Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Mohamed: Come join Al Qaeda and help us fight the great Satan! We blew up the WTC and crashed into the Pentagon!
Abdul: Thats not what I read. I heard the US government did it and blamed you guys.
Mohamed: No, seriously! We did it! We did it in the name of Allah!
Abdul: No, Silverstein did it. He admitted it. Alex Jones said so.
Mohamed: Why would we lie? We lost our base of operations in Afghanistan and are living in caves! We did it! Who are you going to believe? A fellow Muslim or some lying American who never gets anything right?
Abdul: Then how did you get NORAD to stand down?
Mohamed: Oh forget it. You will believe ANYTHING those conspiracy sites tell you.

:lol:

The funniest thing of all was the response to this. "Do you work for Centcom?"

:lol:

Quality humour.

[Mighty Oak]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Mohamed: Come join Al Qaeda and help us fight the great Satan! We blew up the WTC and crashed into the Pentagon!
Abdul: Thats not what I read. I heard the US government did it and blamed you guys.
Mohamed: No, seriously! We did it! We did it in the name of Allah!
Abdul: No, Silverstein did it. He admitted it. Alex Jones said so.
Mohamed: Why would we lie? We lost our base of operations in Afghanistan and are living in caves! We did it! Who are you going to believe? A fellow Muslim or some lying American who never gets anything right?
Abdul: Then how did you get NORAD to stand down?
Mohamed: Oh forget it. You will believe ANYTHING those conspiracy sites tell you.

:lol:

The funniest thing of all was the response to this. "Do you work for Centcom?"

:lol:

Quality humour. Well thank you,thank you very much. 8:)

[Mighty Oak]

washingtonpost.com
Court: U.S. Can Hold Citizens as Enemy Combatants
Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Goverment in Holding Hamdi

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 8, 2003; 3:38 PM


A federal appeals court today ruled that the government has properly detained an American-born man captured with Taliban forces in Afghanistan without an attorney and has legally declared him an enemy combatant.

The 54-page ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who is being held incognito at the Navy brig in Norfolk, has broad implications for the Bush administration's war on terror.

The court ruled that as an American citizen, Hamdi had the right to a judicial review of his detention and his status as an enemy combatant. But because the Constitution affords the executive branch the responsibility to wage war, the courts must show great deference to the military in making such determinations.

"The constitutional allocation of war powers affords the President extraordinarilybroad authority as Commander in Chief and compels courts to assume a deferential posture in reviewing exercises of this authority," said the opinion, written by Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and judges William W. Wilkins and William B. Traxler Jr.

"The Constitution does not specifically contemplate any role for courts in the conduct of war, or in foreign policy generally. Indeed . . . courts are ill-positioned to police the military's distinction between those in the arena of combat who should be detained and those who should not."

Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001. He was transferred to the Navy brig in Norfolk after telling U.S. investigators that he was born in Louisiana. But while he was in Norfolk, the military declined to allow Hamdi to speak with anyone because he was deemed an enemy combatant.

Hamdi's father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, and Federal Public Defender Frank W. Dunham Jr. filed petitions with the federal court in Norfolk seeking permission for Dunham to meet with Hamdi. In both cases, U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar granted the requests.

The 4th Circuit stayed Doumar's order in each case.

"I applaud today's decision which reaffirms the president's authority to capture and detain individuals, such as Hamdi, who join our enemies on the battlefield to fight against America and its allies," said Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. "Today's ruling is an important victory for the president's ability to protect the American people in times of war. Preserving the president's authority is crucial to protect our nation from the unprincipled, unconventional, and savage enemy we face. Detention of enemy combatants prevents them from rejoining the enemy and continuing to fight against America and its allies, and has long been upheld by our nation's courts, regardless of the citizenship of the enemy combatant."

The appeals court today was specifically ruling on the sufficiency of a two-page declaration by a Defense Department official who said Hamdi was captured with a rifle with Taliban soldiers. Doumar ruled that the statement by a special adviser to the undersecretary of defense for policy was insufficient to detain an American citizen without a lawyer.

But the appeals court ruled that it is enough to say that Hamdi was "captured and detained by American allied forces in a foreign theater of war during active hostilities and determined by the United States military to have been indeed allied with enemyforces."

The court noted the implications of its decision in a rare acknowledgment to the underlying facts of the case. "The events of September 11 have left their indelible mark," the judges wrote. "It is not wrong even in the dry annals of judicial opinion to mourn those who lost their lives that terrible day. Yet we speak in the end not from sorrow or anger, but from the conviction that separation of powers takes on special significance when the nation itself comes under attack...Judicial review does not disappear during wartime, but the review of battlefield captures in overseas conflicts is a highly deferential one."


