because it's war with another country, Congress has declared war . . . and the war has a time limit. At some point, it's clear when you release detainees and repatriate them."

The 2nd Circuit opinions demonstrated how much the constitutional issues in Padilla's case hinge on difficult, subjective questions of place and time. A key question is: If the United States is at war, where is the battlefield?

Bush -- pointing to the obvious fact that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are on U.S. soil, and that the attacks on them were carried out by terrorists acting from within the United States -- argues, in effect, that American soil is a war zone.

The 2nd Circuit majority rejected that, saying Padilla, who was unarmed when he was picked up by the FBI in Chicago, had been detained "outside a zone of combat."

Pooler, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Parker, who was nominated by Clinton and appointed by Bush, after his nomination stalled in the waning days of the Clinton administration, treated the Sept. 18 joint declaration by Congress as essentially an authorization for Bush to use force abroad against terrorism -- noting that the declaration lacked any specific mention of detaining people in the United States.

But Wesley, appointed by Bush, countered in his dissent that "[i]t seems clear to me that Congress understood in the light of the 9-11 attacks the United States had become a zone of combat."

He added that "congressional authorization is not necessary for the Executive to exercise his constitutional authority to prosecute armed conflicts when, as on September 11, 2001, the United States is attacked."

Congress could not have intended to authorize the president to send soldiers to shoot al Qaeda suspects around the world while denying him the right to detain them in the United States, Wesley wrote.

Here are the two citations on the case from http://findlaw.com

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/032235p.pdf

and

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/032235pv2.pdf

You will have to download these to your computer to read them as they are Adobe PDF files.

DRC
January 16, 2004, 06:53 PM
It won't be until Monday or Tuesday that I get to start but I will. Thanks for posting this.

Have a good weekend,

DRC

commygun
January 16, 2004, 07:09 PM
Yes, Clinton most certainly did do it. When Clinton came here to Centralia
a few years back no opposition signs where allowed in the area
where him and Brian "Little Bill" Baird were to deliver their speaches.
Far worse though a teenager shouted something derogatory from
his own front yard at Clinton's motorcade as it passed by. A few hours
later two Secret Service agents were on his doorstep warning his father
that the boy better watch himself or there would be consequences. This
was reported on the front page of our local paper, The Chronicle.
Hilary however, did tell us what a "charming little village" we had.
She must have been very heavily sedated.

jimpeel
January 16, 2004, 07:40 PM
And you as well, Sir.

DRC
January 19, 2004, 02:40 PM
It might take me a little longer than expected to get this together. The reason is after reading the article you posted and the citations I need to read exactly what the Sept 18, 2001 joint resolution (authorized and signed by Congress) grants authority to the President for. From what little I know of the joint resolution it would seem to be broad reaching, but I need to see what the limitations are.

Even with this information it won't change the fact that a legal US citizen is being detained without charges or access to legal council, but will give more background on whether Congress passed an unconstitutional resolution. Again I still contend that there's more on Jose Padilla than we know and more to the circumstances than we're privy to.

Anyway, I will talk to you later.

DRC

alan
January 19, 2004, 07:22 PM
DRC:

Given that I'm following, rather loosely, the commentaries between yourself and Mr. Peel, the following from your latest caught my eye.

Even with this information it won't change the fact that a legal US citizen is being detained without charges or access to legal council, but will give more background on whether Congress passed an unconstitutional resolution. Again I still contend that there's more on Jose Padilla than we know and more to the circumstances than we're privy to.

The Congress has been known as the source of other unconstitutional or extra-constitutional enactments before. One is what was originally known as The Lautenberg Amendment, which certainly does appear to run afoul of stipulation in The Constitution directing that "The Congress shall pass no ex-post facto laws." If Lautenberg isn't ex-post facto, than likely NOTHING would be. The question that then comes up is as follows. Given the clear constitutional problems with this legislation, even granting that The Congress is more noted for it's lack of intestinal fortitude, than for it's display of same, why in the name of hell were they so cowardly as to get stampeeded into passing such damned foolishness in the first place?

