Criminal Prosecution for TFR Bust?

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message


Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and
now expect them to fight by our rules. Somehow I don't think that
approach is going to work.

Are you suggesting that we should be fighting by their rules?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________


I suggested nothing. Nice try anyway.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om

I suggested nothing.

You most certainly did suggest something. You said:

quote
Maybe you need to factor in the absurdity that we attacked them and now
expect them to fight by our rules.
/quote

To which part of that does your "absurdity" claim apply (the one you
suggested we factor in)?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

I would like to know what constitutional guarantees of yours have been
violated?

Everyone seems to complain about the the patriot act, and the enemy
combatents in Cuba, but they really have no evidence that the patriotic act
has ever violated their rights, or anyone they know.

They all shout about others, and repeat rumors, with no evidence.

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.
So we keep them until the war is over.

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.


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, (Doug)
wrote in Message-Id: :

All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and
never charged, 600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?)). Hey, I want America
safe, but I also want it FREE. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, no American
Freedom safe from their police powers. Sorry to be political, if the
Dems were doing it I'd be hollering just as loud. Wake up America!

And how would you propose that the American people and we pilots
regain our freedom? What action should be taken against government
officials who violate constitutional guarantees?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, (Doug)
wrote in Message-Id: :

All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and
never charged, 600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?)). Hey, I want America
safe, but I also want it FREE. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, no American
Freedom safe from their police powers. Sorry to be political, if the
Dems were doing it I'd be hollering just as loud. Wake up America!

And how would you propose that the American people and we pilots
regain our freedom? What action should be taken against government
officials who violate constitutional guarantees?



On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:06:34 GMT, "Tom Hyslip"
wrote in Message-Id: :

I would like to know what constitutional guarantees of yours have been
violated?

So your point is, that if I haven't PERSONALLY experienced a lack of
due process, it hasn't happened?

Talk to Craig Prouse (a regular contributor to this newsgroup).
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...3D%26hl %3Den

From: "Craig Prouse"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Pakistani? Pilot? No soup for you.
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:09:25 -0700
Message-ID:

A friend from college has been beside himself for the last few
days. His 65-year-old father, a naturalized American citizen of
Pakistani origin, and holder of a private pilot certificate, has
been secretly detained.




http://reason.com/sullum/061402.shtml
But by locking him up indefinitely without bringing charges, the
government is setting a precedent for preventive detention of any
U.S. citizen whom the president decides to put on the country's
enemy list.

This maneuver makes due process disappear through misdirection and
circular reasoning: If you're a terrorist, you're an "enemy
combatant." Therefore, the government does not have to prove
you're a terrorist.




http://www.heraldonline.com/local/st...-2670334c.html
The backlash has been building steadily since the passage of the
Patriot Act in October 2001. Among the provisions opponents find
most troubling:

• The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
reading habits at libraries and bookstores, as well as financial
information and medical records without having "probable cause."
Instead, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, a secret
body that oversees investigations against terrorism suspects, must
deem information being sought as relevant in a criminal probe.

• Some search warrants can be kept secret for 90 days, allowing
the government to go into someone's home or business without the
target knowing it.

• In some cases, people can be jailed for providing aid to groups
the government links to terrorism..

The secrecy extends beyond the Patriot Act, particularly when it
comes to air travel. Some people trying to board airplanes have
been detained without explanation, many apparently because their
names are similar to those on secret government watch lists.

Yet details of how someone ends up on such a list -- or how many
people are on it -- remain secret.

How much freedom to give up?

Some are asking whether they're being forced to give up too many
personal freedoms.

"Does this sound like the United States, or does this sound like
1950s Russia?" asked Tim Armstrong, a 56-year-old Vietnam War
veteran and ad salesman for a radio station in Juneau, Alaska,
where citizens are banding together against the federal
government's new efforts.

It's a question being asked by liberals and conservatives.

"This whole thing scares me," said Robert Corbin, a former
president of the National Rifle Association. "I believe very
strongly in the Bill of Rights, and I don't want anybody to screw
around with it."

Corbin noted his group, widely viewed as conservative, has found
common ground with the ACLU over the Patriot Act.

"I'm just afraid that the Patriot Act is like the war on drugs,
where people are willing to give up their freedoms for security,"
he said. "And I'm not."

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a
double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows
the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the
blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no
need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry,
infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of
their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is
what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Nov 2003 20:34:24 -0800, (Doug)
wrote in Message-Id: :

All part of the George Bush Airport Police State, using the SS to do
it, in this case. 1000 arrested in the USA after 9/11, most held and
never charged, 600 interned in Guantanamo Bay (15 fewer than a month
ago (gee I wonder where those 15 went? slit?)). Hey, I want America
safe, but I also want it FREE. Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft, no American
Freedom safe from their police powers. Sorry to be political, if the
Dems were doing it I'd be hollering just as loud. Wake up America!