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: washingtonpost.com
Court: U.S. Can Hold Citizens as Enemy Combatants
Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Goverment in Holding Hamdi

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 8, 2003; 3:38 PM


A federal appeals court today ruled that the government has properly detained an American-born man captured with Taliban forces in Afghanistan without an attorney and has legally declared him an enemy combatant.

The 54-page ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who is being held incognito at the Navy brig in Norfolk, has broad implications for the Bush administration's war on terror.

The court ruled that as an American citizen, Hamdi had the right to a judicial review of his detention and his status as an enemy combatant. But because the Constitution affords the executive branch the responsibility to wage war, the courts must show great deference to the military in making such determinations.

"The constitutional allocation of war powers affords the President extraordinarilybroad authority as Commander in Chief and compels courts to assume a deferential posture in reviewing exercises of this authority," said the opinion, written by Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and judges William W. Wilkins and William B. Traxler Jr.

"The Constitution does not specifically contemplate any role for courts in the conduct of war, or in foreign policy generally. Indeed . . . courts are ill-positioned to police the military's distinction between those in the arena of combat who should be detained and those who should not."

Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001. He was transferred to the Navy brig in Norfolk after telling U.S. investigators that he was born in Louisiana. But while he was in Norfolk, the military declined to allow Hamdi to speak with anyone because he was deemed an enemy combatant.

Hamdi's father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, and Federal Public Defender Frank W. Dunham Jr. filed petitions with the federal court in Norfolk seeking permission for Dunham to meet with Hamdi. In both cases, U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar granted the requests.

The 4th Circuit stayed Doumar's order in each case.

"I applaud today's decision which reaffirms the president's authority to capture and detain individuals, such as Hamdi, who join our enemies on the battlefield to fight against America and its allies," said Attorney General John D. Ashcroft. "Today's ruling is an important victory for the president's ability to protect the American people in times of war. Preserving the president's authority is crucial to protect our nation from the unprincipled, unconventional, and savage enemy we face. Detention of enemy combatants prevents them from rejoining the enemy and continuing to fight against America and its allies, and has long been upheld by our nation's courts, regardless of the citizenship of the enemy combatant."

The appeals court today was specifically ruling on the sufficiency of a two-page declaration by a Defense Department official who said Hamdi was captured with a rifle with Taliban soldiers. Doumar ruled that the statement by a special adviser to the undersecretary of defense for policy was insufficient to detain an American citizen without a lawyer.

But the appeals court ruled that it is enough to say that Hamdi was "captured and detained by American allied forces in a foreign theater of war during active hostilities and determined by the United States military to have been indeed allied with enemyforces."

The court noted the implications of its decision in a rare acknowledgment to the underlying facts of the case. "The events of September 11 have left their indelible mark," the judges wrote. "It is not wrong even in the dry annals of judicial opinion to mourn those who lost their lives that terrible day. Yet we speak in the end not from sorrow or anger, but from the conviction that separation of powers takes on special significance when the nation itself comes under attack...Judicial review does not disappear during wartime, but the review of battlefield captures in overseas conflicts is a highly deferential one."


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Thank you for providing proof of the extraordinary things a US citizen has to go through to be declared an enemy combatant. He was captured in Afghanistan armed with a rifle and fighting for the Taliban.

Even still, his family knows where he is and what he was charged with. The courts still reviewed the case and found the government to be correct in detaining him. Things are working as they should.

[Mighty Oak]

I fully expected this reply.Remember this guy,Jose Padilla?He was interned in a Navy brig for over three years with no charges against him.Care to explain this?He is an American citizen.

Here is what a few more Law Professers say.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times , "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citiz ens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains : "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: I fully expected this reply.Remember this guy,Jose Padilla?He was interned in a Navy brig for over three years with no charges against him.Care to explain this?He is an American citizen.

Here is what a few more Law Professers say.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times , "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citiz ens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains : "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

I sincerely doubt you expected that reply or you would have either not posted it or defended the article more thoroughly when you posted it. Instead you looked like a fool by showing a perfect example of a good use of claiming a US citizen as an enemy combatant.

