🚀 go-pugleaf

"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in
news:gO6cnefmzaySzGigXTWcpw@giganews.com: 

>> Again those rulings are referencing the MILITARY aspects. 
>> Also you forgot to mention that the lower courts have just
>> ruled that Padilla, being an American citizen is also
>> allowed due process. Which so far he has been denied.  The
>> key is 'DUE PROCESS'. 
> 
> No such ruling. One court ruling (the latest) said that
> Padilla can have access to a lawyer for the sole purpose of
> preparing a Habeas Corpus hearing. The meetings will be
> monitored by a member of the military. All other pleas
> before the court were denied. The court said the issues of 
> whether Padilla was an 'enemy combatant,' the conditions
> under which he was confined, etc., were beyond the
> jurisdiction of the Judical Branch. 
> 

Uh Jerry!  the allowing of ad the actual preparation of 
preparation a writ of any sort is 'DUE PROCESS'.  Padilla was 
not allowed ANY access to the judicial system.  The federal 
court judge ruled on a case brought in behalf of Padilla, and 
resulted in the granting of that Habeas Corpus attempt.  That 
is due process Jerry.

>
>>
>> Once again, at least you are consistent, you cite MILITARY
>> examples to support a civilian action.  For the last
>> goddam time the CIA is NOT a military branch.  Thus any
>> actions it takes is NOT governed by those articles, rules,
>> regulations etc. that apply to the various branches of the
>> military. 
> 
> You may have a point, but for sure the rules governing the
> CIA sure as shit are not the same ones governing, say, a
> domestic FBI investigation when the CIA operates in the
> Sudan. 

For your information and edification.  The FBI exce[t 
recently, was restricted ot operations within ythe 
geopolitical confines of the U.S. and its territories.  The 
CIA is restricted to operating completely OUTSIDE those 
boundaries.  I would refer you to the hearings and debates 
that took place at the time of the CIA's creation as to the 
why and wherefors.

This administration, which is beginning to resemble the 
Romanovs more and more every day, are hell bent on creating a 
police state.  One it appears would emulate to the nth degree 
the beloved KGB-NKVD of the wonderful USSR.

>>
>> No one that I am aware of, has offered up the opinion that
>> an American fighting for the enemy is not an equal target.
>>  Once again I point out to you that such a person is selff
>> declared 'at war' with the United States and as such
>> suffers the same fate as any other soldier.  A Brit who
>> enlists in our army to fight against a military foe of
>> ours has only the same fate, and rights as a native
>> American.  What you and other Bush sycophants keep
>> avoiding is the issue of a single person, wheter Bush or 
>> some lower idiot in the CIA (yes, such is possible now
>> under these neew rules) can simply declare any AMerican
>> citizen a combatant, a terroist, and enemy of the state
>> and have them executed by the CIA.  That sir is the
>> fucking crux of the issue. 
> 
> I'm not avoiding the issue. Bush can declare anyone - US
> citizen or otherwise, within the US borders or not - an
> 'unlawful enemy combatant' and have them shot this
> afternoon. Get used to the concept; it's been around a long
> time. 
> 

What country do you think you are living in?  Oh, I forgot you 
are suthrin' and therefor completely ignorant of the realities 
of the United States where unlike in the South the Sheriff 
cannot simply go out and shoot or hang anyone not paying the 
'good ol' boy' tax.  Sit down I was half kidding, that gibe 
only applies to half the South. ;)

Back to your completely erroneous statement  -

    	"Bush can declare anyone - US citizen or otherwise,     
	within the US borders or not - an 'unlawful enemy     
	combatant' and have them shot this
     	afternoon. Get used to the concept; it's been around a     
	long time."  

NEVER has that concept been allowed, not even in times when 
military law was declared.  There has ALWAYS been provisions 
for due process.  Yes, the declaration as 'enemy' is a 
prosecutorial decision, but the finding is a judicial one, 
whether by Military, Judicial, or Congressional, court.

Jerry, you seem to have some indication of sentience, but 
appear to be a poster child for todays education system.  Take 
the time to look at our system of government and read up, at 
least superficially on the powers and operations of each of 
the branches particularly the Judicial branch, you seem 
particulary bereft of exposure in that area.

We have not had, as yet, a Tsarist goverment.  I find it 
troubling that Texans seem particularly enamoured by such a 
system.

Monte