Criminal Prosecution for TFR Bust?

"Tom Hyslip" wrote in message
m...
You can't tell me that 1 in 1000 people didn't think that there would be
another attack on US soil after 9/11. But because we took the war to
them,
there wasn't. Little evidence, correct. If not for President Bush, and
this administration doing the right thing, instead of the popular thing,
there would be evidence all over the place from additional attacks on our
soil.

And as far as the one sided point of the accuser, you are correct. I am a
Federal Law Enforcement Officer, and an Officer in the Army Reserve. I
have
seen first hand what these people do, and given the opportunity will do it
again.

You, sir, are dangerous. You have been given power and you now believe your
opinion is more important than oversight and due process. As an officer,
what did your training and education in history teach you about the logical
extension of such viewpoints?

Power has been set up in this country with checks and balances. As a Law
Enforcement Officer, you are subject to one very strong check and balance -
the court system. You may fully believe you are correct, but you may be
proven fully wrong. Just because you have seen what criminals can do does
not give you the right to permanently lock up suspects on your whim.

Do you really want to start dismantling this system of checks and balances?
Where do you think that will lead?

The ignorance of the general publice, and people who bash the war on
terror
makes me sick. But the great thing about this country, freedom, the
ignorant are free to speak about subjects they have no idea, nor any
knowledge of.

So, is the only valid viewpoint whatever the administration says it is? As
a citizen, I have a right to demand oversight of any administration,
especially in important matters such as these. And I get suspicious, in a
grand way, when the administration blocks all efforts at oversight. I do
not know if what they are doing is right or wrong, or how much, but the
foresight and planning shown so far by this administration do not give me a
lot of confidence in their abilities and I would rather have more heads
working on this and I would like to see this done in an organized,
non-partisan manner.

But let me ask this, would you rather have Al-Queda killing our civilians
in
the USA, or fighting our military in Iraq. I will take our military
killing
them in Iraq any day, then having them kill civilians over here.

I do believe you rather missed my point. I would rather this country fight
effectively, honestly, and honorably. You are in no better position than
anybody else to know how effective the current policies will be in the long
term. To really answer your question, what I want is to effectively
neutralize the threat, not just now but going forward, and I don't want to
have to have the military fighting battles all over the planet forever to
achieve this goal.

Enough of this. Say your response and I will leave it at that. You are
free to have the "last word" here.



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Tom Hyslip" wrote in message
m...
They all shout about others, and repeat rumors, with no evidence.

Secret lists, secret proceedings - no oversight.

As far as the enemy in Cuba, some of you will just never get it. If
you
release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first
chance.

You know this based on what? Based on one side, the accuser?

So we keep them until the war is over.

This "war" will never be "over." So we keep them forever?

You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies,
USS
Cole, 9/11, that is the war. We just finally got the balls to take
the
fight to them, and stopped worrying about public opinion. We need to
protect this country, and we don't need anyone's permission to do it.

There is little evidence what they have done has done anything to
protect
this country. Perhaps they keep everything so secret to avoid the whole
mess being discovered as a sham?

If they are genuinely concerned about sensitive information, then
convene
a
bipartisan committee sworn to secrecy to oversee what is going on. (Oh,
that's right, this administration can't keep national secrets to save
it's
life. But others in government can.)

Bottom line: No oversight, no trust; and huge opportunity for abuse of
power.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

You have been given power and you now believe your
opinion is more important than oversight and due process.

"Due process" is short for "due process of LAW". Tell us. What LAW applies to
non-military people found fighting in a foreign country against organized
military personel?

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

I think you have missed my point entirely. I agree completely with your
last statement, but it might not be possible to nuetralize this threat
wihtout the military fighting all over the plant for a long time.

As far as the detainees in Cuba, they are treated well, and have to stay
there until the war is over. No different than any other war, except that
these detainees are not part of a uniformed military from a country. They
are terrorist who only want to end the USA.