OK, you have two examples of US citizens, both of which have proven connections to Al Qaeda, one of which was actively fighting US troops beside the Taliban. Both cases have extensive court intervention. Care to try and back up your whining with an example of an average citizen detained for no apparent reason as an enemy combatant? Until then you're just playing chicken little by claiming something COULD happen. You COULD get struck in the head by a stray meteorite. Not likely and in your case not a fatal injury, but you never know!!! I suggest you line an old army helmet with aluminum foil and wear that from now on in case of a sudden meteorite shower.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: I fully expected this reply.Remember this guy,Jose Padilla?He was interned in a Navy brig for over three years with no charges against him.Care to explain this?He is an American citizen.

Here is what a few more Law Professers say.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times , "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citiz ens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains : "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

I sincerely doubt you expected that reply or you would have either not posted it or defended the article more thoroughly when you posted it. Instead you looked like a fool by showing a perfect example of a good use of claiming a US citizen as an enemy combatant.

OK, you have two examples of US citizens, both of which have proven connections to Al Qaeda, one of which was actively fighting US troops beside the Taliban. Both cases have extensive court intervention. Care to try and back up your whining with an example of an average citizen detained for no apparent reason as an enemy combatant? Until then you're just playing chicken little by claiming something COULD happen. You COULD get struck in the head by a stray meteorite. Not likely and in your case not a fatal injury, but you never know!!! I suggest you line an old army helmet with aluminum foil and wear that from now on in case of a sudden meteorite shower. So I take it your a Law Professer.After being held for more than three years in U.S. military custody, Jose Padilla has been charged on Nov.22 2005.So this is how our justice system is supposed to work. :roll: Once again I proved my stance.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: I fully expected this reply.Remember this guy,Jose Padilla?He was interned in a Navy brig for over three years with no charges against him.Care to explain this?He is an American citizen.

Here is what a few more Law Professers say.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times , "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citiz ens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains : "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

I sincerely doubt you expected that reply or you would have either not posted it or defended the article more thoroughly when you posted it. Instead you looked like a fool by showing a perfect example of a good use of claiming a US citizen as an enemy combatant.

OK, you have two examples of US citizens, both of which have proven connections to Al Qaeda, one of which was actively fighting US troops beside the Taliban. Both cases have extensive court intervention. Care to try and back up your whining with an example of an average citizen detained for no apparent reason as an enemy combatant? Until then you're just playing chicken little by claiming something COULD happen. You COULD get struck in the head by a stray meteorite. Not likely and in your case not a fatal injury, but you never know!!! I suggest you line an old army helmet with aluminum foil and wear that from now on in case of a sudden meteorite shower. So I take it your a Law Professer.After being held for more than three years in U.S. military custody, Jose Padilla has been charged on Nov.22 2005.So this is how our justice system is supposed to work. :roll: Once again I proved my stance.

Where did I claim to be a law professor? :roll: Weak.

Your stance is Bush or Rumsfeld could claim anyone anywhere and at any time could be declaired an enemy combatant. You have failed MISERABLY to prove this as you only have two examples and both of them are proven enemy combatants. The courts were involved in both cases to make sure the balance was maintained between the President's powers during war and a civilian's rights.

The only thing you've proven is how far out of touch with reality you are. You see boogeymen around every corner and are so paranoid that you make a habitual pot smoker seem trusting. :lol: COULD Bush start abusing this power? Sure he could. Anyone can do just about anything. You could go on a killing spree which is definitely against the law. Just because you COULD go on a killing spree isn't a reason to label you a mass murderer without you committing the act.

Until you can show abuse of the enemy combatant status, you're just blowing smoke and claiming it is fact.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: I fully expected this reply.Remember this guy,Jose Padilla?He was interned in a Navy brig for over three years with no charges against him.Care to explain this?He is an American citizen.

Here is what a few more Law Professers say.

Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times , "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citiz ens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains : "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

I sincerely doubt you expected that reply or you would have either not posted it or defended the article more thoroughly when you posted it. Instead you looked like a fool by showing a perfect example of a good use of claiming a US citizen as an enemy combatant.

OK, you have two examples of US citizens, both of which have proven connections to Al Qaeda, one of which was actively fighting US troops beside the Taliban. Both cases have extensive court intervention. Care to try and back up your whining with an example of an average citizen detained for no apparent reason as an enemy combatant? Until then you're just playing chicken little by claiming something COULD happen. You COULD get struck in the head by a stray meteorite. Not likely and in your case not a fatal injury, but you never know!!! I suggest you line an old army helmet with aluminum foil and wear that from now on in case of a sudden meteorite shower. So I take it your a Law Professer.After being held for more than three years in U.S. military custody, Jose Padilla has been charged on Nov.22 2005.So this is how our justice system is supposed to work. :roll: Once again I proved my stance.

Where did I claim to be a law professor? :roll: Weak.