As to your closing observation regarding Mr. Padilla, you might be quite right in your assumption.

jimpeel
January 20, 2004, 02:09 AM
Take your time. I wasn't able to get to the decisions. My daughter and grandkids were visiting as well as having to do a couple of peices of semi-emergency repairs.

DRC
February 2, 2004, 10:54 AM
Hello Mr. Peel and alan,

I haven't forgotten about you, but I too have been a bit preoccupied and will be more occupied in the very near future BUT I have been reading when I get the rare chances but haven't formulated anything as of yet. I'm still enjoying the conversation.

Alan,

I will answer your post as soon as I can so please bare with me.

Thanks for your consideration and understanding.

DRC

alan
February 2, 2004, 05:20 PM
DRC:

At your leisure, give me a shout when ready.

jimpeel
February 2, 2004, 09:15 PM
I was able to read the decision but it seems to spend an inordinate amount of time with who the proper respondent of the complaint would be. The decision that they had to cut the guy loose was nearly secondary to the ferreting out of the proper respondent.

This paragraph from the decision pretty well sums up the government's contentions; and it took 24 pages to get there:The District Court concluded, and the government maintains here, that the indefinite detention of Padilla was a proper exercise of the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief. The power to detain Padilla is said to derive from the President’s authority, settled by Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), to detain enemy combatants in wartime – authority that is argued to encompass the detention of United States citizens seized on United States soil. This power, the court below reasoned, may be exercised without a formal declaration of war by Congress and “even if Congressional authorization were deemed necessary, the Joint Resolution, passed by both houses of Congress, . . . engages the President’s full powers as Commander in Chief.” Padilla I, 233 F. Supp. 2d at 590. Specifically, the District Court found that the Joint Resolution acted as express congressional authorization under 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a), which prohibits the detention of American citizens absent such authorization. Id. at 598-99. In addition, the government claims that 10 U.S.C. § 956(5), a statute that allows the military to use authorized funds for certain detentions, grants authority to detain American citizens.

After going through Hamdi, inherent powers, Quirin, Milligan, The Non-Detention Act, the court found:We disagree with the assumption that the authority to use military force against these organizations includes the authority to detain American citizens seized on American soil and not actively engaged in combat.and The plain language of the Joint Resolution contains nothing authorizing the detention of American citizens captured on United States soil, much less the express authorization required by section 4001(a) and the “clear,” “unmistakable” language required by Endo. While it may be possible to infer a power of detention from the Joint Resolution in the battlefield context where detentions are necessary to carry out the war, there is no reason to suspect from the language of the Joint Resolution that Congress believed it would be authorizing the detention of an American citizen already held in a federal correctional institution and not “arrayed against our troops” in the field of battle.and It is unlikely – indeed, inconceivable – that Congress would expressly provide in the Joint Resolution an authorization required by the War Powers Resolution but, at the same time, leave unstated and to inference something so significant and unprecedented as authorization to detain American citizens under the Non-Detention Act.and finally In sum, we hold that (1) Donna Newman, Esq., may pursue habeas relief on behalf of Jose Padilla; (2) Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is a proper respondent to the habeas petition and the District Court had personal jurisdiction over him; (3) in the domestic context, the President’s inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the detention as an enemy combatant of an American citizen seized within the country away from a zone of combat; (4) the Non-Detention Act prohibits the detention of American citizens without express congressional authorization; and (5) neither the Joint Resolution nor 10 U.S.C. § 956(5) constitutes such authorization under section 4001(a). These conclusions are compelled by the constitutional and statutory provisions we have discussed above. The offenses Padilla is alleged to have committed are heinous crimes severely punishable under the criminal laws. Further, under those laws the Executive has the power to protect national security and the classified information upon which it depends. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. app. § 3. And if the President believes this authority to be insufficient, he can ask Congress—which has shown its responsiveness—to authorize additional powers. To reiterate, we remand to the District Court with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Secretary of Defense to release Padilla from military custody within 30 days. The government can transfer Padilla to appropriate civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges against him. Also, if appropriate, Padilla can be held as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings. In any case, Padilla will be entitled to the constitutional protections extened to other citizens.The other decision was merely the dissent which, whlie informative and inciteful, bears no weight in the case.

