 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / October 2006Jack-booted thugs
http://www.givethemback.com/ This is absolutely un-American. Jack-booted thugs stealing personal firearms from law abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They even beat up an old lady. As she states: "How can this happen in America?" http://www.givethemback.com/pages/disarmed > http://www.givethemback.com/ > > This is absolutely un-American. Jack-booted thugs stealing personal > firearms from law abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. > They even beat up an old lady. As she states: "How can this happen in > America?" http://www.givethemback.com/pages/disarmed Chalk one up for the Francis/Mossman Responsible Gun Ownership Forces. There's one handgun that won't be laying around to defend anyone, in fact that mean old lady has already been robbed by a needy socialist. On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:20:43 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >> http://www.givethemback.com/ >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There's one handgun that won't be laying around to defend anyone, in fact >that mean old lady has already been robbed by a needy socialist. Some of em were family heirlooms. One guy had a World War One rifle taken away. Most people aren't getting them back. > Chalk one up for the Francis/Mossman Responsible Gun Ownership Forces. They should have shot the jack-booted thugs who were trying to steal their guns... A little armed resistance might have made them rethink how unconstitutional their orders were... They'll claim that they were just following orders... Well, that didn't work at Nuremburg and it won't work now... > They should have shot the jack-booted thugs who were trying to steal their > guns... A little armed resistance might have made them rethink how > unconstitutional their orders were... They'll claim that they were just > following orders... Well, that didn't work at Nuremburg and it won't work > now... She did resist. It got her "body slammed" against the wall. If she had fired the gun as part of her resistance, she'd be dead now. By the way, did you notice the cameraman that stopped filming and quickly got out of the way when things got ugly? Lee >> This is absolutely un-American. Jack-booted thugs stealing personal >> firearms from law abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. >> They even beat up an old lady. As she states: "How can this happen in >> America?" http://www.givethemback.com/pages/disarmed > Chalk one up for the Francis/Mossman Responsible Gun Ownership Forces. > There's one handgun that won't be laying around to defend anyone, in fact > that mean old lady has already been robbed by a needy socialist. Yes, but was it right because it was convenient? Was it legal because someone in authority said it was? I think I know your answer to both, which is part of why I said, in a previous thread, you know right from wrong. Lee >>> This is absolutely un-American. Jack-booted thugs stealing personal >>> firearms from law abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Lee Welllll if you subscribe to "might makes right" and or "the end justifies the means" then all is well. > Welllll if you subscribe to "might makes right" and or "the end > justifies the means" then all is well. If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts. Might often determines the results, but is not a major factor in whether the results are right or wrong. The end only justifies the means to those that enjoy the end but do not suffer the means. Lee >>> This is absolutely un-American. Jack-booted thugs stealing personal >>> firearms from law abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I think I know your answer to both, which is part of why I said, in a > previous thread, you know right from wrong. Like I've said previously concerning Randy Weaver and Wack Job Koresh, you submit to proper authority, case closed. I understand why, in the wider scope of things, they took her gun (or why police disarmed to protect themselves). As we're discussing, do the deed, let the courts decide. She was a stupid f.ck to have it in her hand when they came in the door. She'll also be first in line to vote for that a.shole mayor again, saying what a swell guy he is.  SignaturePopeye It was when Lucifer first congratulated himself upon his angelic behavior that he became the tool of evil. -Hammarskjöld www.finalprotectivefire.com > >>> This is absolutely un-American. Jack-booted thugs stealing personal > >>> firearms from law abiding citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > She'll also be first in line to vote for that a.shole mayor again, saying > what a swell guy he is. Because he is black. > Like I've said previously concerning Randy Weaver and Wack Job Koresh, > you submit to proper authority, case closed. Adolph would have agreed. The Constitution does not. Among other things, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically to defend youself against the "proper authority" you now claim is the final arbiter of right and wrong. > I understand why, in the wider scope of things, they took her gun (or why > police disarmed to protect themselves). She was threatening them by living in her home and keeping her gun there? Adolph would have agreed with that too. > As we're discussing, do the deed, let the courts decide. Not a definition of right and wrong and never has been. Legal or not, yes. Right or wrong, no. > She was a stupid f.ck to have it in her hand when they came in the door. You suggest she hide it like the kid Greg referred to did? > She'll also be first in line to vote for that a.shole mayor again, saying > what a swell guy he is. Her choice, guaranteed. Lee >> Like I've said previously concerning Randy Weaver and Wack Job Koresh, >> you submit to proper authority, case closed. > > Adolph would have agreed. It's odd to hear you describe investigators such as yourself as Nazis in the financial investigation community. > The Constitution does not. Among other things, the right to keep and bear > arms is specifically to defend youself against the "proper authority" you > now claim is the final arbiter of right and wrong. So you're saying no armed person should ever submit to legal authority, ever? >> I understand why, in the wider scope of things, they took her gun (or why >> police disarmed to protect themselves). > > She was threatening them by living in her home and keeping her gun there? She met law enforcement officers in her home gun in hand. No, she does not have that right. She does not have the right to dispbey their commands to disarm and submit. > Adolph would have agreed with that too. So would Micky Mouse, Martha Stewart and Ghandi. >> As we're discussing, do the deed, let the courts decide. > > Not a definition of right and wrong and never has been. Legal or not, > yes. Right or wrong, no. Pedantic. Right and wrong as it pertains to the court's juristiction, yes. >> She was a stupid f.ck to have it in her hand when they came in the door. > > You suggest she hide it like the kid Greg referred to did? How do you think I drive around the country with one in the truck? It's a felony, federally, and