The biggest issue out there??

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not looking to debate any specific case to date, just the premise:

Is anyone but me highly disturbed that the United States Government (specifically, the President), has the ability to label a UNITED STATES CITIZEN an 'Enemy Combatant', which in turn means:

--No right to an attorney
--Federal courts have no right to interfere
--You can be held INDEFINITELY in MILITARY CUSTODY WIHOUT BEING CHARGED, without a HEARING, without VISITATION, without ANY WAY TO REFUTE THE CHARGES (even though there don't HAVE TO BE CHARGES) being levied against you!!!!!

Regardless of what they are detained for, I find it VERY DISTURBING that CITIZENS of the United States can, are, and will be treated in this fashion.

Forget the pledge issue....forget the death penalty issue...to ME, this is the single most pressing CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE out there right now, and it is getting hardly any air time.

Anyone hear of the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution? What the hell is going on around here??

==PA

[tdthomas]

Pace,
The entire Bill of Rights has been trampled upon. It just gets worse each passing year. The Pledge is a joke. Liberty and Justice for all? Hardly. Democrats and Republicans are both to blame. But people keep voting in the same polititians.

[penguinfan]

Sorry, I hafta dis-agree. Don't side with the enemy and you get treated fairly, side with the enemy and you give up your citizenship.
IMHO
penguinfan

[ranchwest]

I think a citizen should be entitled to some sort of hearing at which he could appeal his status as an enemy combatant. I don't have a problem with making life tough for enemy combatants, though.

[PaceAdvantage]

Penguinfan,

You're deflecting the issue here.

Whether someone sides with the enemy is not the issue. That is what a court of law and a jury by your peers is supposed to figure out.

Just because the Government says you are guilty doesn't make it true. Jurys prove this each and every day in this country.

The issue is that in this country, a CITIZEN of the United States is GUARANTEED under the CONSTITUTION due process of law. The accused is GUARANTEED the right to a speedy and fair TRIAL by a jury of his peers, where the ACCUSER has the BURDEN OF PROOF. The ACCUSER has to PROVE that his/her/their ACCUSATIONS are TRUE. It should NOT matter what crime was involved, be it treason, rape, murder, etc.

If the person accused is a CIVILIAN and a CITIZEN of the United States, this type of action can not be considered Constitutional. Where are the courts in all this?

If the accused were military personel, then I could maybe understand this kind of treatement.

Wonder what the Founding Fathers would say about all this???

==PA

[penguinfan]

Well, my intention in registering for this forum was to get some info on handicapping horses since I have some time to learn about it now, I am a complete novice. My intention was not to take sides on a political view, or to piss off the powers that be.

I think we need to take every precaution when dealing with those who intend harm on our country, it's honest citizens, our children, their parents etc... so I think I am hardly deflecting the issue. Had Clinton or Gore made the same decision would you feel the same way you do? (sorry if thats out of line). The bottom line is there is overwhelming evidence he intended harm against the country (enemy combatant!?!) would you rather give him the same option to claim that he cannot get a fair trial like John Walker Lindh is doing? Again, don't side with the enemy and you can get a fair trial. You ask where are the courts, well don't worry, I am sure the ACLU will come to his rescue soon enough with their inept interpretation on the bill of rights.
Hope I am still welcome to talk horses as I respectfully disagree with you on this issue.
penguinfan

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage wondered:

>>
Wonder what the Founding Fathers would say about all this???

Haha. You're kidding. The Constitution has been so trampled on so many times over the decades, I have to think that our poor dead Founding Fathers grew weary a long time ago from all rolling over to which they've beeb subjected.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

penguinfan wrote:

>>
Well, my intention in registering for this forum was to get some info on handicapping horses since I have some time to learn about it now, I am a complete novice. My intention was not to take sides on a political view, or to piss off the powers that be.
>>

Welcome to the Forum!

Fear not, penguinfan: We're all very thick-skinned around here and as equally non-partisan.

Boxcar

[penguinfan]

Thanks Boxcar, I'm gonna post in the appropriate thread some questions I have and what I have seen from around the web.
penguinfan

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage wrote:

>>
If the accused were military personel, then I could maybe understand this kind of treatement.
>>

Ah...herein is the crux of the problem. We're fighting a war the Founders never anticipated. We're not fighting a seen or obvious enemy -- an enemy in an easily distinquishable military uniform.