DRC
February 3, 2004, 03:47 PM
Hello Mr. peel,

God picks on the information brought forward. One thing that I am looking for in my reading is where the basis of legal opinion came from e.g. if they looked into or even asked on what grounds Padilla would have given up his legal citizenship. So far I've not found where they did. Moreso to see if the question entered into all of this which has been my contention from the beginning. Did Padilla do what would legal constitute giving up his US citizenship? I'm just not finding that information (on either side, truth be known) Rumsfeld says Padilla is an enemy combatant but based on what? The courts say he's not, is an American citizen and entitled to protections under US law, but based on what? I'm a detail guy and there are a few small details left to the imagination that are picking at me. I will read on though but wanted to touch base with you on what I'm looking for and what I've found thus far.

alan,

"The Congress has been known as the source of other unconstitutional or extra-constitutional enactments before."

Absolutely! I don't discount that at all, but in this case there are some ambiguities, not in the constitutional laws but in the circumstances of the case itself. Even with the decision being made it appears to be little more than the administration saying we're right and justified in doing what we're doing based on this law and the courts saying they're right and justified in doing what they're doing based on that law. In any event neither are accountable based on the laws in place.

One is what was originally known as The Lautenberg Amendment, which certainly does appear to run afoul of stipulation in The Constitution directing that "The Congress shall pass no ex-post facto laws." If Lautenberg isn't ex-post facto, than likely NOTHING would be."

I agree. After the fact is the wrong time to decide on the legality or constitutionality of a crime or possible crime. In this case however, everything was already in place when this action took place and has been in effect for sometime now.

"The question that then comes up is as follows. Given the clear constitutional problems with this legislation, even granting that The Congress is more noted for it's lack of intestinal fortitude, than for it's display of same, why in the name of hell were they so cowardly as to get stampeeded into passing such damned foolishness in the first place?"

My opinion? ;) Because liberals are afraid of everything and appeasement is the only plan of action they have or take :D

Seriously, that's where the other part of my question came from. Again basing it on the circumstance and actual provisions of the resolution itself, which is where more reading is envolved. As an example I will use homeland security. Homeland security is less a new administration office as it was a quicker and easier way to get around a silly law passed that kept FBI and the CIA from sharing information in fear that they would become one big unstopable investigative entity. Then to branch off to The Patriot Act for just a moment the provisions in the Patriot Act already existed but people are up in arms about it now that they are all in one place. For some reason when they were scattered all over the legal map they were okay and not a violation of our rights but now that they are all under one specific title they are. Most of what I've found in the Patriot Act is just minor changes to include specific wording in pre-existing laws (pre-existing meaning prior to the Bush administration and even before the Clinton administration and farther back)

"As to your closing observation regarding Mr. Padilla, you might be quite right in your assumption."

Not patting myself on the back because it's nothing to warrant celebration but I was right on the Mike Hawash situtation which was similar so I'm gambling on the same premise I used for that on Padilla's case as well. We'll have to wait and see what all plays out in this situation. I don't claim to know anything definitive about this case I simply have questions that remain unanswered which makes me question the otherside of the case (proesution/defense sort of thing)

For now my time is up. I'll catch you gentlemen as soon as possible.

DRC

jimpeel
February 3, 2004, 04:43 PM
One thing that I am looking for in my reading is where the basis of legal opinion came from e.g. if they looked into or even asked on what grounds Padilla would have given up his legal citizenship. So far I've not found where they did. Moreso to see if the question entered into all of this which has been my contention from the beginning. Did Padilla do what would legal constitute giving up his US citizenship? I'm just not finding that information (on either side, truth be known)I have posted the text of 8 USC 1481 and that is the only way someone gives up their U.S citizenship.
Rumsfeld says Padilla is an enemy combatant but based on what?As stated in other posts and cites, there was no evidence that Padilla ever attempted to commit any crime. If we are to give rise to "thought crimes" we likely have a cause of action. All that is needed is a clairvoyant prosecutor; and Rumsfeld apparently qualifies for that job.
The courts say he's not, is an American citizen and entitled to protections under US law, but based on what? Just a wild guess; but I would guess that the Constitution has something to do with that. :)
I'm a detail guy and there are a few small details left to the imagination that are picking at me. I will read on though but wanted to touch base with you on what I'm looking for and what I've found thus far.
Perhaps you are attempting to micromanage the details.

