From: AntEGM111@aol.com   
      
   On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:55:45 GMT, Mike  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,   
   >> unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may   
   >> require it."   
   >>   
   >>   Hmmm, nothing specifying citizens there . . .   
   >>   
   >Are you kidding me? The constitution is for "We the People of the United   
   >States". Everything in the Constitution is for US Citizens only.   
   >   
      
       'Cause that's what it explicitly sa- . . . oh wait, no it doesn't   
   . . .   
      
      
   >U.S. citizens and those aliens who, by lawfully weaving themselves into   
   >the fabric of our society have become citizens.   
   >   
   >Aliens whose only connection to our country is to wage a barbaric war   
   >against it, do not, and should not, have any Constitutional rights.   
   >   
      
      If you actually have them, and not some innocent caught in the   
   "action" . . .   
      
   >Do you actually think our founding fathers put up with extending   
   >constitutional rights to non citizen terrorists.   
   >   
   >No, they wouldn't.   
   >   
      
      Well, I'm sure you got a seance to talk to them to back that up.   
   Otherwise, putting words in the mouths of the dead is . . . well, dumb   
   . . .   
      
      
      
   >"A person who, before, on, or after the date of the Military   
   >Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy   
   >combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent   
   >tribunal established under the authority of the President or Secretary   
   >of Defense."   
   >   
   >But there is a criteria, specifications that have to be met, for the   
   >determining of enemy combatants and those include either non citizen or   
   >renouncement of citizenship through declaration or treasonous acts   
   >(Treason: Violation of allegiance toward one's country, especially the   
   >betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and   
   >purposely acting to aid its enemies).   
   >   
   >And by the way, unscrupulous people in government do not need this law   
   >if they want to get you. Just ask the people of the Branch Dividian   
   >compound (only you can't, because they are dead).   
   >   
      
      If they do that to us *without* that law, I can't begin to imagine   
   what they'll do to us *with* that law!   
      
      
   >  " According to Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, appointed to   
   >represent Gitmo detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan wasn't even allowed   
   >access to him until he had *plead guilty* to charges"   
   >   
   >So? Hamden was Osama Bin Laudin's personal driver and bodyguard. I think   
   >it's safe to assume that he had terrorism ties. Military Commissions   
   >function with the assumption of guilt in the first place.   
   >   
      
      Sorry, but this is a system based on a presumption of innocence.   
   If something that is suppossedly part of our system runs counter to   
   that, then there is something inherently wrong with it . . .   
      
      
   >But the thing is, if this were any other war, he would simply be held as   
   >a POW until the war ended. That would be the sane way to do things.   
   >   
      
      Funny, I'm yet to hear about Congress declaring war . . .   
      
      
   >What is insane is allowing terrorists bent on destroying this country   
   >any access to rights and privileges of the country they are trying to   
   >destroy in the first place.   
   >   
      
       *If* they are terrorists.  You seem to be assuming all the people   
   involved are actually terrorists, and not just mistakes or outright   
   fraud for the sake of a $5000 bounty.  Considering over 200 have   
   already been released, I'd say your assuming has been wrong, but   
   that's what happens when you ass-u-me . . .   
      
      
      
   >Why in the hell do we have to give terrorists rights that they   
   >themselves do not recognize and only use against us?   
   >   
      
      Besides the whole "that's what separates us from them" thing, see   
   above . . .   
      
      
   >The people who have always carried themselves as the ally of women, gays   
   >and minorities now have this protective romance with the most   
   >gay-hating, women-hating and minority-hating force on the face of the   
   >earth. What gives?   
      
      Well, there was this long-haired philosopher from about 2000 years   
   ago who went on about respecting, even loving your enemies, but you   
   probably never heard of him . . . oh, and see further above . . .   
      
      
   >   
   >Got to make sure they get American citizen rights although they aren't   
   >citizens and are trying to kill Americans.   
   >   
      
      There you go, ass-u-me-ing again . . .   
      
      
   >Wasn't done before and should not be done now.   
      
       Yes, abuse of power in emergencies is well-known "tradition," but   
   history is something you're suppossed to learn from to *avoid* such   
   mistakes!   
      
      
      
   --   
                       - ReFlex 76   
      
   - "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot   
   girl-on-girl action!"   
      
   - "The difference between young and old is the difference between   
   looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"   
      
   - Jesus Christ - The original hippie!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)