in at least 45 states. Since it -is- my 2nd Amendment right, do you suggest I put a RKBA sticker right where the trooper puts his foot on the fuel tank? :-) >> She'll also be first in line to vote for that a.shole mayor again, saying >> what a swell guy he is. > > Her choice, guaranteed. > > Lee On Oct 16, 2:21 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Since it -is- my 2nd Amendment right, do you suggest I put a RKBA sticker > right where the trooper puts his foot on the fuel tank? :-) Only if you have a sufficient supply of donuts... > She met law enforcement officers in her home gun in hand. > > No, she does not have that right. Hell, I meet *everyone* with a gun in my hand if they come to my house... Or at least tucked into my pants at the small of my back... Yeah, and that has included LEOs who a neighbor had called quite a few years ago when they had mistaken my returning from vacation as someone breaking into my house... We sorted out the misunderstanding, but I didn't give up my gun... It's my property, it's my castle, you come on it without being invited, you're continued existence is at my discretion... At what point did our civilization lose sight of the idea of private property? > > She met law enforcement officers in her home gun in hand. > > > > No, she does not have that right. > > Hell, I meet *everyone* with a gun in my hand if they come to my house... Or > at least tucked into my pants at the small of my back... You'll understand why no one wants to shake your hand. > At what point did our > civilization lose sight of the idea of private property? I wish someone would explain that concept to the tax collector. JF > You'll understand why no one wants to shake your hand. Let's just say that I don't get repeat visits from people trying to sell me something... As a side bonus, all of Kaitlyn's potential boyfriends are scared of me... I consider this a very good thing... > > You'll understand why no one wants to shake your hand. > > Let's just say that I don't get repeat visits from people trying to sell me > something... As a side bonus, all of Kaitlyn's potential boyfriends are > scared of me... I consider this a very good thing... I was thinking more about having to shake the hand stuffed down yer pants. If I knew it was only a gun you were holding I'd be okay with it. JF >>> She met law enforcement officers in her home gun in hand. >>> No, she does not have that right. Cite? > > > She met law enforcement officers in her home gun in hand. > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You'll understand why no one wants to shake your hand. Please define "no one" because I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean the same thing to me that it apparetnyl means to you. > > > > She met law enforcement officers in her home gun in hand. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Please define "no one" because I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean the same thing to me that it > apparetnyl means to you. It doesn't matter where the hand you're about to shake has been, even if it's down some guy's trousers? J >> Please define "no one" because I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean the >> same thing to me that it >> apparetnyl means to you. > > It doesn't matter where the hand you're about to shake has been, even > if it's down some guy's trousers? I hate to tell you this, John, but guys will be guys. Chances are you've shaken plenty of hands that have previously been down the owner's trousers. > I hate to tell you this, John, but guys will be guys. Chances are you've > shaken plenty of hands that have previously been down the owner's trousers. Probably even more startling for him is that there are some guys who don't wash their hands after peeing in a public restroom... By grabbing that door handle on the way out, I guess you could say that he is indirectly grabbing another guy's dick... I've noticed that some restrooms have a trash receptacle by the door and that some guys who are apparently especially concerned about germs use the paper towel that they used to dry their hands to open the door... Personally, I wash my hands often so that I minimize the germs that I encounter in the hope that I'll reduce the number of colds that I get each year... With a kid in school and kids basically being petri dishes with legs, any reduction that I can get from other sources is definitely welcome... > Probably even more startling for him is that there are some guys who don't > wash their hands after peeing in a public restroom... By grabbing that > door handle on the way out, I guess you could say that he is indirectly > grabbing another guy's dick... As disgusting as it sounds, if you think about it, your dick, well, mine anyway, is probably the cleanest, least germ ridden thing in that bathroom. Lee > >> Please define "no one" because I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean the > >> same thing to me that it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I hate to tell you this, John, but guys will be guys. Chances are you've > shaken plenty of hands that have previously been down the owner's trousers. I know that. I'd just rather the hand wasn't still all warm and sweaty when it touched mine. JF > You'll understand why no one wants to shake your hand. Having a bit of trouble in reading comprehension today? It's obvious from the sentence structure that the gun is carried either in my hand or small of back, not that my hand is stuffed down the back of my pants... Go up to Timmy Ho's and get anonther cup of coffee, maybe it'll improve your reading comprehension... > > You'll understand why no one wants to shake your hand. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Timmy Ho's and get anonther cup of coffee, maybe it'll improve your reading > comprehension... Sorry. You said tucked. I'm sure there's a difference between tucked and stuffed, but it's just too subtle for one as unworldly as me. To me it's all about having your hand stuck down in yer pants. To Canucks that means yer grabbing at body parts. Obviously in the US it's assumed there's a gun involved. Mea culpa. But one friendly suggestion. If you want to walk around in canada with yer hand in yer trousers, you might wanna carry a sign that says "I'm holding my gun, honest." That way they'll think yer just a punk or a villain, not a perv, and you'll get arrested for something manly. JF JF > Sorry. You said tucked. I'm sure there's a difference between tucked > and stuffed, but it's just too subtle for one as unworldly as me. To me > it's all about having your hand stuck down in yer pants. To Canucks > that means yer grabbing at body parts. Obviously in the US it's assumed > there's a gun involved. Mea culpa. Interesting that the term would have such a different meaning considering how close we are... I could understand it being different over in the British Isles or in Australia, but I figured that the Canucks kind of spoke the same language as us... So, if you are telling a kid to place his shirt tails inside of his pants, you don't tell him to "tuck his shirt tails in"? > > Sorry. You said tucked. I'm sure there's a difference between tucked > > and stuffed, but it's just too subtle for one as unworldly as me. To me [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > a kid to place his shirt tails inside of his pants, you don't tell him > to "tuck his shirt tails in"? Probably, but I can't imagine a situation when I'd tell him to tuck his hand in his pants. 