Your stance is Bush or Rumsfeld could claim anyone anywhere and at any time could be declaired an enemy combatant. You have failed MISERABLY to prove this as you only have two examples and both of them are proven enemy combatants. The courts were involved in both cases to make sure the balance was maintained between the President's powers during war and a civilian's rights.

The only thing you've proven is how far out of touch with reality you are. You see boogeymen around every corner and are so paranoid that you make a habitual pot smoker seem trusting. :lol: COULD Bush start abusing this power? Sure he could. Anyone can do just about anything. You could go on a killing spree which is definitely against the law. Just because you COULD go on a killing spree isn't a reason to label you a mass murderer without you committing the act.

Until you can show abuse of the enemy combatant status, you're just blowing smoke and claiming it is fact. Being held for 3 years without a charge is abuse in the highest order.I have proved my case,as for you,all you need is time,it will become self evident soon enough,unfortunately.

[Patriot911]

Padilla's case wasn't your point. Nice ducking and dodging, but your point was that Bush and Rummy could claim anyone is an enemy combatant. They have not abused that power no matter how much you try to avoid that truth. Was Padilla's 3 year wait without being charged excessive? In my opinion, yes. Does that make him innocent? No. Does that prove Bush and Rummy are abusing their ability to name citizens as unlawful combatants? Not even close. ;-)

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Padilla's case wasn't your point. Nice ducking and dodging, but your point was that Bush and Rummy could claim anyone is an enemy combatant. They have not abused that power no matter how much you try to avoid that truth. Was Padilla's 3 year wait without being charged excessive? In my opinion, yes. Does that make him innocent? No. Does that prove Bush and Rummy are abusing their ability to name citizens as unlawful combatants? Not even close. ;-) Way to contradict yourself. :lol: You say it's excessive and then say that Bush and Rummy aren't abusing their power.

[psholtz]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Padilla's case wasn't your point. Nice ducking and dodging, but your point was that Bush and Rummy could claim anyone is an enemy combatant. They have not abused that power no matter how much you try to avoid that truth. Was Padilla's 3 year wait without being charged excessive? In my opinion, yes. Does that make him innocent? No. Does that prove Bush and Rummy are abusing their ability to name citizens as unlawful combatants? Not even close. ;-) Way to contradict yourself. :lol: You say it's excessive and then say that Bush and Rummy aren't abusing their power.
It's called DoubleThink.. :-|

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Padilla's case wasn't your point. Nice ducking and dodging, but your point was that Bush and Rummy could claim anyone is an enemy combatant. They have not abused that power no matter how much you try to avoid that truth. Was Padilla's 3 year wait without being charged excessive? In my opinion, yes. Does that make him innocent? No. Does that prove Bush and Rummy are abusing their ability to name citizens as unlawful combatants? Not even close. ;-) Way to contradict yourself. :lol: You say it's excessive and then say that Bush and Rummy aren't abusing their power.

You and Psholtz both have the reading skills of a first grader. Re-read what I wrote and try to be honest this time. The constant lies from you two are getting old. I clearly distinguish between the power Bush and Rummy hold to claim citizens are enemy combatants and what happened to Padilla. Claiming civilians are enemy combatants is not being abused. In Padilla's case, I thought the government waited too long to charge him. Or is it your assertion that all power is linked so an abuse anywhere along the line automatically means ALL power is being abused? :lol:

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Padilla's case wasn't your point. Nice ducking and dodging, but your point was that Bush and Rummy could claim anyone is an enemy combatant. They have not abused that power no matter how much you try to avoid that truth. Was Padilla's 3 year wait without being charged excessive? In my opinion, yes. Does that make him innocent? No. Does that prove Bush and Rummy are abusing their ability to name citizens as unlawful combatants? Not even close. ;-) Way to contradict yourself. :lol: You say it's excessive and then say that Bush and Rummy aren't abusing their power.

You and Psholtz both have the reading skills of a first grader. Re-read what I wrote and try to be honest this time. The constant lies from you two are getting old. I clearly distinguish between the power Bush and Rummy hold to claim citizens are enemy combatants and what happened to Padilla. Claiming civilians are enemy combatants is not being abused. In Padilla's case, I thought the government waited too long to charge him. Or is it your assertion that all power is linked so an abuse anywhere along the line automatically means ALL power is being abused? :lol:
Patriot911, have you ever read Orwell's 1984?

Remember the character Winston Smith?

Was he one of the "good" guys, or was he one of the "bad" guys?

Just trying to get a take on where the base of your perception of the world lies..

thanks..