The issue of the partiot act is another issue all together. I find the
majority of people who speak out against the act have not read, and do not
know what laws existed prior to the act. Very little changed with the
creation of the act, except making the process faster by having one court's
ruling apply in another jurisdiction. Plus allowing court orders on phone
systems and cellular phones to stay effective when a suspect crosses
jurisdictional boundaries. The one big change, the power to collect info
from libaries, etc, really in my opinion is not that big of a deal. I just
wish people would understand that all warrants, still have the proper
judicial oversight, just as before the act.


"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
.. .
"Tom Hyslip" wrote in message
m...
You can't tell me that 1 in 1000 people didn't think that there would be
another attack on US soil after 9/11. But because we took the war to
them,
there wasn't. Little evidence, correct. If not for President Bush,
and
this administration doing the right thing, instead of the popular thing,
there would be evidence all over the place from additional attacks on
our
soil.

And as far as the one sided point of the accuser, you are correct. I am
a
Federal Law Enforcement Officer, and an Officer in the Army Reserve. I
have
seen first hand what these people do, and given the opportunity will do
it
again.

You, sir, are dangerous. You have been given power and you now believe
your
opinion is more important than oversight and due process. As an officer,
what did your training and education in history teach you about the
logical
extension of such viewpoints?

Power has been set up in this country with checks and balances. As a Law
Enforcement Officer, you are subject to one very strong check and
balance -
the court system. You may fully believe you are correct, but you may be
proven fully wrong. Just because you have seen what criminals can do does
not give you the right to permanently lock up suspects on your whim.

Do you really want to start dismantling this system of checks and
balances?
Where do you think that will lead?

The ignorance of the general publice, and people who bash the war on
terror
makes me sick. But the great thing about this country, freedom, the
ignorant are free to speak about subjects they have no idea, nor any
knowledge of.

So, is the only valid viewpoint whatever the administration says it is?
As
a citizen, I have a right to demand oversight of any administration,
especially in important matters such as these. And I get suspicious, in a
grand way, when the administration blocks all efforts at oversight. I do
not know if what they are doing is right or wrong, or how much, but the
foresight and planning shown so far by this administration do not give me
a
lot of confidence in their abilities and I would rather have more heads
working on this and I would like to see this done in an organized,
non-partisan manner.

But let me ask this, would you rather have Al-Queda killing our
civilians
in
the USA, or fighting our military in Iraq. I will take our military
killing
them in Iraq any day, then having them kill civilians over here.

I do believe you rather missed my point. I would rather this country
fight
effectively, honestly, and honorably. You are in no better position than
anybody else to know how effective the current policies will be in the
long
term. To really answer your question, what I want is to effectively
neutralize the threat, not just now but going forward, and I don't want to
have to have the military fighting battles all over the planet forever to
achieve this goal.

Enough of this. Say your response and I will leave it at that. You are
free to have the "last word" here.



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Tom Hyslip" wrote in message
m...
They all shout about others, and repeat rumors, with no evidence.

Secret lists, secret proceedings - no oversight.

As far as the enemy in Cuba, some of you will just never get it. If
you
release them, they will kill any Americans they can at their first
chance.

You know this based on what? Based on one side, the accuser?

So we keep them until the war is over.

This "war" will never be "over." So we keep them forever?

You say what war? You have to be blind, 1993 WTC, Africa Embassies,
USS
Cole, 9/11, that is the war. We just finally got the balls to take
the
fight to them, and stopped worrying about public opinion. We need
to
protect this country, and we don't need anyone's permission to do
it.

There is little evidence what they have done has done anything to
protect
this country. Perhaps they keep everything so secret to avoid the
whole
mess being discovered as a sham?

If they are genuinely concerned about sensitive information, then
convene
a
bipartisan committee sworn to secrecy to oversee what is going on.
(Oh,
that's right, this administration can't keep national secrets to save
it's
life. But others in government can.)

Bottom line: No oversight, no trust; and huge opportunity for abuse
of
power.