Furthermore, the enemy is already here on our soil -- walking among us -- and spread all across the globe.

Also, we have no idea how many Taliban Johnnies there are out there. How many "American" citizens have a serious axe to grind with the government.

This very unconventional war, many believe, call for unconventional tactics. To some extent, I agree for the noble purpose of the protecting the public saftey. However, I am uncomfortable with the aweseome powers Bush has assumed unto himself.
Apart, from the conventional judicial system, there must be another way that some other body would be able to critically evaluate his dictator-like mandates, and oversee his decisions, and call him into accountability when they think he has overstepped his bounds.

The only other solution I see is to use the current judicial system, but then law enforcement's burden of proof would beome much heavier than it is with the military route.

Not any easy problem to solve...

Boxcar

[Tom]

PA,
I think if the founding Fathers were alive today, they would be leading the next revolution against our government. They would be disgusted with what their dream has become. MAybe they would try to make up witht he King of England?
I agee that the Govvernemtn should not be able to declare someone to have no rights, but I do not like the alternative, that being our corrupt and embarrasing court system. Remember OJ?
I think they should not focus on one person, there are thousand of terrorists out there that we should be kiling now-let the one have hois day in court. If he gets off, they always kill him later. after all, we do have CIA budget to use.

Penguinfan,
Welcome. We get a little fiesty on this thread sometimes, nothing personal. We like to hear your views, agree or not.
Look forward to chatting on more friedly threads about horseys.

[PaceAdvantage]

penguinfan,


I'm a registered Republican and continue to be such.....so yes, if Clinton or Gore had made the same decision, I'd be equally as concerned.


==PA

[smf]

Specifically in terms of Lindh....If he takes up arms with an enemy sworn to kill US citizens, screw him. If this were 1776, the guy w/h been shot, cut, then tossed in the Atlantic. When he was armed in Afghanistan I hope he didn't feel that the US courts w/ keep his arse from what's going on....Oh Please!

In terms of some privacy issues being yanked lately, yes you have a GOOD point. I caught the back end of a local program (and one on PBS) that listed some privacy rights we had that don't exist anymore, all in the name of 9-11. I didn't catch all the details but the show w/ roll around again and I'll catch the whole thing soon enuff.

[PaceAdvantage]

There are well established ways to deal with treason. What Lindh is accused of doing is treason, is it not?? What others who are being held as 'Enemy Combatants' are accused of doing is tantamount to treason, correct?

Why not try them as traitors, like every other traitor has been dealt with in this country over the ages? Why this special designation??

Ol' Ben Franklin's famous quote really seems to apply in this situation.


==PA


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

[tdthomas]

boxcar wrote:
"
Ah...herein is the crux of the problem. We're fighting a war the Founders never anticipated. We're not fighting a seen or obvious enemy -- an enemy in an easily distinquishable military uniform.

Furthermore, the enemy is already here on our soil -- walking among us -- and spread all across the globe. "

There were plenty of supporters of the King and England back in those days. They looked just like every other colonist. The Founders were quite familiar with this situation.

[tdthomas]

Tom wrote:
"I think if the founding Fathers were alive today, they would be leading the next revolution against our government"

I totally agree. Sometimes I think that is the only way things will ever change. The polititians in Washington no longer represent the people. They serve special interests and campaign contibutors. The Constitution and the ideals of the Founders mean nothing to them.

[canuck]

PA-

In October 1970 British Trade Commissioner James Cross was kidnapped from his suburban Montreal home by members of the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ)

The kidnappers demands included the release of a number of convicted or detained FLQ members and the broadcasting of the FLQ manifesto

Pierre Trudeau was asked by reporters while standing on the steps of Parliament Hill how far he would go to keep a lid on things--his response-"There are a lot of bleeding hearts around who dont like to see people with helmets and guns. I say let them bleed"

And several hours later Pierre made his move by invoking the War Measures Act. This meant the suspension of traditional Canadian liberties. Anyone belonging to the FLQ could be rounded up in the dead of night without a search warrant and incarcerated without the right of habeus corpus.

What happened over 30 years ago in Canada is happening right now in the good ole USA--to deal with terrorists you may have to temporarily suspend civil liberties--as odious and sinister as the ramifications may be..