DRC
February 3, 2004, 05:52 PM
"I have posted the text of 8 USC 1481 and that is the only way someone gives up their U.S citizenship."

Yes, but we've discussed this as well and the problem is that we don't know all the particulars of this case in order to propperly determine if this action was warranted under the circumstances of said case. You and I are both making assumptions on unknown information at this point but erring on the side of caution to an extent.

"As stated in other posts and cites, there was no evidence that Padilla ever attempted to commit any crime. If we are to give rise to "thought crimes" we likely have a cause of action. All that is needed is a clairvoyant prosecutor; and Rumsfeld apparently qualifies for that job."

Actually no evidence that we are aware of or that has been turned over. There again is the problem there are still pieces missing that could be very pertinent to one side or the other. Keep in mind too that I'm not saying that your assessment is incorrect and if constitutionally sound I'm all for going after them for rights violations.

"Just a wild guess; but I would guess that the Constitution has something to do with that."

Perhaps I should have clarified this question (which I tought I did) by saying in the matter of this case and the evidence (much of which is still unknown) to support these specific rulings both by the administration as well as the court. I could go on almost infinitum on scenarios envolving Padilla and actions taken by him in another country that in my opinion and in a prosecutions opinion could warrant the voluntary denunciation of US citizenship effectively making him an enemy combatant and the only thing that would keep him a free man would be loopholes which there are many.

"Perhaps you are attempting to micromanage the details."

And perhaps you're trying to omit them ;)

Take care,

DRC

jimpeel
February 3, 2004, 10:56 PM
I have given an honest assessment of every detail I can glean. There has been presented no evidence that Padilla entered a written renouncement of his citizenship at any embassy.

Section 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own
application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized
agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal
declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political
subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen
years; or

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign
state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities gainst
the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer ...

There has been presented no evidence that Padilla became naturalized in a foreign state.

There has been presented no evidence that Padilla made any formal oath or affirmation of allegiance to a foreign state.

There has been presented no evidence that Padilla entered any foreign military service or was a commissioned or non-commissioned officer thereof.

Hell, we didn't declare John Walker Lindh to be a non-citizen and he was proveably in a foreign military during ongoing hostilities.

If Padilla had done any of the above, it would have come out by now as a ploy to glean American resentment of him and further help to justify the government's case.

DRC
February 6, 2004, 04:03 PM
I've made this statement and asked this question before regarding:

"(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign
state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities gainst
the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer ..."

What is Al Queda classified as if not an armed force in a foreign state? Isn't Al Queda engaged in hostilities against the United States both here and abroad?

With that said according to the reports regarding this case (and I'm still reading the links mind you I just haven't had much time here lately and I apologize) Padilla was actively seeking enlistment into Al Queda, received training from them and was given money by them. Sounds like he applied, was trained and got paid but Al Queda didn't just openly accept him as a member of the group. Number three doesn't say he has to do all of the above but rather one or the other. To me, with what I've read thus far, it would appear that he could quite possibly have met the criteria for denunciation under the first part of number 3.

I'll be back as soon as I can but I'm working on a custody case so it might be a little while.

Take care,

DRC

jimpeel
February 6, 2004, 04:30 PM
What is Al Queda classified as if not an armed force in a foreign state?If you can find them on a map of the Earth, or you can show that they are a recognized signatory to the United Nations Charter, or introduce their ambassador to the United Nations to any foreign leader you would have a point.

They are an "armed force in a foreign state" as much as the Militia of Montana, or the Militia of Michigan, is an armed force here in the United States.

Isn't Al Queda engaged in hostilities against the United States both here and abroad?Although they are engaged in hostilities virtually against the entire planet, including the United States, they are not a recognized military entity as defined by the accords of the Geneva Convention -- one of which is that a military entity must have a uniform which is recognizable as such at a distance.

