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

[DRC]

Hello again Mr. peel.

"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]

DRC

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.

 

[DRC]

Let me preface with I'm not being antagonistic, but I do enjoy the exchange.

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]

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://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]

DRC

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'

 

[hardhead]

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]

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]

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]

<--- is going full stop on any more comments to this thread until,,,

I investigate this further:

Presidential Threat Protection Act of 1999

 

[DRC]

Hello again Mr. peel

"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]

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."

 

[jimpeel]

DRC

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]

Don't have much time today but do have enough to address this point...

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]

"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]

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]

DRC

... 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]

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]

Mr. peel, please forgive me...

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]

DRC

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]

Hello Mr. peel

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]

DRC

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 "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]

Sounds great Mr. peel.

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]

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]

DRC

And you as well, Sir.

 

[DRC]

Hello Mr. peel.

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