With regard to my political activities, I fully explained what I could and could not do in the 1984 campaign, under the Hatch Act. I did everything I could legally do to get Reagan re-elected in 1984, but I could not obviously participate in the manner I had in 1976 (primary election) and 1980 (primary and general election).
You have continually questioned my conservative values and dedication to Republican causes. These things are easily proved. I have physical evidence, and best of all, eyewitnesses who are FR posters known to you. However, as before, simply proving you wrong is insufficient, in light of your cowardly smear campaign. I'd be more than happy to clip you where it hurts; in your purse. And I would gladly donate all of the money to FR. My satisfaction would be from showing the forum what a small, sociopathic liar you are.
Last time you were game, or so you said, for "1 million dollars" (which was nothing more than braggadocio on your part), so how about my original offer of $1,000?
Put up or shut up, coward.
The Rebel Cartel is questioning your loyalty?
Still pinging your marxist buddy Wlat, eh capitan? Last I heard he was "tied up," so to speak, and thus probably won't respond.
Mistaken citations are not lies.
They are when you habitually "mistake" multiple citations of a similar type, all of them with the same result of artificially bolstering your claims about the content of several supreme court cases. You have a documented pattern of deceptive behavior, capitan, and thus cannot be trusted.
There is nothing "mistaken" about false citations and false documentation when it occurs over and over. If you make that many mistakes in a row by accident, you are so incompetent that you must have in IQ bordering on that of fortheDeclaration or some other mental midget.
You have been caught so many times that you might as well resign yourself to having your credibility laughed at.
I do not know any of the folks on FR other than a few I met one day while freeping the Hillary book tour, and I know them by handle only from that one day.
You cannot prove you are not a liar because it has been proven over and over.
A million bucks, coward. If you need to do something to get the money, get off the government teat.
Write a book.
We do not need ancient history here.
From 11/24/2004: (5) It was indeed a footnote in the web article quoted from the Hamdi documentation.
From 11/25/2004: From a 'reply brief" we find this statement: "In a footnote, Respondents distinguish this Court’s opinions in Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 (1851), Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932), and prize cases by explaining that they 'do not support the type of factual development that petitioners have in mind with respect to the challenged enemy-combatant determination in this case.'" Her is the web article:
More lies to cover previous lies. It is not a "mistake" after you have been shown for months precisely what you did, and it was no footnote, and it was not from the Hamdi decision, and the footnote referred to on 11/25/2004 is from a completely different filing by the Solicitor General for Donald Rumsfeld, rather than what you quoted by a public defender.
Sell your load of crap to someone else.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/1195393/posts?q=1&&page=1279#1279
From the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision, comes this short review of Mitchell. I saw the case referenced several times, but I have not taken time to look it up yet, so I will limit my comments."The Fourth Circuit’s ruling also is entirely inconsistent with this Court’s long experience with the review of Executive branch seizures. In Mitchell v. Harmony, this Court reviewed and rejected the military’s seizure of a citizen’s property in Mexico during the Mexican-American war. 54 U.S. (13 How.) at 128-29. The plaintiff, a naturalized American businessman, filed an action against a U.S. colonel to recover the value of his property seized by the military. The government responded that the businessman had a “design” to trade with the enemy, and that the decision of the military commander to seize the property “must be entitled to some respect.” Id. at 118, 120.
"Rejecting these arguments, Chief Justice Taney’s opinion for the Court found the government’s defense to be based on “rumors which reached the commanding officer.” Id. at 133. “Mere suspicions of an illegal intention,” the Court stated, “will not authorize a military officer to seize and detain the property of an American citizen. The fact that such an intention existed must be shown; and of that there is no evidence.” Id. If an Article III court, consistent with separation of powers principles, can inquire into the seizure of a citizen’s property by the military within a country at war with the United States as in Harmony, these same principles surely pose no barrier to an inquiry into the seizure of the citizen himself."
It seems that Mitchell is not applicable to the situation of the South in the ACW. By their insurrection, the southern rebels forsook their claim to United States citizenship. I do not see how they could assert legal protections, if those protections were even applicable, from the document and country they renounced.
1,279 posted on 09/16/2004 11:39:32 PM CDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1277 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
WAS IT FROM THE HAMDI v. RUMSFELD DECISION??? NO!!!
NEXT LIE COMING UP
----------------------------------------------
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/1195393/posts?q=1&&page=1370#1370
HERE is what you wrote WAY BACK WHEN on 9/18/2004
I have not read Mitchell, but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plantiff was a US citizen. As such, it is not applicable to the southerners in the ACW. After perusing your post, I hope you are wearing your Depends, as you have probably blown a sphincter.
WAS IT A HAMDI FOOTNOTE??? NO!!!!
NEXT LIE COMING UP
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1279209/posts?page=1086#1086
(5) It was indeed a footnote in the web article quoted from the Hamdi documentation.
1,086 posted on 11/24/2004 11:20:41 AM CST by capitan_refugio
WAS IT FROM A WEB ARTICLE??? NO!!!
WAS IT A FOOTNOTE??? NO!!!
NEXT LIE COMING UP
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1279209/posts?page=1195#1195
[capitan_kerryfugio full of crap again]
From a 'reply brief" we find this statement: "In a footnote, Respondents distinguish this Court’s opinions in Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 (1851), Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932), and prize cases by explaining that they 'do not support the type of factual development that petitioners have in mind with respect to the challenged enemy-combatant determination in this case.'" Her is the web article:http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs_03/03-6696PetReply.pdf
1,195 posted on 11/25/2004 3:49:22 AM CST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1164 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
DOES THE LINK GO TO AN ARTICLE??? NO!!!