DRC
February 9, 2004, 03:13 PM
I finally finished reading the case files and links.

The points you make in your last post make my point. Not to detract from your own but as to the classification that Al Queda would fall under, there is no real classification which is (through what I've read) the point being made on the side of the administration.

"They are an "armed force in a foreign state" as much as the Militia of Montana, or the Militia of Michigan, is an armed force here in the United States."

Sorry to say but they are. If not then what would you classify them as? A bunch of people with guns that go to meetings? They may not be recognized by the US government or the US military but they are what they are Geneva Convention or not.

"Although they are engaged in hostilities virtually against the entire planet, including the United States, they are not a recognized military entity as defined by the accords of the Geneva Convention -- one of which is that a military entity must have a uniform which is recognizable as such at a distance."

Sadly the Geneva Convention also stipulated that Red Cross personel not be targeted by the enemy, but low and behold they are the first to be shot in combat situations. So how much weight do you want to lend to the Geneva Convention and the outcomes thereof? The US is about the only country that follows those rules since the rules set forth by the Geneva Convention were designed to hinder the US's ability to fight a war, not our enemies ability.

As to the uniform being easily recognizable from a distance; ever heard of camoflage, blending into the crowd to make it easier to strike when the opportunity presents itself? Our guys look like sand dunes, and in the jungles they look like trees and bushes (especially in a Gilly suit) So being easily identified from ones uniform makes it easy to target said person; not smart warfare and a good way to get people killed. So again Geneva Convention or not that is definitely one not to follow.

Take care,

DRC

jimpeel
February 9, 2004, 04:29 PM
Sorry to say but they are. If not then what would you classify them as? A bunch of people with guns that go to meetings? They may not be recognized by the US government or the US military but they are what they are Geneva Convention or not. By your definition, the Mafia would be an "armed force in a foreign state" and Al Capone was merely a misunderstood General. Being an "armed force in a foreign state" does not in any manner legitimize that force.

The Northern Alliance was an "armed force in a foreign state" but was not a recognized "armed force in a foreign state". They were insurgents against the Taliban which was recognized as an "armed force in a foreign state" by the UN and many nations. Al Qaeda has never been recognized by the UN or any country. They are merely an "armed force in a foreign state" that exists outside of any lawful authority.

Sadly the Geneva Convention also stipulated that Red Cross personel not be targeted by the enemy, but low and behold they are the first to be shot in combat situations. My point is made. Those who are not signatories to the Geneva Accords are not bound by their covenants. Only those entities that are recognized nation states are invited to become signatories and adhere to the covenants. All others are operating outside of the Geneva Accords; which are the existing rules of war.
So how much weight do you want to lend to the Geneva Convention and the outcomes thereof?As stated, the Geneva Accords exist as the rules of war for the planet. There are those which operate within their confines; those which operate outside their confines; and those which do not qualify to be included within their confines and wouldn't operate within them even if so invited.
The US is about the only country that follows those rules since the rules set forth by the Geneva Convention were designed to hinder the US's ability to fight a war, not our enemies ability. The Geneva Accords were instated to set the rules of war under which the signatories thereto were to operate. It almost sounds as though you are of a mindset that the Geneva Accords are an obsolete proviso in law that we should simply ignore and begin operating in whatever manner we see fit.

The United States is not "about the only country that follows those rules" as many countries remain bound by their provisions. It is the rogue states, such as Iraq, which ignore the Geneva Accords and operate outside their confines which make it neccessary to once and for all go and clean them out.

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds in direct violation of the Geneva Accords to which Iraq is a signatory. Even though the Geneva Accords were ignored by him, they will be the laws under which he will be tried. Even though the Iranians had these banned weapons used against them, they did not respond in kind and, as such, remanied within the Accords.

I honestly believe that I have given reasoned, documented responses to you on this issue but I must respectfully ask: Are you simply yanking my chain now? I have no way to make myself any clearer and I believe I have a firm grasp of the English language. What I am not, is a typist; and it takes me quite some time to compose these responses one key at a time.

If you enjoyed reading about "This is just plain wrong. Even Clinton didn't do this." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!