And how would you propose that the American people and we pilots
regain our freedom? What action should be taken against government
officials who violate constitutional guarantees?



On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:06:34 GMT, "Tom Hyslip"
wrote in Message-Id: :

I would like to know what constitutional guarantees of yours have been
violated?

So your point is, that if I haven't PERSONALLY experienced a lack of
due process, it hasn't happened?

Talk to Craig Prouse (a regular contributor to this newsgroup).

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...3D%26hl %3Den

From: "Craig Prouse"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Pakistani? Pilot? No soup for you.
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:09:25 -0700
Message-ID:

A friend from college has been beside himself for the last few
days. His 65-year-old father, a naturalized American citizen of
Pakistani origin, and holder of a private pilot certificate, has
been secretly detained.

ONCE AGAIN, A FRIEND OR RELATIVE OF A FRIEND.


http://reason.com/sullum/061402.shtml
But by locking him up indefinitely without bringing charges, the
government is setting a precedent for preventive detention of any
U.S. citizen whom the president decides to put on the country's
enemy list.

This maneuver makes due process disappear through misdirection and
circular reasoning: If you're a terrorist, you're an "enemy
combatant." Therefore, the government does not have to prove
you're a terrorist.




http://www.heraldonline.com/local/st...-2670334c.html
The backlash has been building steadily since the passage of the
Patriot Act in October 2001. Among the provisions opponents find
most troubling:

. The FBI has broader authority to seek information on citizens'
reading habits at libraries and bookstores, as well as financial
information and medical records without having "probable cause."
Instead, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, a secret
body that oversees investigations against terrorism suspects, must
deem information being sought as relevant in a criminal probe.


CALLED JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT, NO DIFFERENCE THEN GOING TO ANY OTHER COURT
AND HAVING THE RECORD SEALED
WHICH IS DONE I ALMOST EVERY CASE


. Some search warrants can be kept secret for 90 days, allowing
the government to go into someone's home or business without the
target knowing it.


SEE ABOVE

. In some cases, people can be jailed for providing aid to groups
the government links to terrorism..

AIDING AND ABETING THE ENEMY. NO DIFFERENCE THEN PROVIDING MONEY TO
HITLER IN WW2

The secrecy extends beyond the Patriot Act, particularly when it
comes to air travel. Some people trying to board airplanes have
been detained without explanation, many apparently because their
names are similar to those on secret government watch lists.


NOT DETAINED WITHOUT EXPLANATION, STOPPED BECAUSE THEIR NAME WAS ON
A WATCH LISTED. INTERVIEWED TO
ENSURE THIS PERSON IS NOT THE TERRORIST ON THE LIST AND THEN LET GO.
SMALL DELAY TO PROTECT THE USA

Yet details of how someone ends up on such a list -- or how many
people are on it -- remain secret.

How much freedom to give up?

Some are asking whether they're being forced to give up too many
personal freedoms.

"Does this sound like the United States, or does this sound like
1950s Russia?" asked Tim Armstrong, a 56-year-old Vietnam War
veteran and ad salesman for a radio station in Juneau, Alaska,
where citizens are banding together against the federal
government's new efforts.

It's a question being asked by liberals and conservatives.

"This whole thing scares me," said Robert Corbin, a former
president of the National Rifle Association. "I believe very
strongly in the Bill of Rights, and I don't want anybody to screw
around with it."

Corbin noted his group, widely viewed as conservative, has found
common ground with the ACLU over the Patriot Act.

"I'm just afraid that the Patriot Act is like the war on drugs,
where people are willing to give up their freedoms for security,"
he said. "And I'm not."

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a
double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows
the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the
blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no
need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry,
infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of
their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is
what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar


AMUSSING, BUT NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE TRUTH.

"AES/newspost" wrote in message
...

That's my point.

If bin lader doesn't want to come and pick up "his prisoners" (your
phrasing), that's *their* problem.


So you support secret permanent detention without trial based on unknown
evidence?

I'm all for having a safe and secure country, but not if it means stuff like
that, because giving a government infinite power like that will lead to some
very bad things.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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:

So you support secret permanent detention without trial based on unknown
evidence?

Well, the purpose of a trial is to estabish the guilt or innocence of persons
accused of committing crimes. None of the people at Guantanamo have been accused
of committing crimes. They were found fighting against the US forces. That makes
them hostile combatants, and there is no question of or need for a trial, since
they are not criminals. Evidence of commision of a crime is also completely
unnecessary, since that is not the issue here.

There is also no limit on the amount of time they may be detained. Many of the
combatants in WWII were not released until years after the cessation of hostitilies, and this is in
complete accordance with the pertinent laws and
treaties. The people at Guantano are not military personel dedicated to any
particular country, which basically means they are armed civilians, which
basically means (under the Geneva convention) we can execute them. Without
trial.

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.

"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.