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

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".

The colors!!!
 
Good Luck said:
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".
Click to expand...

You are looking in the wrong place. The point being made by Desh, is concerning presidential authority under the war powers act, not the 14th Amendment. The president has always had the executive power in a time of war, to detain or hold US citizens, and this authority is left to his discretion as Commander in Chief. The 'oversight' is the Senate Intelligence Committee, to which the President has to report such detentions and the reasons for them. Before the War Powers Act, other presidents used the same authority and power, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. This is part of the responsibility we bestow on the person we elect president, and to pretend that it hasn't existed until Bush came along, is just typical Desh-delusion.
 
Dixie said:
You are looking in the wrong place. The point being made by Desh, is concerning presidential authority under the war powers act, not the 14th Amendment. The president has always had the executive power in a time of war, to detain or hold US citizens, and this authority is left to his discretion as Commander in Chief. The 'oversight' is the Senate Intelligence Committee, to which the President has to report such detentions and the reasons for them. Before the War Powers Act, other presidents used the same authority and power, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. This is part of the responsibility we bestow on the person we elect president, and to pretend that it hasn't existed until Bush came along, is just typical Desh-delusion.
Click to expand...
Again, the argument has been determined to be valid, by our courts system, that a person entered into the U.S. illegally can be held exempt from constitutional protections. That argument is, IMO, valid in that enemy combatants deliberately work against our society and its constitution, thereby do not deserve constitutional protections.

In the case cited by the article, and the reaction of the court, makes me guess (since the facts of the case are not available) that the evidence against al-Marri is not enough to declare him an enemy combatant, thereby returning his case to the courts system until such determination can be fully supported or negated.

What some presidents have done in the past during time of war does not make those actions constitutional, legal, or right. Only full declaration of martial law can "legally" suspend constitutional protections of citizens. We have turned a blind eye to presidential orders overstepping the constitution in the past, true. That does NOT make it right, legal, or an excuse to allow presidential authority under war to usurp the Constitution today.
 
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.

That is not in the constitution my friends
 
Desh said:
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.

That is not in the constitution my friends
Click to expand...
I fully agree - IF that is what was actually said.

But, like I said, I doubt that is what the lawyers actually said. I think a writer for NBC made a mistake and used the word citizen in place of the word resident.

The case of arresting and holding foreign residents of the U.S. as enemy combatants has been used before, with the only question being the methods used to determine the suspect is, indeed, acting as an enemy agent. Since al-Marri is a foreign resident, not a citizen, there would be no need for the counsel for the government to make the additional claim that the power to hold an individual as an enemy agent can be extended to U.S. citizens.
 
Good Luck said:
I fully agree - IF that is what was actually said.

But, like I said, I doubt that is what the lawyers actually said. I think a writer for NBC made a mistake and used the word citizen in place of the word resident.

The case of arresting and holding foreign residents of the U.S. as enemy combatants has been used before, with the only question being the methods used to determine the suspect is, indeed, acting as an enemy agent. Since al-Marri is a foreign resident, not a citizen, there would be no need for the counsel for the government to make the additional claim that the power to hold an individual as an enemy agent can be extended to U.S. citizens.
Click to expand...
This is the EXACT quote from the hearing:

The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.

"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.

"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

The court seemed torn.

One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.

Another judge said the question is not whether the president was generous in his use of power; it is whether the power is constitutional.

It does not suprise me that so many on the right having no problem with this, since it was your side that invented the great american cop out for liberty "9-11 changed everything". Great quote, perfect for silencing people that question the errosion of American liberties. The fact that Dixie applaud this abuse of CONSTITUTIONAL power does not suprise me in the least.
 
Desh i guess when a dem gets control and the precedent has been set, then Bush and co can be siezed and held indefinatley as well ?

CAW should be fine with that.
 
That is what I was trying to get through to these guys. I failed .


I would fight this if it was a dem doing it.
 
Desh said:
That is what I was trying to get through to these guys. I failed .


I would fight this if it was a dem doing it.
Click to expand...

Me too mostly, but not in the case of Bush, Cheny and rove. Gitmo would be too kind for them.

Deliberately misleading the people of the USA into War is treason. And has definately caused national security issues.
Under their own rationalle they all should be waterboarded to get the truth and save some US lives.
 
Last edited:
Wait, you were trying to get through to conservatives? That would be like trying to make a liberal act like a man. Everyone knows most conservatives never change their minds on anything. They never admit they're wrong. They stand by their man no matter how retarded he is.
 
Last edited:
Socrtease said:
This is the EXACT quote from the hearing:

The full appeals court is reviewing that decision and a ruling is expected soon. During arguments last year, government lawyers said the courts should give great deference to the president when the nation is at war.