God(?) help y'all

[freeneasy]

and on that note canuck I truly believe the one action the US should take is to suspend all entry into this country by any and all peoples and natives, of any and all countries that support, promote, harbor, feed, clothe, train, protect, safegaurd and generally kiss goodnite those peoples and countries who are murderers and terrorists.
This includes any and all bussiness visits, pleasure visits, emergency visits ect. No GO JO JO. You dont cross one foot into this country no matter how legitimate your situation may be. If your 88 year old grandmother has no one to take care of her, you are not allowed to enter in. All must suffer ffor the actions of one. If the prevention of 10,000 legitimate entries means the prevention of one such terrorist whose agenda it is to cause irreveracable harm then so it should be. until a "safekeeping" has been put into place that does not fail we must protect our homeland with whatever means are nessecery, and if it has to be that the innocent must bear the weight of the guilty then so it should be.
Iam not willing to sacrafice the lives of thousands so the right of entry into this country can be held up for those with honest intentions and thereby forcing us to also allow entry into this country by terrorists posing with those same honest intentions.
Cryin towels down the hall, pal, cryin towels down the hall

[boxcar]

Good grief! Don't tell me you'd also be in favor of removing the water fountains from the desert routes used by Mexican immigrants to illegally enter the U.S. -- just on the chance a terrorist or two could be using the same routes?

Boxcar :D

[freeneasy]

well boxcar on that note I suppose Id put a sign on each desert fountain stating that these fountains are strictley for the benifit and use of all the mexican illegals pouring over the boarders into our country and that the use of these fountains by any and all terrorists also crossing over and into our boarders is strictley prohibited and that any terrorists caught violating this order and drinking from any of these desert water fountains will be prosicuted to the full extent of the law. HA! that otta show em

[Tom]

Do we bill Mexico for the water?

[freeneasy]

what and have the Mexican goverment throw a tantrum at a blind snit. think Dos Equis beer. what would we ever do if they shut their boarders off to us, or worse the Mexican goverment might even put a stop to all their illegal migration to the US, and then where would we be. I"ll tell ya where we"d be, we"d be up cattle creek with half a paddle. Hey " no charge sarge the waters free" just let em all in. Ye ho lay

[Lefty]

Why not remove the water fountains and just send limosenes for the illegals?

[boxcar]

Lefty wrote:

>>
Why not remove the water fountains and just send limosenes for the illegals?
>>

Hear! Hear! You're coming dangerously close to stealing my idea, on which I posted elsewhere, of just using the Border Patrol to conduct guided tours into the country for the illegals.

Although...your limo idea does have a touch of class and luxury to it...

Boxcar

[freeneasy]

s__t, I can see yous guys arent wearing your Beannie & Cecil coptor caps today what with all this water fouantains and limo service, guided tours, small talk I say, not big enough. Takes to long, waste of to much time. "Oh" you say, "well brainfood you got a better idea?" Well you bunch of limo driving tour guiding bumblestums its a good thing you asked cause it just so happens I do have an infinitely superior idea, although the water fountains, limo service and guided tours would be a very nice expression of gratitude, but I say lets show em the true capacity of gratiude that we are more then well equipped to produce. Hell I say lets just send over all our air transport planes, trucking outfits and cargo ships, load em all up, bring em all to town, drop em all off, and head on back for the rest till there aint nobody left. Then maybe I can buy a nice little piece of property over there on the beach and smile at everybody over here. crimany

[PaceAdvantage]

Interesting speech by Rep. Ron Paul (R) from Texas to the House of Representatives on June 27....

Read It Here (It's LONG but makes some good points) (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm)

[superfecta]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Interesting speech by Rep. Ron Paul (R) from Texas to the House of Representatives on June 27....

Read It Here (It's LONG but makes some good points) (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm) I like that guy alot..and I never have met him before.Thanks PA.Hope fully there are still enough people who think before they act.

[boxcar]

Thanks for the heads up, PA.

Ron Paul is one of the very few politicians with his head screwed on straight. While I don't agree with everyting he says, I think he's right far more often than not.

