Posted on 06/16/2002 5:32:24 AM PDT by magnum opus dejure
I dunno, MAF, we said MUCH worse when Clinton was in charge ;)
Geeze. Stop whining.
Along with the rest of the country. Why is there any question about this? What else can you call his desire to make instant citizens out of millions of illegal aliens?
Small claims division?
If we are a member of a group that the congress authorizes the president to use military force against- then yes, we could be detained as military combatants by the US military.
If we are American citizens, then we have a right to habeous corpus proceedings.
And if we are members of the group congress authorized military force against, the courts will agree that we are appropriately treated as military detainees.
What is wrong with that?
Gotta go eat.
You're coming apart like a cheap suit, sneaky.
Reaganesque?
No. He said American citizens would not be tried by military tribunals. They have already announced that Padilla would not be tried by military tribunal.
Don't be a sap, Laz.
Moral Equivalency would only be established in the Mexicans had agreed to the establishment of a Texan Republic, and then reneged on the deal. Because that correctly describes the Legal state-of-affairs between the Zionists and the Arab Nationalists, 1917-1947. A HISTORY OF BETRAYAL: The Zionist Establishment of Israel
As good as the US claim to the American Southwest is, the Israeli claim to Jewish Palestine is legally better. I honestly think that the Zionist Claim is one of the BEST land-claims in the history of International Law.
A negotiated bilateral deal was struck, fair-and-square, at the Treaty of Paris. The Zionists agreed that they would support the Arab Nationalist claim to the establishment of their own Arab Nations in 99% of the post-Turkish Middle East, and the Arab Nationalists agreed that they would support the Zionist Claim to the establishment of their own Jewish Nation in 1% of the post-Turkish Middle East.
However, once their own Arab Nations were established, THE ARAB NATIONALISTS RENEGED ON THE DEAL.
It was nothing but a cynical back-stab, from the beginning. 99% of the Middle East was not good enough for the Arabs; they broke the Covenants of the Treaty of Paris, and demanded the whole enchilada.
THAT is the Legal History of the Arab-Zionist conflict. Period.
I think the point is that the government has the same potential for "terror" as the terrorists. The issue is assessing the potential for that terror esp. with regard to the government's power. Is it probable or not? (Remember...Bush won't always be president... you might trust him, but if Hillary ever becomes president you wouldn't trust her with precedents set by this administration)
We were terrified of what the Clinton administration could do, we should be terrified of what ANY administration could do.
-------------------------------
Our patience has been rewarded, --- not with a victory over our enemies, -- but with repressive schemes to tighten security in the 'homeland'.
- Yep, there's no doubt that 'we shall see' where this leads.
-- When Hillary leads.
Up the English!
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.