Gov Lawyers say Pres can have any citizen taken , held indefinately without charges

evince

evince

Truthmatters
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24808102/


That is Facism folks plain and simple.


To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

There is little middle ground between the two sides in al-Marri's case, which is before a federal appeals court in Virginia. The government says the president needs this power to keep the nation safe. Al-Marri's lawyers say that as long as the president can detain anyone he wants, nobody is safe.
 
Im sure this thead will be ignored by all who just dont want this to be true.


If I dont read about it ,it did not happen huh?


This is so unAmerican its just beyond the pale.
 
Desh said:
Im sure this thead will be ignored by all who just dont want this to be true.


If I dont read about it ,it did not happen huh?


This is so unAmerican its just beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

I read it. I'm glad they caught his ass. You convinently leave out the info they found about him from the parts you chose to post. And damn right its un-America for an American citizen to try and perform a terrorist act of this sort on our country. Hope he doesn't drop the soap.
 
ElianCapture.jpg
 
OH MY GOD!

Cawacko, do you even realize what you are condoning?

Let say we let this stand, A dem gets intoi office, that dem then fills the government with Dems and desides to arrest people who dont believe like they do and are a threat to their power.

They would thne be allowed to come get you , put you in prison and never have to say why or how long they are keeping you. No trial nothing , you are just in preoson as long as they want you in prison.


You cant be an American who believes in the constitution and agree with these lawyers!
 
Desh said:
OH MY GOD!

Cawacko, do you even realize what you are condoning?

Let say we let this stand, A dem gets intoi office, that dem then fills the government with Dems and desides to arrest people who dont believe like they do and are a threat to their power.

They would thne be allowed to come get you , put you in prison and never have to say why or how long they are keeping you. No trial nothing , you are just in preoson as long as they want you in prison.


You cant be an American who believes in the constitution and agree with these lawyers!
Click to expand...

He's a terrorist. I'd hope a Dem President would bust a terrorist too. I don't see anything partisan in this.
 
Desh said:
How do you know hes a terrorist?
Click to expand...

""Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gases and plotting a cyberattack.""

That doesn't look like the normal activity for a law abiding American.
 
Now how did they know he was a member of al-Qaida? Is there proof of an attack plot or was he acting like me? Researching poison gases means nothing by the way.
 
cawacko said:
""Authorities say he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent living in middle America, researching poisonous gases and plotting a cyberattack.""

That doesn't look like the normal activity for a law abiding American.
Click to expand...

What if the information provided by the government is made up by the government. He has a right to challenge the evidence in court under the constitution.
If the evidence is so solid then take him to court and try him like we are supposed to do under the constitution.


a 2-1 ruling by a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, found that the president had crossed the line and al-Marri must be returned to the civilian court system. Anything else would "alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic," the judges said.
 
KingRaw! said:
Now how did they know he was a member of al-Qaida? Is there proof of an attack plot or was he acting like me? Researching poison gases means nothing by the way.
Click to expand...

You're reading the same article I am. You can see what they say he did. Reads pretty clearly to me this wasn't some kid who googled poinsionous (sp) gasses one time for fun.
 
Desh said:
What if the information provided by the government is made up by the government. He has a right to challenge the evidence in court under the constitution.
If the evidence is so solid then take him to court and try him like we are supposed to do under the constitution.


a 2-1 ruling by a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel, found that the president had crossed the line and al-Marri must be returned to the civilian court system. Anything else would "alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic," the judges said.
Click to expand...

Fine if that's what the court says. It seems pretty clear this guy was here to do bad sh*t to our country. Maybe we should have let him done it so we could then all complain how our government didn't do anything to stop it.
 
Cawacko you are taking the governments word that the evidence they say they have is good. The evidence is unchallenged at this point.

If it is such good evidence then let it air in court. FOLLOW the constitution of the US.

Do you want any and all government from now on to have this power?
 
What if the information provided by the government is made up by the government. He has a right to challenge the evidence in court under the constitution.


Under that same theory, what makes you think the court would be fair?


You're reading the same article I am. You can see what they say he did. Reads pretty clearly to me this wasn't some kid who googled poinsionous (sp) gasses one time for fun.


I'm too lazy to read the article. Just paste the part that proves he was a terrorist.
 
cawacko said:
Fine if that's what the court says. It seems pretty clear this guy was here to do bad sh*t to our country. Maybe we should have let him done it so we could then all complain how our government didn't do anything to stop it.
Click to expand...

Have you been taking stupid pills?

You have always been much brighter than this in the past.

No one said they had to never investigate him or charge him.

They need to follow the laws of our constitution.

They need to file charges and try him.

They need to stop holding him in limbo and follow the fucking constitution!
 
Desh said:
OH MY GOD!

Cawacko, do you even realize what you are condoning?

Let say we let this stand, A dem gets intoi office, that dem then fills the government with Dems and desides to arrest people who dont believe like they do and are a threat to their power.

They would thne be allowed to come get you , put you in prison and never have to say why or how long they are keeping you. No trial nothing , you are just in preoson as long as they want you in prison.


You cant be an American who believes in the constitution and agree with these lawyers!
Click to expand...

Democrats have used this provision for that very purpose, what do you think happened to Clinton's enemies?... or at least, the ones that didn't end up dead...

You seem very naive to think, this is something unique to Bush. Presidents have had this authority for many years Desh, it is how the DEMOCRAT president Roosevelt, was able to round up and intern Japanese-Americans during WWII, it was how Lincoln was able to win the Civil War! It is precisely why we must consider carefully, who we elect to this office, it is powerful. It is not just a matter of ideology, or pretty faces and eloquent speech, it is integrity and ethical honesty, and being able to entrust the man with this kind of power. It is probably the reason McCain will win and Obama will lose the General Election.


This is not a matter of "allowing it to stand" Desh, it has stood, for nearly 200 years now, and it isn't going to change unless we rewrite our Constitution. The President has the authority in times of war, to usurp any supposed "liberty and freedom" an individual might have, if he believes this person to be a threat to National Security. He doesn't have to present a case, or have a judge give an okay on it, HE is the one entrusted by the people to make this decision.

Checks and balances, you scream? Well... there are checks and balances in the system. If Congress believes the President is out of his mind and usurping the freedom and liberty of individuals who are not a threat to National Security, they can censure or impeach the President. This would likely be the case in your fictitious scenario. But, that has not happened in the case of Bush, just as it didn't happen to FDR or Lincoln, because they were justified in the course of actions taken at the time, and within their authority as President of the United States.
 
Amendment XIV
Section. 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The only excuse for ignoring the above is under the exception that an individual entered into the United States illegally for the purpose of doing the U.S. harm would be an enemy combatant, and would therefore not be "under the jurisdiction of" a state under our laws or constitution. One could argue that a person entered into the U.S. using a visa obtained under false pretenses would be entered illegally, and therefore not under the jurisdiction of our laws.

The argument about illegal entry for the purpose of harm negating contitutional protections has been used successfully against foreign agents caught and detained both during wartime and peacetime.

That exception could NEVER, under any circumstances, be used against a CITIZEN of the U.S. ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States") I highly doubt any lawyer would ever argue that a U.S. citizen could be so arrested and detained. In that I believe the article probably misused the word "citizen" where he should have used the word "resident".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top