8) JF >>>Sorry. You said tucked. I'm sure there's a difference between tucked >>>and stuffed, but it's just too subtle for one as unworldly as me. To me [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > JF use to do just that - during football season it was damn cold in the uniforms (especially when it was raining) On Oct 16, 9:47 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > Like I've said previously concerning Randy Weaver and Wack Job Koresh, you > submit to proper authority, case closed. Damn Doug, I thought the Corp would have taught you better than that... Have you forgotten the part about not following illegal orders? > On Oct 16, 9:47 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Damn Doug, I thought the Corp would have taught you better than that... > Have you forgotten the part about not following illegal orders? What makes it an illegal order? On Oct 16, 7:38 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > What makes it an illegal order? The part where it violated SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... Regardless, the city has no right to force someone out of their own property... If they want to stay there while the water is rising, so be it... Darwin will protect 'em... >On Oct 16, 7:38 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" ><Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >property... If they want to stay there while the water is rising, so be >it... Darwin will protect 'em... Maybe, but you're making the city recover your body and keep it in the morgue until your lazy assed relatives return and maybe claim the body unless they're too cheap to bury you, in which case the city either does it or lets it take up room in the morgue, along with all the other bodies. Signaturedillon If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it. >> Damn Doug, I thought the Corp would have taught you better than that... >> Have you forgotten the part about not following illegal orders? > What makes it an illegal order? You're the one that took the oath. I hope you know already. Think about it. >>> Damn Doug, I thought the Corp would have taught you better than that... >>> Have you forgotten the part about not following illegal orders? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You're the one that took the oath. I hope you know already. Think about > it. I did think about it. It's called: Don't point a fuckin gun at me. Or I'll kill you. Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote >>>> Damn Doug, I thought the Corp would have taught you better than that... >>>> Have you forgotten the part about not following illegal orders? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> You're the one that took the oath. I hope you know already. Think about >> it. > I did think about it. It's called: Don't point a fuckin gun at me. Or > I'll kill you. OK, that's probably a legal order. The question, however, is how you know what is an illegal one. I presume you know, or knew, the rules of engagement and the terms of the Geneva Convention. For starters, I suggest that anything that violated one, the other, or both is probably illegal. I'm not sure what other rules you were laid out for you, but I damned sure hope all of them were. The last thing this world needs is a bunch of Marines who don't know what orders are illegal, headed by some psycho who doesn't know any other kind. Lee > Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The last thing this world needs is a bunch of Marines who don't know what > orders are illegal, headed by some psycho who doesn't know any other kind. Lee, you like to be stubborn. I like to think of you as a law enforcement officer. I don't know if that's the correct description, I call Paul an "accountant with a badge". You both put people in jail, that makes you cops. If you went into a bank, for records, and the bank president met you at the door with a pistol in his hand and refused to surrender it, you would be... excited. You would not be euphoricly pleased, and explain to him how it was his right to resist you by any means. You would wave a piece of paper at him and have a SWAT team open fire. >>>>> What makes it an illegal order? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> orders are illegal, headed by some psycho who doesn't know any other >> kind. > Lee, you like to be stubborn. So? > I like to think of you as a law enforcement officer. I don't know if > that's the correct description, I call Paul an "accountant with a badge". > You both put people in jail, that makes you cops. If you went into a > bank, for records, and the bank president > met you at the door with a pistol in his hand and refused to surrender it, > you would be... excited. I would be calm, very, very calm. Getting excited under such circumstances is probably a quick path to my own personal version of seventy something virgins which, by the way, does not include virgins at all. > You would not be euphoricly pleased, and explain to him how it was his > right to resist you by any means. That's certainly true because it's not his right. While I am operating within the confines of my occupation, operating under legal orders, in a way the individual is required, by law, to comply with, it is not his right to resist me at all, let alone, by any means. That's more than a little different from entering the home of another, without wrarant, without probable cause, and without due process, and attempting to force them to relocate and attempting to deprive them of their legally owned weapon, an act that violates at least three of the 10 amendments we call the Bill of Rights. > You would wave a piece of paper at him and have a SWAT team open fire. I would not wave a piece of paper. What does any of this have to do with your question "What makes it an illegal order?" Lee >>>>>> What makes it an illegal order? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > So? :-) >> I like to think of you as a law enforcement officer. I don't know if >> that's the correct description, I call Paul an "accountant with a badge". [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > way the individual is required, by law, to comply with, it is not his > right to resist me at all, let alone, by any means. Just like the cop. >That's more than a little different from entering the home of another, >without wrarant, without probable cause, and without due process, and >attempting to force them to relocate and attempting to deprive them of >their legally owned weapon, an act that violates at least three of the 10 >amendments we call the Bill of Rights. And we don't know that to be the case, or whether the order to evacuate was mandatory. Or even if it was her home. >> You would wave a piece of paper at him and have a SWAT team open fire. > > I would not wave a piece of paper. > > What does any of this have to do with your question "What makes it an > illegal order?" Because when -any- cop, -any- where, -any- time, says put the gun down, you put the gun down. There may be one chance in a thousand you can prove differernt in court- I doubt you'll get the chance. > Lee > Douglas W. Popeye Frederick wrote > > I did think about it. It's called: Don't point a fuckin gun at me. Or > > I'll kill you. > OK, that's probably a legal order. The question, however, is how you know > what is an illegal one. I presume you know, or knew, the rules of > engagement and the terms of the Geneva Convention. For starters, I suggest > that anything that violated one, the other, or both is probably illegal. > I'm not sure what other rules you were laid out for you, but I damned sure > hope all of them were. > The last thing this world needs is a bunch of Marines who don't know what > orders are illegal, headed by some psycho who doesn't know any other kind. Legal orders are defined by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, UCMJ and common sense. > Legal orders are defined by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, UCMJ and > common sense. Works for me. >> Legal orders are defined by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, UCMJ and >> common sense. > >Works for me. Except currently some "legal" orders are defined not by any of the above, but by the current president. And the president can deny any right to appeal, under current law. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future >>> Legal orders are defined by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, UCMJ >>> and >>> common sense. > Except currently some "legal" orders are defined not by any of the above, > but by the current president. And the president can deny any right to > appeal, under current law. If it's inconsistent with the Constitution, it's not legal. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen anyway, or that those that commit such acts are held accountable. Lee >>>> Legal orders are defined by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, UCMJ >>>> and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >mean it doesn't happen anyway, or that those that commit such acts are held >accountable. The distinction between "legal" and "Constitutional" is meaningless if you have no way to challenge the constitutionality of a measure. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future >>If it's inconsistent with the Constitution, it's not legal. That doesn't >>mean it doesn't happen anyway, or that those that commit such acts are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The distinction between "legal" and "Constitutional" is meaningless if you > have no way to challenge the constitutionality of a measure. Lucky we have a couple of ways isn't it? >>>If it's inconsistent with the Constitution, it's not legal. That doesn't >>>mean it doesn't happen anyway, or that those that commit such acts are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Lucky we have a couple of ways isn't it? I don't think there is any way to challenge it. Certainly not for non-citizens, and there is absolutely no provision establishing citizenship. An American citizen who was mistakenly picked up could appeal to no court in the land. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future >>>>If it's inconsistent with the Constitution, it's not legal. That >>>>doesn't [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > appeal > to no court in the land. There are at least two channels open to anyone. One is the court system. You also have the right, if necessary, to resist tyranny with whatever means you find necessary, including violent force. While it is illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of our government, it is not illegal to defend yourself from violations of your constitutional rights. Of course, if you chose to resist violently, you run a very high risk of receiving the same, and in greater amounts, in return as well as defending your actions in court, if you survive to go to court. More than one American, over the years, has, posthumously, been declared innocent for defending themselves. Of course, if you were picked up without warning, allowed no contact with anyone, and denied all of your rights, there's not much you can do. There's no point in discussing that particular combination. It could happen anwhere in the world, exactly the same way, with exactly the same results. Lee On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:25:21 -0400, "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote >There are at least two channels open to anyone. One is the court system. The court system has been specifically removed. The President signed legislation to that specific effect. The federal court system cannot be involved. >You also have the right, if necessary, to resist tyranny with whatever means >you find necessary, including violent force. While it is illegal to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >court, if you survive to go to court. More than one American, over the >years, has, posthumously, been declared innocent for defending themselves. This "right" is true anywhere, under any system. >Of course, if you were picked up without warning, allowed no contact with >anyone, and denied all of your rights, there's not much you can do. There's >no point in discussing that particular combination. It could happen anwhere >in the world, exactly the same way, with exactly the same results. It isn't supposed to happen in America, and it certainly isn't supposed to be enshrined in American law. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > The court system has been specifically removed. The President signed > legislation to that specific effect. The federal court system cannot be > involved. The President of the United States does not have the authority to remove the court system. We have three branches of government, each independent of the other, specifically to provide checks and balances against this kind of thing. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch, including the President, enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets and judges them. >>You also have the right, if necessary, to resist tyranny with whatever >>means [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > This "right" is true anywhere, under any system. No, it's not. Lee >> The court system has been specifically removed. The President signed >> legislation to that specific effect. The federal court system cannot be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >including the President, enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets >and judges them. I beg your pardon. That is exactly what he did when he signed the Detainee Treatment Act or whatever it is called. He signed it just yesterday. It specifically prohibits the federal courts from hearing any appeals. >>>You also have the right, if necessary, to resist tyranny with whatever >>>means [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >No, it's not. Whatever. If the courts are denied as an avenue for appeal or redress, you advocate the use of violent force where constitutional rights are involved. Correct? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > I beg your pardon. That is exactly what he did when he signed the Detainee > Treatment Act or whatever it is called. He signed it just yesterday. It > specifically prohibits the federal courts from hearing any appeals. You guys are unreal. Read the f.cking bill, not the blogs doing the chicken little routine. >> I beg your pardon. That is exactly what he did when he signed the >Detainee [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Read the f.cking bill, not the blogs doing the chicken little routine. I have read it. The text can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f :s3930enr.txt.pdf Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > >You guys are unreal. > > > >Read the f.cking bill, not the blogs doing the chicken little routine. > > I have read it. The text can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f :s3930enr.txt.pdf If that is true, let me ask you what happened to the rights of the vicitms in the following clips, and why you would protect them; http://makeashorterlink.com/?M30011FFD >> >You guys are unreal. >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://makeashorterlink.com/?M30011FFD Are you serious? What leads you to believe I want to protect them? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > >If that is true, let me ask you what happened to the rights of the vicitms > >in the following clips, and why you would protect them; > >http://makeashorterlink.com/?M30011FFD > Are you serious? What leads you to believe I want to protect them? I set you up. I asked "what happened to the rights of the vicitms in the following clips, and why you would protect them". Anyone would immediately feel disgust and hatred towards the *perpetrators*, but in the emotional state you let yourslef be in, you didnt realize what I was asking. No one would protect the rights of the "people" who commited these acts, but, many on the left do. They are so full of hatred for Bush that they cant see the true enemy, and gloss over the facts and truth about the war we are fighting. It is a war, it is a world wide war. The act signed by Bush you are so offended by wouldnt offend you so much if it had been signed by anyone but Bush. It has to be done, the people arrested, detained and accused and held in GITMO are some of the lowest forms of life on earth. Yet you squall like mashed cat over the law that will allow them to be given a trial and punished. Remember, long ago, many of us warned you and people like you that when they go to trial those found guilty will be punished by law, and that is to be put to death. That is the penalty. Do you think we should put them up for 5 years and cut them loose? Or do you think they should be executed? Those are the options. You have chosen a side, made your stand, now accurately define your position. >> >If that is true, let me ask you what happened to the rights of the >vicitms [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I set you up. I'll say. >I asked "what happened to the rights of the vicitms in the following clips, >and why you would protect them". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >No one would protect the rights of the "people" who commited these acts, >but, many on the left do. When I clicked on the link you supplied I was taken to some midget porn site. I thought it was some sort of joke. >They are so full of hatred for Bush that they cant see the true enemy, and >gloss over the facts and truth about the war we are fighting. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The act signed by Bush you are so offended by wouldnt offend you so much if >it had been signed by anyone but Bush. You'd be wrong there. I'd be offended no matter who signed it. >It has to be done, the people arrested, detained and accused and held in >GITMO are some of the lowest forms of life on earth. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >You have chosen a side, made your stand, now accurately define your >position. I believe everyone is entitled to their day in court. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to deny allegations against them before a court of law. Do you think an accusation is sufficient? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > When I clicked on the link you supplied I was taken to some midget porn > site. I thought it was some sort of joke. Actually, it is a site that has everything. The link was sent to me by a good friend who has been to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and is sick to death of the leftists undermining, and speaking for, their efforts. Bottom line is you didnt watch the video, which was disgusting, shocking and vile. It is a compilation of the beheadings that the people you wish to defend perpetrated. > >They are so full of hatred for Bush that they cant see the true enemy, and > >gloss over the facts and truth about the war we are fighting. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You'd be wrong there. I'd be offended no matter who signed it. So, what doesnt offend you? > I believe everyone is entitled to their day in court. I believe everyone > should have the opportunity to deny allegations against them before a court > of law. Do you think an accusation is sufficient? I think and have stated, as have many, that the Geneva convention covers combatants that are in uniform and represent a nation. This war is different (I cant believe I have to explain any of this to an allegedly learned person). These "people" have no uniform, no nation, and no rules. >> When I clicked on the link you supplied I was taken to some midget porn >> site. I thought it was some sort of joke. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >So, what doesnt offend you? Most things don't offend me. >> I believe everyone is entitled to their day in court. I believe everyone >> should have the opportunity to deny allegations against them before a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >These "people" have no uniform, no nation, and no rules. I believe that anyone arrested by the government should be allowed to at least see a judge, no matter what they are charged with. They just might be innocent, mistakes do happen, and they're in jail anyway. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > >These "people" have no uniform, no nation, and no rules. > > I believe that anyone arrested by the government should be allowed to at > least see a judge, no matter what they are charged with. They just might > be innocent, mistakes do happen, and they're in jail anyway. Like the people beheaded, the people killed in more than 60 years of the bombings of US embassies, ships, protectorates? They all had their day in court, eh? When will you stand for the rights of those murdered/slaughtered (their words) by the Islamic fascists? I believe they should be tried as well, held to the laws we hold ours to, and when convicted their sentences carried out without fanfare or notice. Or should we post the images of their executions, under international and US law, to a website? >> >These "people" have no uniform, no nation, and no rules. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >They all had their day in court, eh? No, they didn't. >When will you stand for the rights of those murdered/slaughtered (their >words) by the Islamic fascists? Whenever their rights are in jeopardy. >I believe they should be tried as well, held to the laws we hold ours to, >and when convicted their sentences carried out without fanfare or notice. I pretty much agree with you there. >Or should we post the images of their executions, under international and US >law, to a website? That's one thing I've never really understood. I can see the emotion of relatives or close friends, but why are we so quick to off all these people? Folks like McVeigh or folks that prey on children. We should maybe study them and see what makes them tick. Then fry them, or inject them, or whatever the state mandates. If water boarding is good enough for suspected terrorists shouldn't it be good enough for *convicted* child murderers? Anyhow, if they're in jail anyway, why not give them a chance to at least claim innocence. We do make mistakes, you know. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > No, they didn't. So where are the democrats, the champions of justice, and the ACLU? > >When will you stand for the rights of those murdered/slaughtered (their > >words) by the Islamic fascists? > > Whenever their rights are in jeopardy. As in right now? Get a grip. > >I believe they should be tried as well, held to the laws we hold ours to, > >and when convicted their sentences carried out without fanfare or notice. > > I pretty much agree with you there. Unless Bush signs it. And in ten years, after all the trials and appeals are done, are you going to stand idley by while literally hundreds of mass murderers and would-be mass murderers are executed, according to law? You know, the laws they thumbed their noses at for their trip to heavens whorehouse? > >Or should we post the images of their executions, under international and US > >law, to a website? > > That's one thing I've never really understood. I can see the emotion of > relatives or close friends, but why are we so quick to off all these > people? Why are they so quick to off you, me, the people in the videos? Get a grip. > Folks like McVeigh or folks that prey on children. We should > maybe study them and see what makes them tick. Then fry them, or inject > them, or whatever the state mandates. If water boarding is good enough for > suspected terrorists shouldn't it be good enough for *convicted* child > murderers? Oh, much worse. But people like you would whine and holler about abuses. > Anyhow, if they're in jail anyway, why not give them a chance to at least > claim innocence. We do make mistakes, you know. When you catch a bunch of guys in a bomb factory, after shooting your way in, and the few that arent killed outright are captured alove, what would you propose be done with them? If not captured and stopped, they had the motive, knowledge, ability and intent to commit mass murder. You wanna sponsor one or two in your home? See if they turned over a new leaf? >> No, they didn't. > >So where are the democrats, the champions of justice, and the ACLU? I don't speak for the democrats, "the champions of justice" (whoever they are), or the ACLU. Ask them, not me. >> >When will you stand for the rights of those murdered/slaughtered (their >> >words) by the Islamic fascists? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >You know, the laws they thumbed their noses at for their trip to heavens >whorehouse? Is this the Non-sequitur Dinner Theater or something? >> >Or should we post the images of their executions, under international and >US [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >in, and the few that arent killed outright are captured alove, what would >you propose be done with them? If they are captured, I expect humane treatment. >If not captured and stopped, they had the motive, knowledge, ability and >intent to commit mass murder. But they have been stopped, and captured to boot. >You wanna sponsor one or two in your home? Did I day I did? >See if they turned over a new leaf? In the case of Republicans, I guess that would be a page. <rimshot> Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > I don't speak for the democrats, "the champions of justice" (whoever they > are), or the ACLU. Ask them, not me. I am asking them, you are them. > >> >When will you stand for the rights of those murdered/slaughtered (their > >> >words) by the Islamic fascists? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Is this the Non-sequitur Dinner Theater or something? Typical. > >> >Or should we post the images of their executions, under international and > >US [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > If they are captured, I expect humane treatment. They are being treated far better than they treat the people they capture. > >If not captured and stopped, they had the motive, knowledge, ability and > >intent to commit mass murder. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > In the case of Republicans, I guess that would be a page. > <rimshot> <plonk> >> I don't speak for the democrats, "the champions of justice" (whoever they >> are), or the ACLU. Ask them, not me. > >I am asking them, you are them. Do you have any evidence or proof? Or is just your accusation sufficient for you? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future Galen, you seem to think that the government should disclose everyone at Guantanimo, what they're accused of and what their status is. Think the hell about what you're asking. At least some of these people are enemies of the United States. They possess information that may be used in the planning of future military action, may allow US troops to deal with threats more effectively and may save countless military and civilian lives. The information, however, is only of use if the enemy does not know that we know. In every war, as long as there have been wars, information has been obtained from captive enemy personnel, people the enemy does not know are alive, let alone in thier enemy's hands. The fact that these sources of information are alive, are captive, are known to be enemy personnel and anything that they say, or don't say has always been secret specifically because keeping it secret saves lives, improved chances of success and shortens wars. Your supposed right to know, something you won't find anywhere in the Constitution or any of its amendments, does not take precidence over the right to life of those whose lives may be saved by keeping things a secret. You want to know, join the military. Simple as that. Until you're willing to put your own life on the line, you're just don't have a need to know. Get over it. Lee >Galen, you seem to think that the government should disclose everyone at >Guantanimo, what they're accused of and what their status is. Think the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >save countless military and civilian lives. The information, however, is >only of use if the enemy does not know that we know. After five years being held incommunicado these people are still so much of a threat that exposing what they are accused of and what their status is still presents a threat to the United States? I think not. >In every war, as long as there have