Previous 1 3 4 5 6
Topic: Is this what America does?
adj4u's photo
Sat 05/23/09 05:23 AM
President Obama ’s proposal for a new legal system in which terrorism suspects could be held in "prolonged detention" inside the United States without trial would be a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

they must have forgotten about the 16 yo that they are holding in indiana i think

there was a thread about it here at one time

but i could not seem to find it

hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

SirQuixote's photo
Sat 05/23/09 05:30 AM
Actually, there is a long tradition and presedence for "quaranteening" and isolating in public health matters, without Constitutional 4th, 5th, 6th & 14th Amendment rights. The speedy trial provisions only apply to charging and trying "criminal" aresttes, not isolating dangerous and or contagous.


adj4u's photo
Sat 05/23/09 05:38 AM
Ashton now sits in a juvenile facility in South Bend, Indiana where he has been held without a trial or regular access to his family under the authority of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is a law enacted under the George W. Bush administration in the wake of 9/11 that has been widely criticized for denying due process to anyone deemed an enemy combatant by Federal authorities.


http://airamerica.com/ronreagan/blog/2009/may/06/16-year-old-held-out-due-process-under-patriot-act-audio


----------------------------------------------------------------------

who would of thought air america would have to be the one to ring out the injustices of this country

adj4u's photo
Sat 05/23/09 05:40 AM

Actually, there is a long tradition and presedence for "quaranteening" and isolating in public health matters, without Constitutional 4th, 5th, 6th & 14th Amendment rights. The speedy trial provisions only apply to charging and trying "criminal" aresttes, not isolating dangerous and or contagous.




but hose that you mention were given due process

they were sent before a judge with the opportunity to have an attorney present a case before they were denied their freedom

they are holding suspected terrorists without going through this process


SirQuixote's photo
Sat 05/23/09 05:42 AM
Untrue. Thew Board of Health and CDC has the authority to quaranteen without due process.

See the detention of Japanese Americans in WWII

adj4u's photo
Sat 05/23/09 05:44 AM
Edited by adj4u on Sat 05/23/09 05:49 AM

Untrue. Thew Board of Health and CDC has the authority to quaranteen without due process.

See the detention of Japanese Americans in WWII


that is a health issue (or is supposed to be) not a criminal charge as terrorism is

and how much money did the tax payer have to pay those that were illegally detained in those japanese detainee camps

------------------

Redress for Japanese Americans/ Court cases

multiple cases of were those of japanese desent won court cases regarding the way they were treated during ww2

SirQuixote's photo
Sat 05/23/09 05:49 AM
9/11 was a health issue to 3,000 .


Here's an interesting piece of history:

July 19, 1884

President Arthur proclaims power to impose quarantine on immigrants
On this day in 1884, President Chester Arthur issues a proclamation that grants him and the federal government the power to quarantine persons entering the United States through its ports of entry to avoid the spread of “pestilence.” Although the proclamation used the word pestilence several times, it did not mention the specific name of the dreaded disease from which Arthur was trying to protect the nation: tuberculosis.
Although individual states usually maintained their own quarantine laws, Arthur saw the need to broaden the federal government’s powers to intervene in a national health crisis. Arthur served as president during an economic depression, when the nation was already in a state of anxiety and fearful of a resurgence in immigration from Europe and Asia, where tuberculosis was epidemic. He advised cities along the coasts to “resist the power of the disease and to mitigate its severity.” Without elaborating, Arthur was authorizing people to report to the federal government persons suspected of carrying highly contagious diseases.

Since the country’s inception, several presidents have had to impose quarantine regulations. George Washington signed the first quarantine act in 1799 at a time when variations of the plague and smallpox still posed deadly threats. Foreign ships deemed in “insanitary [sic] conditions” could be seized by federal officers and the passengers placed in quarantine at hospitals.

In 1918, 657,000 Americans were killed when a deadly worldwide pandemic called the “Spanish Flu” swept through the nation. Some historical accounts claim that President Woodrow Wilson contracted this flu while in Paris for the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, although it is uncertain which strain of flu virus he had.

During his first term, President George W. Bush added Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which originated in China and threatened to spread like wildfire, to the list of diseases for which government quarantine procedures could be implemented. Currently, diseases caused by biological weapons, such as anthrax, or the deadly influenza virus carried by poultry and other birds pose an additional danger to the United States.


adj4u's photo
Sat 05/23/09 05:51 AM

9/11 was a health issue to 3,000 .