For example, I agree with his take on the war on terrorism. The "war" right now Afghanistan is in stuck mode, and when it comes down to it, we don't have a lot to show for it, except we kicked out the Taliban who probably are still hiding in the mountains in Afghanistan, waiting to fight another day

We blew the Tora Bora operation and the one afterwards in the south (forget the name of it now). In both operations we allowed oodles and oodles of the bad guys to slip away to Pakistan because we didn't want to put more of our troops at risk. (We never have been able to fully shake the Vietnam War Syndrome.)

And the more I ponder Iraq, the more I'm against sending troops there. Sure, if we want to fund a coups to let the Iraqis take care of their own dirty laundry, I'd be for it. But I don't see how we could come out of the conflict not looking like a bigger bully and gaining more enemies than before we invaded. Paul might well be on the money when he says the Bush Admin. simply wants to use Hussein as a scapegoat, and also as a convenient diversion from our losing efforts, thus far, on the war on terrorism.

The Homeland Security Agency is a joke, and I predict that down the road we'll see big screw ups by the agency. But God help us all, if this happens. The Feds right now are in such a high knee-jerk, reactionary, crisis management frame of mind that another attack, for example, could send our government right over the edge to where martial law might well be declared -- for security measures, of course.

Yeah, I definitely sense we're moving in the direction of a police state. Heck...about a year or so on this forum I stated that personal freedom in this country is merely an illusion. Back at the founding of this country, Personal Freedom started out as a true story but over the decades it has slowly but surely transformed itself into a fiction novel.

Boxcar

[tdthomas]

Good speech by Ron Paul. Does anyone know what the response was?
I think this country is already a police state. It is just getting worse and more inclusive.

[boxcar]

tdthomas wrote:

>>
Good speech by Ron Paul. Does anyone know what the response was?
>>

The run-of-the-mill politician (on the right or left)either took the opportunity to catch some Zs, or was on his cellphone calling his wife, mistress, or stockbroker and missed the speech entirely. The vast majority of Pinheads would consider a guy like Paul to be a whacked out extremist, and would tend to ignore him.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The Kurds in the northern sector of Iraq don't trust the U.S. as far as they can toss us. And who can possibly blame them? I can't see how, without their support, we'd be able to succeed in overthrowing Hussein.

The NY times story is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/08/international/middleeast/08IRAQ.html?todaysheadlines

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Gallagher's last sentence sums her concerns and mine as well, nicely.

Boxcar

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20020716.shtml

[boxcar]

I'm beginning to wonder who the real enemy is. I read another report a couple of days ago that Bush is dead serious about putting armed troops in the streets, and has ordered a team of legal beagles to research the law. Now, Sen. Biden wants to amend the Constitution that would alter the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Unbelievable! The dimwit in the WH is more concerned about putting troops in the streets than he is about putting them on our borders. Below is the link to the Biden story.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020722-6619304.htm

Boxcar

[hurrikane]

I am sure that a constitutional historian will correct me but this designation has been availible since the before ww1. Just haven't had much use for it. I don't think they changed one thing about the Constitution since Bush has been in office. But..maybe I'm wrong.
Anyone here lived or remember a time when the US was under attack? Maybe they could describe the rationing, the security.

[PaceAdvantage]

WOW. This is almost playing out like a script. Can't believe what I'm reading these days. Some scary, scary stuff.....

But, I'm sure people in this country will remain more concerned with the word 'God' being in or out of the Pledge of Allegience, while American troops arrest American citizens and throw them into military prisons without any charges being filed, and with their Constitutional rights as American citizens stripped....

Unbelieveable. Is everyone blind, brainwashed, or both????

==PA

[tdthomas]

Not everyone, PA. But sadly, the majority of citizens in this country either don't see it or don't give a damn. I wonder what the breaking point is, if there is one.

[tdthomas]

I think people need to demand accountablility, not just of corporations but of their polititians. I don't see the government policing itself and the people may have to rise up and take this nation back.

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage asked:

>>
Unbelieveable. Is everyone blind, brainwashed, or both????
>>

How do you spell A-P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C?

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I think I'm overreacting a bit when it comes to our men and women in uniform. I have to remember that American military personel are American citizens as well, and I'm sure they have the good sense to see when things are going too far.

However, I'm sure some senator will craft a well-worded bill that limits the powers given to the military initially to get people to agree with the idea, as is usually the case with stuff like this....all in the name of fighting terrorism, etc.....