"What you assert is the power of the military to seize a person in the United States, including an American citizen, on suspicion of being an enemy combatant?" Judge William B. Traxler asked.

"Yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer Gregory Garre replied.

The court seemed torn.

One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.

Another judge said the question is not whether the president was generous in his use of power; it is whether the power is constitutional.

It does not suprise me that so many on the right having no problem with this, since it was your side that invented the great american cop out for liberty "9-11 changed everything". Great quote, perfect for silencing people that question the errosion of American liberties. The fact that Dixie applaud this abuse of CONSTITUTIONAL power does not suprise me in the least.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the court transcript. I did not know that had actually been said. I still have difficulty believing it.

The lawyer who said "yes, your honor" to the question whether U.S. citizens can be treated as enemy combatants without first going through due process to remove their rights as a citizen should be disbarred. And the justice who glossed the possibility under the excuse "we don't see citizens being rounded up" should be debenched and beaten behind the woodshed. (I have a hickory stick just the right size....)

I DO have a serious problem with anyone other than genuinely suspected foreign enemy agents being subject to military (as opposed to criminal) arrest within the United States. As I said to Dixie, just because presidents have done unconstitutional things in the past under wartime conditions does not make it the right thing to do, nor condone doing it today under wartime conditions.

I just have trouble believing a federal lawyer - or a federal judge - would even briefly entertain the notion that presidential war powers extends to violating the Constitution. That's why I doubted the word of an NBC report. The idea is ridiculous. Presidential war powers, as clarified by SCOTUS during the Civil War, is the power of the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to send those forces where he feels is necessary to national security without need for declaration of war from congress. (It's why congress could not force the president to withdraw from Viet Nam) NO OTHER POWERS have been granted, neither by the Constitution, nor by interpretation/decision by the courts.

To suspend the Constitution or any part of it, legally, would require a full blown declaration of martial law. And the president that does that will have a full blown revolution on his hands even if the measure were reasonably justified.
 
Thank you for the court transcript. I did not know that had actually been said. I still have difficulty believing it.The lawyer who said "yes, your honor" to the question whether U.S. citizens can be treated as enemy combatants without first going through due process to remove their rights as a citizen should be disbarred. And the justice who glossed the possibility under the excuse "we don't see citizens being rounded up" should be debenched and beaten behind the woodshed. (I have a hickory stick just the right size....)I DO have a serious problem with anyone other than genuinely suspected foreign enemy agents being subject to military (as opposed to criminal) arrest within the United States. As I said to Dixie, just because presidents have done unconstitutional things in the past under wartime conditions does not make it the right thing to do, nor condone doing it today under wartime conditions.I just have trouble believing a federal lawyer - or a federal judge - would even briefly entertain the notion that presidential war powers extends to violating the Constitution. That's why I doubted the word of an NBC report. The idea is ridiculous. Presidential war powers, as clarified by SCOTUS during the Civil War, is the power of the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to send those forces where he feels is necessary to national security without need for declaration of war from congress. (It's why congress could not force the president to withdraw from Viet Nam) NO OTHER POWERS have been granted, neither by the Constitution, nor by interpretation/decision by the courts.To suspend the Constitution or any part of it, legally, would require a full blown declaration of martial law. And the president that does that will have a full blown revolution on his hands even if the measure were reasonably justified.

I agree.
 
Last edited:
Government lawyers, working on behalf of the dept of justice at the insistence of the president have been burning the midnight oil to figure out just how far the president can go in derogation of his oath and get away with it. Yoo said that the president could order the testicles of child CRUSHED in order to get information from that childs father. This is what the Bush administration and their appointees think the United States government has the right to do. To torture children to gain information from their parent. The Answer to the question regardless of which lawyer it is asked of is NO. But as I said the other day, the Bush Administration believes that some times a government as great as ours has to violate the ethical standards of a country as great as ours to show the world how great we are. As a veteran, it offends me. I was required to take classes about the proper treatment of POW's and civilians in a war zone. I am aware of the charges against Japanese and German military members after WWII. I knew before the MSM told me that we executed Japanese Soldiers for Waterboarding allied soldiers. As I said in another post, we are the beacon of freedom. We are that City on the Hill. The people that have been in charge for quite sometime now have dimmed that light, and they dirtied that city. It does not make me ashamed of my country, it makes me mad at the men and women that took an oath to us, WE THE PEOPLE, and then dragged us around behind them and besmirched our good name.
 