Here's an interesting piece of history:

July 19, 1884

President Arthur proclaims power to impose quarantine on immigrants
On this day in 1884, President Chester Arthur issues a proclamation that grants him and the federal government the power to quarantine persons entering the United States through its ports of entry to avoid the spread of “pestilence.” Although the proclamation used the word pestilence several times, it did not mention the specific name of the dreaded disease from which Arthur was trying to protect the nation: tuberculosis.
Although individual states usually maintained their own quarantine laws, Arthur saw the need to broaden the federal government’s powers to intervene in a national health crisis. Arthur served as president during an economic depression, when the nation was already in a state of anxiety and fearful of a resurgence in immigration from Europe and Asia, where tuberculosis was epidemic. He advised cities along the coasts to “resist the power of the disease and to mitigate its severity.” Without elaborating, Arthur was authorizing people to report to the federal government persons suspected of carrying highly contagious diseases.

Since the country’s inception, several presidents have had to impose quarantine regulations. George Washington signed the first quarantine act in 1799 at a time when variations of the plague and smallpox still posed deadly threats. Foreign ships deemed in “insanitary [sic] conditions” could be seized by federal officers and the passengers placed in quarantine at hospitals.

In 1918, 657,000 Americans were killed when a deadly worldwide pandemic called the “Spanish Flu” swept through the nation. Some historical accounts claim that President Woodrow Wilson contracted this flu while in Paris for the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, although it is uncertain which strain of flu virus he had.

During his first term, President George W. Bush added Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which originated in China and threatened to spread like wildfire, to the list of diseases for which government quarantine procedures could be implemented. Currently, diseases caused by biological weapons, such as anthrax, or the deadly influenza virus carried by poultry and other birds pose an additional danger to the United States.




did you miss this line

"""""impose quarantine on immigrants"""""

the 16 yo is an american born citizen


adj4u's photo
Sat 05/23/09 05:53 AM
The following focuses on significant court cases that have shaped civil and human rights for Japanese Americans, as well as for other minorities. These cases have been the cause and/or catalyst to many changes in United States law. But mainly they have resulted in adjusting the perception of Asian immigrants in the eyes of the American government.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Redress_for_Japanese_Americans/_Court_cases


maybe you should try reading the constitution

and never do anything that could remotly by considered terrorism

(you know like disagreeing with the govt)

as you are condoning there hold you with out having to prove you did anything

SirQuixote's photo
Sat 05/23/09 06:31 AM
Not only have I read the Constitution hundreds of times, I have read most of the cases that have interpreted the Constitution. The Constitution itself is the philosophy in a fortune cookie. The 230 years of cases that followed are the living, breathing Constitution.

The most important words from a practical point of view, in the Constitution, for better or for worse, are contained in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, yet no one speaks of it. It is the rational for the ever expanding power and yes, intrusion, of the Federal government.

Conservative or liberal, Dem or Rep, it is the justification for everything the Feds choose to do.

Wirthout the commerce clause, the US would b e a loose association of soverignties, much as the UN is.

Do not fall in love with the few words that 18th century farmers and clergymen who didn't know to wash their hands wrote. Love the living breathing expanding constitution that is relevent to today and tomorrow.

adj4u's photo
Sat 05/23/09 08:40 AM

Not only have I read the Constitution hundreds of times, I have read most of the cases that have interpreted the Constitution. The Constitution itself is the philosophy in a fortune cookie. The 230 years of cases that followed are the living, breathing Constitution.

The most important words from a practical point of view, in the Constitution, for better or for worse, are contained in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, yet no one speaks of it. It is the rational for the ever expanding power and yes, intrusion, of the Federal government.

Conservative or liberal, Dem or Rep, it is the justification for everything the Feds choose to do.

Wirthout the commerce clause, the US would b e a loose association of soverignties, much as the UN is.