DOES IT REFER TO THE FOOTNOTE PREVIOUSLY QUOTED BY CAPITAN_KERRYFUGIO??? NO!!!
DO IT CONTAIN A LINK TO THE FOOTNOTE IN QUESTION??? NO!!!
Apparently you are either:
That is not a " web article" but a copy of the "Reply Brief for Petitioners, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi as next friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi." (Eser Hamdi is Yaser Hamdi's father.) Indeed it says that RESPONDENTS distinguish this Court's opinions in "Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 (1851), Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932), and prize cases," citing "Resp. Br. 49-50 n.24." RESPONDENTS did that. The RESPONDENTS were Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al.
AS I SAID, what you quoted was submitted by a public defender on behalf of Yaser Hamdi. What you are now attempting to lie your way out with is a reference by Petitioner (Hamdi) to a footnote by Respondent (Donald Rumsfeld) submitted by Solicitor General Ted Olson.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/hamdi/hamdirums100103pet.pdf
The quote spans the width of the page ending page 24 and beginning page 25.
SOURCE: Petition for Writ of Certiorari on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi and Eser Fouad Hamdi as next friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi, submitted by Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Virginia, Counsel of Record; and Geremy C. Kamens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Virginia.
THIS IS WHAT YOU QUOTED
3. The Fourth Circuit's ruling also is entirely inconsistent with this Court's long experience with the review of Executive branch seizures. In Mitchell v. Harmony, this Court reviewed and rejected the military's seizure of a citizen's property in Mexico during the Mexican-American war. 54 U.S. (13 How.) at 128-29. The plaintiff, a naturalized American businessman, filed an action against a U.S. colonel to recover the value of his property seized by the military. The government responded that the businessman had a "design" to trade with the enemy, and that the decision of the military commander to seize the property "must be entitled to some respect." Id. 118,120.
24 Rejecting these arguments, Chief Justice Taney's opinion for the Court found the government's defense to be based on "rumors which reached the commanding officer." Id. at 133. "Mere suspicions of an illegal intention," the Court stated, "will not authorize a military officer to seize and detain the property of an American citizen. The fact that such an intention existed must be shown; and of that there is no evidence." Id. If an Article III court, consistent with separation of powers principles, can inquire into the seizure of a citizen's property by the military within a country at war with the United States as in Harmony, these same principles surely pose no barrier to an inquiry into the seizure of the citizen himself.
THIS IS FOOTNOTE 24 FROM THE BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS, RUMSFELD ET. AL.
SOURCE: Brief for the Respondents in Opposition filed by Solicitor General Ted Olson; Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement; Assistant to the Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre; and Attorney John A. Drennan on behalf of Respondent Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et. al.
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-6696/03-6696.mer.resp.htmlSupreme Court Briefs
No. 03-6996In the Supreme Court of the United States
YASER ESAM HAMDI AND ESAM FOUAD HAMDI,
AS NEXT FRIEND OF YASER ESAM HAMDI, PETITIONERS
v.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITBRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS
THEODORE B. OLSON Solicitor General
Counsel of RecordPAUL D. CLEMENT
Deputy Solicitor GeneralGREGORY G. GARRE
Assistant to the SolicitorGeneral JOHN A. DRENNAN
Attorney
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that respondents have established the legality of the military's detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a presumed American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan during the combat operations in late 2001, and was determined by the military to bean enemy combatant who should be detained in connection with the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan.
In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-6696 YASER ESAM HAMDI AND ESAM FOUAD HAMDI,
AS NEXT FRIEND OF YASER ESAM HAMDI, PETITIONERS
v.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENTS
This next-friend habeas action challenges the authority of the Commander in Chief and the armedforces under his command to detain an individual, Yaser Esam Hamdi, who was captured by coalition forces in Afghanistan in late 2001 when he surrendered with a Taliban unit while armed with an AK-47 assault rifle. The U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan determined that Hamdi is an enemy combatant who should be detained in connection with the ongoing hostilities. The military later obtained records indicating that Hamdi, a Saudi national, was born in the United States. Hamdi is now detained at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The court of appeals correctly held that respondents have demonstrated the legality of Hamdi's wartime detention, and that this habeas action should be dismissed.
* * *
More fundamentally, the evidentiary inquiry ordered by the district court is incompatible with the conduct of war-and the constitutional commitment of the war power to the political branches. When the Commander in Chief has dispatched the armed forces to repel a foreign attack on this country, the military's duty is to subdue the enemy and not to prepare to defend its judgments in a federal courtroom. As Judge Wilkinson observed, subjecting the military's battlefield determination that Hamdi is an enemy combatant to further fact-finding "would ignore the fundamentals of Article I and II-namely that they entrust to our armed forces the capacity to make the necessary and traditional judgments attendant to armed warfare, and that among these judgments is the capture and detention of prisoners of war." J.A. 461 (concurring in the denial of rehearing) (citing The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) at 670)). [24]
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted.
THEODORE B. OLSONSolicitor General
PAUL D. CLEMENTDeputy Solicitor General
GREGORY G. GARRE
Assistant to the SolicitorGeneral
JOHN A. DRENNAN
Attorney
MARCH 2004* * *
24 Petitioners point (Br. 27) to Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115 (1851), and Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932). However, those cases do not support the type of factual development that petitioners have in mind with respect to the challenged enemy-combatant determination in this case. See Br. in Opp. 30-32. Moreover, those cases predate the far more relevant observations that this Court made in Eisentrager, discussed above. Petitioners' analogy (Br. 27) to the law of prize is also inapt. Discovery in prize proceedings was typically limited in scope to evidence taken from the captured vessel, see, e.g., The Springbok, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 1, 9- 10 (1866), and usually occurred after hostilities had ended.
Amusing to be called a "liar" by these clowns.