Posted on 11/01/2001 3:58:19 AM PST by Polybius
So in some States, a sign that says "This property protected by a 12 gauge three nights a week..." makes them a terrorist. After all, many criminals are civilians.
They say it's only for non-citizens, etc. Then we lift a quote like this directly from their post. This deal isn't a slippery slope, it's a chasm.
What we have now is opened ended and ill defined, at least from the general public. I am afraid that the time will come when 'terrorists' will come to mean citizens that disagree with their government. We've already seen some attempts to cast them in this light.
Also, how do we know when this will be over? The potential is a perpetual 'state of war', in which the government uses the crisis as a figleaf to run roughshod over citizens.
We need a Declaration of War from Congress.
Why am I not surprised that we have conflicts with the UN approach to justice?
As for tribunals, I am satisfied that congress did in fact authorize Bush in this and other matters related to the acts of terrorism that started on 9-11. This would apply to any of Bin Ladin's organization but it should probably be revisited when the war on terrorism moves into other countries. (It will be difficult to show that all terrorism is connected.) As long as congress acts to authorize, the constitution is in fact providing the guidance. The problem with a formal declaration of war naming all the countries supporting terrorism is that they would all be our enemies (and could be combatants) simultaneously. As Bush is pursuing it, we may take them on one at a time. The problem with naming terrorists by name and adding to the list as more are uncovered is that that is precisely what we are doing, only without the headache of continued resolutions in the congress. The concept of commander in chief is designed to prevent the congress from requiring to be exercised at every decision point in the conduct of a war. This is a reasoned compromise that works for me.
After reading these things it makes me wonder how we have continued to stay as free as we are.. There must be ppl in high places that have given a lot to block and expose treachery and deceit but of course they probably gave their life literally.........
America is in the throes of trying to take back the freedom that we have lost. It is a good fight and we must stay in it to the death if required.
Thanks Black Jade.......there is safety in numbers. God bless America and FR.
Yes, military tribunals would have a positive effect on our joke of a justice system.
Judge Roy Bean would be pleased!
Precisely my point, dear 'Jade; your views. Follow me?
I'll always listen to what you have to say, what's going through your mind? Without the necessity of your having to document each & every thought.
You're confusing me with someone else, apparently; & I mean no disrespect to anyone in so saying that, starting with & including you. OK?
Now then...
"This isn't 'purely' my 'speculation,' Landru. My concern that the jurisdiction of these new 'military courts' COULD BE extended to include US citizens is based on the fact..."
So you see?
It *is* speculation, assumptions, with a *bit* of hyperbole scattered about. Nice writing, sincere concerns & valid points *all*, actually.
However...since you cannot show one instance of this law having been used, maliciously, against a US citizen?
Well...do I have to continue?
"...that these are specifically classified as courts to try 'terrorists.' Under the 'Patriot Act of 2001,' 'terrorists' include US citizens."
Yes 'Jade. That's correct.
US citizens who're of say (for the sake of illustration) Anglo or African decent, practicing fundamentalist Islam, and who'd participated in the past atrocities &/or any & all future acts of terror perpetrated upon our nation & her citizens?
You bet. They will swing from the end of a rope from a military constructed gallows.
Moreover they hang with 101% of my blessings & if need be?
I'll pull the handle, myself.
"Under this act, US citizens who 'appear to be intended' to engage in an act of terrorism are classified as 'terrorists.' The obvious intent of setting up an entirely new 'military court' system is to avoid being bound by the rules that govern presently existing military and civilian courts."
I disagee; having worked in military law enforcement?
I can tell you a subject charged under the UCMJ/MCM is entitled to legal represention at Court Martial represented by a *certified* attorney provided by JAG.
Kangaroo court?
Hardly.
"This 'Homeland Defense' legislation and program is aimed at citizens, as well as non-citizens."
Correcto-mundo, 'Jade. You got it. So terrorists, foriegn OR domestic; BEWARE.
[You're] on notice this nation's people are FINISHED with the kind of bull$hit stunts whereby a criminal commits henious acts against the innocent, then, turns right around & USES the very words of our laws as a weapon against the very people those laws were meant to protect while worming-around the intent.
Yea. That's doneski; *we've* HAD IT.
"The whole concept here of classifying somebody as a 'terrorist' is to get around the normal constitutional procedures and laws that govern criminal cases. If US citizens can be classified as 'terrorists' [FOR committing TERRORIST ACTS...] and denied our constitutional rights on that basis, and an extralegal system is in place specifically to try 'terrorists,' then what would prevent US citizens from being tried in those 'terrorist' courts?"
Ahhhh...they're not committing terrorist act(s)?Do ya think?
"Well, it is clear that these new 'military courts' are designed to be Kangaroo courts, just as the ICTY is, which I mentioned in a previous post. No matter how much money the defendent does or doesn't have, the deck is going to be stacked against him, right from the start."
Stacked deck?
Here, try this out for size then: If it were up to me these people wouldn't even get their choice of execution.
I trust my senses, after the facts have been heard -- privately or otherwise & if an individual brought before a court I was sitting on didn't pass MY smell test?
They could kiss their sweet posteriors goodbye, 'Jade.
Of course, I sit on no such bench but listen, I only told you that because this could be much, much worse than even you think.
This citizen, -me-, has had enough; and FYI, so have each & every single one of my neighbors.
If you know any of these nuts?
Be a good fellow & tell 'em it ain't safe here for 'em anymore.
...& as for my safety?
I'll take my chances with my countrymen, thank you.
Have a nice day, 'Jade.
Actually, Abraham Lincoln did not obtain a Declaration of War against the Confederate States of America. Try finding the text of such a declaration of war. You will never find it.
The United States of America never declared war during the Civil War. This was in keeping with its position that the rebel states did not form a new nation, rather they were states in which a rebellion was taking place. Abraham Lincoln issued a Proclamation that an insurrection existed in the states of SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX on 15 Apr 1861 (Messages & Papers of the Presidents, vol. V, p3214). He also proclaimed a blockade of Southern harbors on 19 Apr 1861, and the date of this proclamation was taken by the Supreme Court in several cases to be the official beginning of the insurrection.
In the war against terrorism, a declaration of war is not appropriate when you are fighting what legally amount to saboteurs, filibusters, pirates and terrorists. Wars are declared against sovereign states. These individuals represent no sovereign state.
Congress has passed an authorization to use force against all the organizations linked to the 11 September attack. That is the Constitutional equivalent of a declaration of war when a sovereign nation is not the enemy.
Legally, anyone who attacks the U.S. automatically becomes a belligerant the instant that the attack starts. The U.S. Navy was shooting back at the Japanese on 7 December 1941 although Congress had not yet declared war. Japan clearly defined itself as a belligerent by it's own action. Any foreign group, either known or previously unknown, who attacks or facilitates an attack on the U.S. is likewise an automatic and defined belligerent by it's own action.
In regards to terrorists living within the U.S., Abraham Lincoln has set the historical precedent that the President can declare a certain group of people to be in a state of insurrection against the U.S.
It is also amusing to me to listen to those who decry a "loss of freedom" for these war powers that merely roll the clock back to a time before the enactment of fairly recent laws or interpretations of the courts.
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.