Do not fall in love with the few words that 18th century farmers and clergymen who didn't know to wash their hands wrote. Love the living breathing expanding constitution that is relevent to today and tomorrow.



such an assumpion

""""Do not fall in love with the few words that 18th century farmers and clergymen who didn't know to wash their hands""""

such a statement speaks volumes

those you say this about wrote in those few words a proper method of changing what was written

and also gave more than most to give you the RIGHT to say such a disrespectful statement about them



be thee well


no photo
Sat 05/23/09 09:26 AM
Topic: Is this what America does?


actually yes it is

I would refere you to the Cherokee "Trail of Tears"

or the Navajo "Long Walk"

or a place called "Andersonville"

or "Wounded Knee"

or "Mei Lai"

or "Abu Graib"

SirQuixote's photo
Sat 05/23/09 09:35 AM
Edited by SirQuixote on Sat 05/23/09 09:35 AM
I get a kick out of someone who accesses the Constitution online, once, having the balls to tell someone that they need to read the Constitution when they do not have the slightest idea as to whom they may be chatting. The fact that I not only read it, I argued it before the Supremes on three occasion and actually won once or have read tens of thousands of cases, shouldn't dissuade you and your scholarly research. The fact is the reason why there is a Supreme Court is that very very knowledgeable and well read people can have different views of the interpretation of the few lines that we hold so dear, with no clue of their historical nor legal ramifications.

There is a dramatic difference between code and common law and some choose to treat the Constitution and the US legal system as a product of and dominated by code while others understand the tradition and merit of Common law, equity and Stare Decisis.


yellowrose10's photo
Sat 05/23/09 09:41 AM
whatever happened to the right to a speedy and fair trial?

Lynann's photo
Sat 05/23/09 09:43 AM
Okay...I have to agree with Sir on this "I get a kick out of someone who accesses the Constitution online, once, having the balls to tell someone that they need to read the Constitution"

Simple solutions for simple minds eh?

Only...life isn't so simple and neither are the legal issues before that are connected to the detainee's at Gitmo. No matter how we proceed there will be a lasting impact on our legal system.

Anyone who claims to have it all figured out must have not only a brilliant legal mind but a crystal ball as well.

I have in past popped into these arguments with little primers on issues like "how a bill becomes a law" but in this thread perhaps we should hear more from SirQuixote?


no photo
Sat 05/23/09 09:49 AM
Edited by quiet_2008 on Sat 05/23/09 09:51 AM

whatever happened to the right to a speedy and fair trial?


that only applies to criminal courts

these guys were captured on various battlefields. the argument that they were not a member of an organized army or country is what keeps them from being held to the Geneva Convention. but I personally think we should take the high road morally and keep them according to the Geneva Convention terms and treat them as Prisoners of War

but no, they don't deserve access to the American criminal system. they deserve to be held in POW internment camps until the War on the Jihadis is over

Lynann's photo
Sat 05/23/09 09:58 AM
The "war on terror" is indefinite that much is clear no matter who is in the White House.

The legal gray area that exists for some of these detainees is a real problem that could potentially affect not just these "foreigners" (not all are) but all Americans.

It is also important to remember not all these people were arrested/detained on battle fields but some were kidnapped off the street like some of the Spanish citizens now at Gitmo.

There is no blanket solution to these cases. That is why sorting this out is so thorny.

yellowrose10's photo
Sat 05/23/09 10:01 AM
ahhh gotcha :thumbsup:

SirQuixote's photo
Sat 05/23/09 10:12 AM
As stated, the speedy trial guarantee is for those charged with a crime and the detainees, are not. On the other hand, they are not POWs as we are not at war with Iraq, Afghanistan or with any country that they claim or don't claim to represent. In fact one can not have a war with a tactic (terror) any more then we can have a war against obesity (although I would love to exchange prisoners in that war and get my 31" waist back, I do miss it so)

The pragmatic answer is as follows. Deport them to their country of citizenship with the express assurances of that country that they will be tried for violating their countries laws against murder, property destruction terroristic acts. flashing little girls and boys, and conducting acts of aggression against other countries. If the country of origin refuses to arrest, detain and try them, we should reconsider our diplomatic, economic and military relations with them and then, finally, a country can be held liable, in a traditional sense, for warring against us and we could then bomb the sh*t out of them as a declared enemy nation.

We cannot remain in the middle, neither fish nor fowl, but then it's just one knight-errant's opinion.

no photo
Sat 05/23/09 10:15 AM
if I remember correctly most of the countries of origin refused to accept them back

Previous 1 3 4 5 6