KingRaw! said:
Thank you for the court transcript. I did not know that had actually been said. I still have difficulty believing it.The lawyer who said "yes, your honor" to the question whether U.S. citizens can be treated as enemy combatants without first going through due process to remove their rights as a citizen should be disbarred. And the justice who glossed the possibility under the excuse "we don't see citizens being rounded up" should be debenched and beaten behind the woodshed. (I have a hickory stick just the right size....)I DO have a serious problem with anyone other than genuinely suspected foreign enemy agents being subject to military (as opposed to criminal) arrest within the United States. As I said to Dixie, just because presidents have done unconstitutional things in the past under wartime conditions does not make it the right thing to do, nor condone doing it today under wartime conditions.I just have trouble believing a federal lawyer - or a federal judge - would even briefly entertain the notion that presidential war powers extends to violating the Constitution. That's why I doubted the word of an NBC report. The idea is ridiculous. Presidential war powers, as clarified by SCOTUS during the Civil War, is the power of the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to send those forces where he feels is necessary to national security without need for declaration of war from congress. (It's why congress could not force the president to withdraw from Viet Nam) NO OTHER POWERS have been granted, neither by the Constitution, nor by interpretation/decision by the courts.To suspend the Constitution or any part of it, legally, would require a full blown declaration of martial law. And the president that does that will have a full blown revolution on his hands even if the measure were reasonably justified.

I agree.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous.
 
Good Luck said:
Again, the argument has been determined to be valid, by our courts system, that a person entered into the U.S. illegally can be held exempt from constitutional protections. That argument is, IMO, valid in that enemy combatants deliberately work against our society and its constitution, thereby do not deserve constitutional protections.

In the case cited by the article, and the reaction of the court, makes me guess (since the facts of the case are not available) that the evidence against al-Marri is not enough to declare him an enemy combatant, thereby returning his case to the courts system until such determination can be fully supported or negated.

What some presidents have done in the past during time of war does not make those actions constitutional, legal, or right. Only full declaration of martial law can "legally" suspend constitutional protections of citizens. We have turned a blind eye to presidential orders overstepping the constitution in the past, true. That does NOT make it right, legal, or an excuse to allow presidential authority under war to usurp the Constitution today.
Click to expand...

It should be plain common sense that the United States Constitution, written explicitly for citizens of the United States, does not apply to people who are not citizens of the United States. Only pinheaded liberals could possibly interpret such "rights" into the Constitution.

What some presidents have done in the past, means everything. It sets precedent and establishes the authority of the executive office and branch of our government. Presidential authority has been challenged time and time again, and it always wins. This is because the power given to the elected president is broad and all-encompassing.

The President, and the President alone... not the CIA, not the FBI, not the State Department, has the authority to order ANY American citizen held, if he feels the person is a threat to the security of the nation, and furthermore, if said president should fail or neglect to order such a person held, and he did indeed perpetrate an attack on the nation, that president could (and probably would) be impeached for dereliction of duty.

I believe in our Constitution as much as anyone, but the function and purpose of the Constitution is not to protect those who seek to destroy the physical purpose and reason for the Constitution. Because of the potential dangers, time is sometimes of the essence, and court judgements, senate hearings, intelligence briefings, are not possible without grave risk to National Security, and in these instances, the President has executive authority to act based on his personal judgement alone. We grant him this power as our President, and it has nothing to do with the perfunctory Constitutional rights of citizens. Threat to National Security always trumps Individual Constitutional Rights, and it always will.
 
Good Luck said:
Thank you for the court transcript. I did not know that had actually been said. I still have difficulty believing it.

The lawyer who said "yes, your honor" to the question whether U.S. citizens can be treated as enemy combatants without first going through due process to remove their rights as a citizen should be disbarred. And the justice who glossed the possibility under the excuse "we don't see citizens being rounded up" should be debenched and beaten behind the woodshed. (I have a hickory stick just the right size....)

I DO have a serious problem with anyone other than genuinely suspected foreign enemy agents being subject to military (as opposed to criminal) arrest within the United States. As I said to Dixie, just because presidents have done unconstitutional things in the past under wartime conditions does not make it the right thing to do, nor condone doing it today under wartime conditions.

I just have trouble believing a federal lawyer - or a federal judge - would even briefly entertain the notion that presidential war powers extends to violating the Constitution. That's why I doubted the word of an NBC report. The idea is ridiculous. Presidential war powers, as clarified by SCOTUS during the Civil War, is the power of the President, as commander in chief of the armed forces, to send those forces where he feels is necessary to national security without need for declaration of war from congress. (It's why congress could not force the president to withdraw from Viet Nam) NO OTHER POWERS have been granted, neither by the Constitution, nor by interpretation/decision by the courts.

To suspend the Constitution or any part of it, legally, would require a full blown declaration of martial law. And the president that does that will have a full blown revolution on his hands even if the measure were reasonably justified.
Click to expand...


Thank you so much GW , Im so glad to see someone on the right put country before party for a change.
 
the Fifth Amendment right against Self incrimination applies to EVERY PERSON taken into custody by the police. The right against unreasonable search and seizure applies to ALL searches and seizures REGARDLESS of who is searched and where they were born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top