been wars, information has been obtained >from captive enemy personnel, people the enemy does not know are alive, let >alone in thier enemy's hands. The fact that these sources of information >are alive, are captive, are known to be enemy personnel and anything that >they say, or don't say has always been secret specifically because keeping >it secret saves lives, improved chances of success and shortens wars. After five years of having no contact I suspect it would even dawn on these people's cohorts that the missing were either killed or captured. If they can find no evidence of their death their cohorts might probably assume they were captured. I guess it depends on your estimation of your opponent's intelligence. >Your supposed right to know, something you won't find anywhere in the >Constitution or any of its amendments, does not take precidence over the >right to life of those whose lives may be saved by keeping things a secret. > >You want to know, join the military. Simple as that. Until you're willing >to put your own life on the line, you're just don't have a need to know. I think maybe you have confused my right to know with an accused's right to protest imprisonment. I don't need to know the status of the people at GITMO and other places, I do believe they have the right to challenge their confinement. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > After five years being held incommunicado these people are still so much > of > a threat that exposing what they are accused of and what their status is > still presents a threat to the United States? I think not. Since you don't have a clue how many are there, who they are, how long they have been there or what information they may have, what you think or think not is of no consequence to anyone. You don't know, but you're ready to put the lives of others at risk because you think not. > After five years of having no contact I suspect it would even dawn on > these > people's cohorts that the missing were either killed or captured. There's a hell of a lot of difference between killed and captured from an information and planning perspective, The presumption that they are dead, perhaps enhanced by not hearing from them for five years, might very well create opportunities for us. Confirming that they are alive would virtually guarantee that any informtion we might obtain from them is of little or no value. > If they can find no evidence of their death their cohorts might probably > assume they were captured. They "might probably assume" that they're dead too. Would you want your life to hang on "might probably"? > I think maybe you have confused my right to know with an accused's right > to protest imprisonment. I don't need to know the > status of the people at GITMO and other places, I do believe they have the > right to challenge their confinement. You don't know that they don't have that right. You don't know what due process has, or has not occurred, you don't know why, you don't even know if anyone is there. Your lack of knowledge is not evidence of anything. Like I said, you want to know, you want to make a difference, you want to protect their rights, join the military. Lee >> After five years being held incommunicado these people are still so much >> of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >not is of no consequence to anyone. You don't know, but you're ready to put >the lives of others at risk because you think not. I don't see the "risk" I am exposing others too simply by demanding habeas corpus even for non citizens. Would the "risk" be any greater or less if the terrorist happened to be born on American soil and could therefore claim citizenship? >> After five years of having no contact I suspect it would even dawn on >> these [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >guarantee that any informtion we might obtain from them is of little or no >value. So I'm to believe that they might treat a threat posed by a missing individual different than one they knew was captured and alive Interesting. I had just assumed that they presume any missing person to be captured and any secrets compromised. I'm almost sure that's what I was told when I got my security clearance in the military. Anyway, it seems pretty basic to me. >> If they can find no evidence of their death their cohorts might probably >> assume they were captured. > >They "might probably assume" that they're dead too. Would you want your >life to hang on "might probably"? Sure. We all take risks in our lives. I think that one in particular is a very, very small risk. >> I think maybe you have confused my right to know with an accused's right >> to protest imprisonment. I don't need to know the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >process has, or has not occurred, you don't know why, you don't even know if >anyone is there. Your lack of knowledge is not evidence of anything. I know what is stated in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, how it denies *any* judicial review to anyone even accused of being an alien. >Like I said, you want to know, you want to make a difference, you want to >protect their rights, join the military. I'm too old now to join the military. Been there done that. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future <snip> > >They are so full of hatred for Bush that they cant see the true enemy, and > >gloss over the facts and truth about the war we are fighting. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You'd be wrong there. I'd be offended no matter who signed it. President Grant suspended habeas corpus in 9 counties in South Carolina as part of civil rights action against the KKK. Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War (War of Northern Agression) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus Check the bit about "suspension in the US during the war on terrorism" Dennis On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:36:56 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >President Grant suspended habeas corpus in 9 counties in South Carolina as >part of civil rights action against the KKK. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Check the bit about "suspension in the US during the war on terrorism" Can you detail the procedures an American citizen might use to prove unlawful detention under the Military Commissions Act of 2006? As I read it, if you are accused of being an alien and arrested for terrorism even as an American citizen you are granted no right to prove your citizenship as long as you are accused of not being a citizen. Sound like a Catch-22? To whom would you present your evidence, and will a photo ID or birth certificate be required? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:36:56 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > whom would you present your evidence, and will a photo ID or birth > certificate be required? "The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination ... was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." §1005(e)(2), 119 Stat. 2742 > Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net > We are the CroMagnon of the future > >> I beg your pardon. That is exactly what he did when he signed the > >Detainee [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I have read it. The text can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f :s3930enr.txt.pdf I take it you missed subchapter VI? Post-trial procedures and review of military commissions. Specifically 950g? DC crcuit court of Appeals has jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Supreme Court can review as well. There's also the court of military commission review. > Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net > We are the CroMagnon of the future On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:03:49 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >I take it you missed subchapter VI? Post-trial procedures and review of >military commissions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ultimately, the Supreme Court can review as well. >There's also the court of military commission review. If they get that far. (e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. "...or is awaiting such determination." There is no time limit even suggested for making such a determination. The statute also specifically exempts military courts from any requirement for a "speedy" trial, even as defined by the UCMJ. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:03:49 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > statute also specifically exempts military courts from any requirement for > a "speedy" trial, even as defined by the UCMJ. So you concede that you were wrong about the appeals? And check this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/46.html#1 Dennis On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:27:04 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >So you concede that you were wrong about the appeals? Not at all, if the accused is awaiting trail there is no trial, and hence, no appeal. There is absolutely no requirement that the accused be charged in a speedy or timely fashion. Indeed, there is no requirement that the accused even be charged. Like I say, no trial, no appeal. >And check this: >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/46.html#1 How about the US Constitution, rather than a findlaw interpretation: 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. compare that to a provision of the law just passed: (e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Note that the US Constitution does not except non-citizens. It says quite clearly that congress shall not suspend it. Besides, if we've already got them in jail, why not let them see a judge? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:27:04 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not at all, if the accused is awaiting trail there is no trial, and hence, > no appeal. 99.9% of them could have been shot dead where they stood, but a soldier or Marine decided to abide by chivalry and common decency. They arent in GITMO for singing too loud in the choir. A few may indeed be innocent, such is all war, but the majority are there becuse they did what it takes be to be there. >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:27:04 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > A few may indeed be innocent, such is all war, but the majority are there > becuse they did what it takes be to be there. I've never understood why these people think we would want to take some peasant goatherd off an Afghan moutainside, and just keep him and feed him in Gitmo like a Chia pet for four years. > I've never understood why these people think we would want to take some > peasant goatherd off an Afghan moutainside, and just keep him and feed him > in Gitmo like a Chia pet for four years. Maybe he'll be a prominent democrat, if he survives the MRE's and learns how to work real estate... > >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:27:04 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > peasant goatherd off an Afghan moutainside, and just keep him and feed him > in Gitmo like a Chia pet for four years. Because we're evil & sadistic. We3ll...not all of us - just Bush and the triumvirate of Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. Any problem you've had, are having, or will ever have, is their fault. Dennis >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:27:04 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >A few may indeed be innocent, such is all war, but the majority are there >becuse they did what it takes be to be there. Do you have any citations for the above assertions? To the best of my knowledge, the US will not even provide an accounting of exactly who is at GITMO, and I don't think any of them have been tried, much less convicted. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:27:04 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in a speedy or timely fashion. Indeed, there is no requirement that the > accused even be charged. Like I say, no trial, no appeal. Read the other article I'd posted? > >And check this: > >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/46.html#1 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. Well...the findlaw "intpretation" is the way legal scholars have been interpreting it. > compare that to a provision of the law just passed: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Note that the US Constitution does not except non-citizens. It says quite > clearly that congress shall not suspend it. So what does "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. " mean? You saw that, right? That means that congress CAN suspend it in cases of rebellion or invasion (think Sept 11 2001 constitutes an invasion)? How about Grant's use of it against the KKK? > Besides, if we've already got them in jail, why not let them see a judge? They will. Dennis On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:22:58 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:27:04 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" >> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Read the other article I'd posted? I haven't seen anything that would require any speed at all in either determination or trial. Is there something specific you have in mind? >> >And check this: >> >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/46.html#1 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >of rebellion or invasion (think Sept 11 2001 constitutes an invasion)? How >about Grant's use of it against the KKK? Has anyone made the case that we were invaded? That doesn't seem to be the position of anyone in the administration. Perhaps you could provide a counter example of some high administration official (or officials) that have made a case for invasion. As far as Grant and the KKK, you may have a point. Can you refresh my recollection about all the good things associated with Grant's suspension of habeas corpus? >> Besides, if we've already got them in jail, why not let them see a judge? > >They will. When? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghekhuis@earthlink.net We are the CroMagnon of the future > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:22:58 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote: |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message