Left can't read well nor do they understand Constitution

On 17 Jan 2004 03:45:40 GMT, Clark stillnospam@me wrote:


Why should I? I had this all explained to me in a class taught by a
JAG lawyer.

Is it possible that you either misunderstood the JAG lawyer or the JAG lawyer
was in error? It wouldn't be the first time for either case now would it?

And why should I regard you as more knowledgable than the course
materials?

On one hand I have an expert on military law. On the other hand -
you.

What makes you so sure that you know more about this than I do?




"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:59:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...

Why should I?


So that you might gain an understanding of what it means.

I have an understanding. I just refuse to apply the term in a sloppy
and misleading manner.


"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

In article . net,on Sat,
17 Jan 2004 07:03:25 GMT,
LawsonE attempted to say.....

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote
in
message ...

Wrong. For instance - any arrest creates a permanent NCIC entry for
the arrestee. An arrest also requires that the subject be charged
with an offense.


Look up the damn word.



Where? The legal definition is what is being used in this thread, or so I
thought. What is the LEGAL defintion of the word, as applied to military
personnel?


Check the army reg pertianing to MP operations.
Should be a 190-* series regulation IIRC


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Look up the damn word, man. You're making a fool of yourself.

He's not making a fool of himself. He's trying to point out that the
word has different (even contradictory) meanings.

The first meaning in the Shorter Oxford is "The act of standing still,
or stopping in one's course; halt; delay." It's only when you get to
the third meaning of the verb intransitive that you get to "Apprehend
.... by legal authority."

Now you have to define apprehend. Sounds like more than detaining to
me.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Look up the damn word, man. You're making a fool of yourself.

He's not making a fool of himself. He's trying to point out that the
word has different (even contradictory) meanings.

The first meaning in the Shorter Oxford is "The act of standing still,
or stopping in one's course; halt; delay." It's only when you get to
the third meaning of the verb intransitive that you get to "Apprehend
... by legal authority."

Now you have to define apprehend. Sounds like more than detaining to
me.

In Military Circles, when you arrest, you detain whether it be voluntary or
otherwise. For instance, a person that is confined to quarters is arrested,
meaning, prevented from movement. When you aprehend, you place under
restraints involuntarily, usually by detention of some kind.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:07:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize and
hold under the authority of law."

This is a problem when one tries to generalize from "everyday
language" into the arcane and precise use of language in law.

"Arrest" has a very precise meaning in the legal sense. That is what
was under discussion. You've obviously never had a JAG briefing.
That's OK. Just realize that you are using words in an "everyday"
context, which is OUT of the context which the service members on the
list were using them.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:03:50 GMT, "LawsonE" wrote:

I don't think so.

Three of those four words are true.

"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 04:07:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a precise legal term. Military Police do not have arrest
authority over civilians.


"Arrest" is a term used in everyday language. One meaning is "to seize
and
hold under the authority of law." If you don't think military police
have
the power to seize and hold civilians on a military installation then you
know nothing of military police.

And I am using 'arrest' in the manner I have been trained to use it.

Sure and the military told you what they wanted you to believe.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:01:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"charles krin" wrote in message
.. .

Chuckle...Colin didn't say that...he said that usually a summons to
appear before a federal magistrate was issued for minor problems...and
if the problem wasn't minor, then the offender was held pending arrest
by either the FBI or the US Marshals.


Well, if they're being held, they've been arrested. That's what "arrest"
means!

Not really. You can "detain" an individual for several reasons that do
not rise to the level of "arrest". Protective custody, investigative
interrogation, etc.

Al Minyard

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:56:46 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Colin Campbell" (remove underscore) wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:07:29 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


'Arrest' is a specific legal status. A person detained by military
authorities is _not_ under arrest.

Tell that to the boys at gitmo.

The people at Gitmo are 'civilian detainee' as per the Laws and
Customs of War.

So in your opinion, the boys at gitmo are not under arrest?

No, they are not. They are detainees who have not been
accused of a crime. Being an illegal combatant is a
status, not a criminal offense. They will be released when
circumstances allow it. Many have already been released.

Al Minyard