The mainstream will look at those who oppose this kind of legislation as 'Crazy Militia Men From Montana' who are 'Paranoid About The New World Order', when in reality, we all should be questioning this kind of rhetoric. It's disturbing to hear Biden talk like this....very disturbing....

When do you go from screaming 'The Sky Is Falling' to 'Maybe You've Got Something There, and Maybe We Should Examine The Situation Further'??


==PA

[boxcar]

PaceAdvantage wrote:

>>
I think I'm overreacting a bit when it comes to our men and women in uniform. I have to remember that American military personel are American citizens as well, and I'm sure they have the good sense to see when things are going too far.
>>

Don't count on it. The rank and file military would be under extreme pressure in a situation like this -- right between the proverbial rock and hard place. One can never be sure how people will react in these kinds of situations. On the one hand they'll be under the threat of court martial for disobeying orders, while on the other they'll be hearing the cries and pleas from fellow oppressed citizens.

>>
However, I'm sure some senator will craft a well-worded bill that limits the powers given to the military initially to get people to agree with the idea, as is usually the case with stuff like this....all in the name of fighting terrorism, etc.....
>>

This you can count on!

>>
The mainstream will look at those who oppose this kind of legislation as 'Crazy Militia Men From Montana' who are 'Paranoid About The New World Order', when in reality, we all should be questioning this kind of rhetoric. It's disturbing to hear Biden talk like this....very disturbing....
>>

Look how hush-hush the mainstream press was on reporting this story. Liberal rags either didn't bother to report it at all, or they devoted a few words to the issue buried on page 18 of section C.

>>
When do you go from screaming 'The Sky Is Falling' to 'Maybe You've Got Something There, and Maybe We Should Examine The Situation Further'??
>>

Hopefully, not before it's too late.

Boxcar

[Rick]

I don't think the military wants to get involved in this kind of thing any more than they want to do "peacekeeping" missions. The vast majority are just not trained to do that kind of thing, and shouldn't be. Yeah, the military police might be able to handle it, but that's not usually who they ask to do these things. I'm old enough to remember Kent State. Does anyone else?

[boxcar]

Rick

>>
I don't think the military wants to get involved in this kind of thing any more than they want to do "peacekeeping" missions.
>>

What the rank and file soldier wants and what (s)he gets ordered to do are two entirely different things. Soldiers may not have the heart for "peacekeeping" missions, but they sure are doing it over in Bosnia, aren't they?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by Rick
I don't think the military wants to get involved in this kind of thing any more than they want to do "peacekeeping" missions. The vast majority are just not trained to do that kind of thing, and shouldn't be. Yeah, the military police might be able to handle it, but that's not usually who they ask to do these things. I'm old enough to remember Kent State. Does anyone else?
I remember it well. That is why I am opposed to ANY gun control laws. And I dont mean handguns either.
And who is Ron Paul? Isn't he that guy that dresses up like a woman on TV????

[boxcar]

Lefty, there are two things that concern me greatly about any Iraqi invasion plans.

1- Does Bush plan to get Congress to formally declare war on Iraq? Or is he just going to issue a Bushtapo-like Executive Order?

2- What happens _after_ the U.S. invades and "conquers" or "overthrows" Iraq? You see, I'm not that concerned about the U.S. killing or capturing Hussein (although this isn't a given once you consider our dismal failures in Afghanistan in capturing bin Laden and Omar), but my primary concern is how long do we remain bogged down in that big country? How long do we "occupy" it? Who is going to set up the new democracy? How do we know with certinity that we can trust the new leadership? And how do we know that the U.S. won't suffer a horrible backlash by other Arab nations, since there isn't one of them out there who wants to see a democratic Arab state in the region!? (In fact, it is this last reason why there will never be a lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel!)

In short, the Iraqi problem is exceedingly complex and delicate, and I really don't think we have the kind of leadership or experience in this country to tackle such a monumental task. And, therefore, if the U.S. (in spite of these terrible deficencies) goes ahead and ivades Iraq, anyway, that could really ensure that the war will be brought to our shores vis-a-vis more terrorism -- perhaps even more horrible than the events of 9/11. And if this were to happen, the citizenry would indeed be ripe to relinquish all its rights to the government. So many of us would be ready to hand over our freeedoms and liberties to the government on a silver platter in exchancge for security/lives.

For me...a very scary prospect, especially since I have zero confidence in the country's leaders.

Boxcar