Skip to comments.
2 Lodi residents refused entry back into U.S.
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| August 26, 2006
| Demian Bulwa
Posted on 08/26/2006 8:07:24 PM PDT by Mount Athos
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-215 last
To: daylate-dollarshort
What to do with the punk that was born here? Charge him with treason and after conviction, try him and fry him. That should effectively revoke his citizenship and you will have deported him to hell at the same time.Works for me!
201
posted on
08/27/2006 12:48:43 PM PDT
by
Marine Inspector
(Customs & Border Protection Officer)
To: freeangel
"I didn't realize that you could be out of the country for that long and pop back in."
For a resident yes, for U.S citizen no. It is extremely difficult to strip a citizen of their citizenship. Even when a citizen tries to give up their citizenship it is often denied and has in the past been regranted when the person later changed their mind.
202
posted on
08/27/2006 1:34:09 PM PDT
by
ndt
To: Dov in Houston
You know, there was this foregin student who was living in the hotel across the street from the WTC. He was evacuated with everybody else on 9/11. A security guard found a high-tech radio/walkie talkie in his room.
The FBI gave him a polygraph test, denied him access to a lawyer, under intense interrogation he admitted to owning the radio - changing his story several different times about how he came into possession of the radio.
The FBI charged him with lying, threw him in solitary confinement for a month. He was released when the security guard said he made the whole thing up.
To: Jubal Harshaw
Nevertheless, Congress did NOT declare war. The constitution does NOT specify the form of a declaration of war. Authorizing hostilities is not functionally distinguishable from a "declaration of war."
And we most certainly are at war.
204
posted on
09/20/2006 3:15:09 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(Living His life abundantly.)
To: Petronski
The congressional joint resolution authorizing the use of force may or not have the power of a declaration of war. I think it does not. However, even on its own terms, it does not appear to authorize this action.
The relevant part of the declaration appears to be:
__________________________________
Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons ...
___________________________________
On its face, this makes blocking the return of Jaber Ismail not consistent with the resolution. The congressional resolution clearly refers to the use of US armed forces. The authority of other agencies to engage in the use of "all appropriate force" is not approved. The FBI is the agency in question in this article. The FBI is not part of the armed forces. The FBI therefore received no new authorization as a result of the joint resolution.
Further, the targets of the "appropriate force" are required to have been determined by the president to have "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." Jaber Ismail was 13 in 2001. It is ludicrous on its face to suggest that a proper presidential finding determined that this (at the time) 13 year old boy "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." That's even assuming that there was a presidential determination regarding Mr. Ismail, which is extremely unlikely.
In short, the executive branch engaged in actions that were clearly not authorized by the congressional resolution in question. That's not even taking into account the whole question of whether or not this resolution itself is even valid (which is the topic of another thread).
To: Jubal Harshaw
In short, the executive branch engaged in actions that were clearly not authorized by the congressional resolution in question. You haven't made the case.
Further, the targets of the "appropriate force" are required to have been determined by the president to have "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
There is no requirement that the individual be a member of "such organizations" prior to Sept. 11, 2001. If this idiot decided to join such an organization five days or five years after this authorization, that's his tough luck.
It is ludicrous on its face to suggest that a proper presidential finding determined that this (at the time) 13 year old boy "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
It is ludicrous on its face to suggest that such a finding, specific as to this individual, is necessary.
206
posted on
09/20/2006 9:24:55 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(Living His life abundantly.)
To: Petronski
I'm sorry. I missed the part of the story that stated that Mr. Ismail was a "nation" or an "organization." Mr. Ismail is clearly a "person," and, if he is to be an individual target, with such targeting authorized by the congressional resolution, then a presidential determination must be made that he "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." That's what the resolution says. Don't like that? I understand. I wish congress had declared war, but they did not. They did NOT authorize war, with all that implies. They wrote what they wrote, and wishing that they had declared war won't make it so. Pretending that they have declared war won't make it so. Only congress declaring war would make it so.
Further, again, the resolution clearly addresses ONLY the use of the armed forces. The term "armed forces" is in the title line of the relevant section of the congressional resolution. It could not be more clear. The FBI is not part of the armed forces, and therefore is not covered by this resolution.
To: Jubal Harshaw
So you think the President's targeting of the organization only permits him to target the totality of the organization, and not its individual members or agents?
Right.
Don't like that? I understand. I wish congress had declared war, but they did not.
Not believable.
They did NOT authorize war, with all that implies.
Keep repeating it until you convince yourself.
They wrote what they wrote, and wishing that they had declared war won't make it so. Pretending that they have declared war won't make it so. Only congress declaring war would make it so.
Oh, I see you did. LOL
208
posted on
09/21/2006 3:37:19 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(Living His life abundantly.)
To: Jubal Harshaw
On its face, this makes blocking the return of Jaber Ismail not consistent with the resolution. Irrelevant.
Are you personally or professionally connected with this case? Connected in any way?
209
posted on
09/21/2006 3:58:11 AM PDT
by
Petronski
(Living His life abundantly.)
To: Jubal Harshaw
They were in Pakistan for 4 years.
I wonder what they were up to.
210
posted on
09/21/2006 4:04:09 AM PDT
by
airborne
(Fecal matter is en route to fan! Contact is imminent!)
To: Petronski
So you think the President's targeting of the organization only permits him to target the totality of the organization, and not its individual members or agents?
I missed the point in the article which stated that Mr. Ismail was proven to be part of any organization involved in 9-11. If he had been proven to be part of such an organization, then all this would be irrelevant, since the FBI would be criminally charging him, rather than trying to block him from the USA. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the FBI has no actual evidence that he's part of a terrorist organization.
It is clear from the tone of your posts that you believe that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants to do to anyone, including US born citizens, at any time, in any place, based on .... something. It's further clear that you believe that this authority has been granted by congress. I'm not even sure that Congress has that authority to grant, but, in any case, the source documents simply do not support your contention.
This is my last post to you on this topic. I regret that you have allowed your wishful thinking to blind you to the clear verbiage of the relevant congressional resolution. That is all.
To answer your other question, I am not connected to this case in any way. I don't know these people, or anything about them other than what I have read on Free Republic.
To: Jubal Harshaw
"1. Only congress can declare war
2. Congress has not declared war
THEREFORE:
3. do I really have to spell this out?"
Don't know about everyone else, but I recognize you for what you are, thanks for spelling it out.
To: Jubal Harshaw
I missed the point in the article which stated that Mr. Ismail was proven to be part of any organization involved in 9-11. Can such proof exist even if YOU don't have it?
213
posted on
09/21/2006 2:50:52 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(Living His life abundantly.)
To: Jubal Harshaw
This is my last post to you on this topic. I regret that you have allowed your wishful thinking to blind you to the clear verbiage of the relevant congressional resolution.It's your story, tell it however you want. LOL
It is clear from the tone of your posts that you believe that the president has the authority to do whatever he wants to do to anyone, including US born citizens, at any time, in any place, based on .... something.
It's clear from the content of your posts that you don't understanding the legal framework controlling in these matters.
That is all.
That phrase is far more effective as a final word IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW IT WITH MORE COMMENT.
ROTFLMAO
214
posted on
09/21/2006 2:54:57 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(Living His life abundantly.)
To: pepperdog
Don't know about everyone else, but I recognize you for what you are...I think I have a bead on it too. ;O)
215
posted on
09/21/2006 2:57:04 PM PDT
by
Petronski
(Living His life abundantly.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-215 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson