It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2002 @ 03:09 PM
Have yall notices the amount of americans citizens sittin in military jail right now with no constitutional rights at all. The two that make me the most mad are the Yassier Hamdee and Jose Pedee (might not be spelled right). Yassier was susposibly captured in Afganistan fighting for the taliban. ever since he has been caught he has sat in norfolk rotting away with no rights. they call him a detainee wich has no legal meaning . It was first used in WWII with the German sabatures. He is an american with right that are being refused.

The JOse pedee scares me more than it makes me mad. This susposed dirty bomber was arested in may and like Yassir Hamdi has no rights.But he was just arested because of stuff on his comp and he visted Saudi Arabia. First off how did they know if he had the stuff on his comp??? Legal hack, i dont think so. I think he was set up. I believe he found somethingon the net or somtin that could have been damaging to govt. We all here on this board have to be carfull they Bush admis. hasbeen arresting ppl with no reson. And all of us have been trying to find the truth. Anyone of use could stumble abon somtin and be next. I am scared out of my mind with echelon and everything out there. I suggest e create soem kind of buddy system some hwo. We have to watch out for another. there may verywell be ppl here that know exactly what im righting is true and want me to shut up so we have to trust our fellow board member but still be carful. BE CAREFULL all of you i have a bad feeling about the next couple months.

posted on Aug, 18 2002 @ 04:13 PM
We are getting our info from the same places, unless you have a spook on the inside feeding you. I wouldn't say these two are being held for no good reason, and I wouldn't say that an individual that is American by birth only, but reared in the Mid-East and fighter against American troops abroad is what one might call a Joe-6pack American.
The enemy has declared war on the U.S., these two particular people have n=made a point to be hosltile against this country, and you, and other people, want to make some legal case that they are being denied due process, as if they are run-of-the-mill criminals. They may have their time in the sun at the end of this, if at that time it is deemed prudent to handle them as citizens with constitutional rights. At this point, from what I know and believe to be true, they would be better off treated as foreign enemies and transported to whatever nation that would have them rather than let me have my way, which would be to shoot them as traitors.

posted on Aug, 18 2002 @ 07:34 PM
YEs that is true with the Yassir Hamdi case TC. But wat about Jose Padee. He was arrested here,had the illegal item here on his comp, and is now detained here. You know as well as i do that the government can plant anything on your comp even while ur on it. It can be done i know ppl who can do it. Also they still havent given the ppl any evidnce for us to belive he did anything wrong. Then they tell us a month after he is detained that they caught him. Sounds suspicious to me. The point i truly was trying to make it can happen to anyone of us if we find sometin we are not allowed to see.

posted on Aug, 18 2002 @ 08:00 PM
Are we to assume that every time the government does not tell us everything, and tell us immediately, that it is the ones that are up to no good?
One of the reasons the "detainees", or prisoners, have no need in lawyers, phonecalls, a media circus or anything else, is OPSEC. We don't need them telling there cohorts anything, and their cohorts don't need to know what we know. War isn't just indiscriminately shooting and blowing things up. They are enemies of the citizens, and while the conflict is ongoing, they need to be isolated with no contact but with the interrogators.

posted on Aug, 19 2002 @ 06:30 PM
I understand your paranoia about the Government "planting" something on your computer, or anywhere else, for that matter. That's life. If "they" want you bad enough, they'll get you, one way or another.

What about wiretaps? Internet taps? Are you for, or against?

I personally don't mind being watched, if it will help the proper authorities to catch these scumbags. After all, I'm not doing anything illegal. The only people that should be worried are the ones planning a bank robbery, or selling smack.

PS I think TC and I have already "discussed this matter...

posted on Aug, 20 2002 @ 03:56 PM
I can't believe you are defending the govt for detaining AMERICANS!!

If there is actual evidence and proof that padilla committed a crime or was without a DOUBT going to commit a crime, then let it be made public and let him be prosecuted fairly and in the open.
The only reason you're not seeing this is because they don't have that proof.

posted on Aug, 20 2002 @ 09:41 PM
You don't know for a fact. And again, OPSEC takes priority in wartime. If the evidence were to come out, and everything we (the government) knew were to be made public, then the enemy would know for certain what we knew about them. If they knew that, they could figure out what we were cooking up in response to the threat that they posed, and so on.

We must respond according to the situation of a declared war against us. When this constitutionalist becomes incensed, you'll know that they have crossed the line, but they are doing just fine so far.

Assuming this "war on terrorism" is as it appears to be.

posted on Aug, 21 2002 @ 08:44 AM
TC, just curious but what do you think about the fact that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of detainees being held indefinitely at the request of the Office of Homeland Security -and even their names cannot being released? (Because that is what is happening here in newark new jersey. Last I read their were 750 people detained indefinitely and even their names could not be released to their families. A judge overruled a previous court's decision to uphold the OHS orders, and it was demanded a list of people detained be presented within 15 days. I have heard of no follow ups to this, but am presuming the list was not presented.)
So what do you think about that?
Do you think a list of names of detained people would be revealing too much to the enemy? What if the names weren't to be made public, but could be seen only by a judge? Do you think that would be a breach of national security or compromising to our position in some way?

posted on Aug, 21 2002 @ 05:07 PM
I dont are if all of the alqueda and Taliban are thrown in the slammer for good they can loose the key for all i care but they have to at leave show a charge and prove it. And also these men that are detain are not afgani's there american with unailianble rights. TC me and you dont normally disagree but c'mon isnt this allitle scary. I mean they can arrest me you or anyone else. Not tell a soul and keep us there as long as they want to and call us a terrorist. I just dont believe the govt should have that much power. Right now there slowly shredding the constitution. Its a slippery slope were falling into and we need to find a way out

posted on Aug, 21 2002 @ 05:37 PM
The guy that was caught fighting with the Taliban,should be considered a traitor and have no rights.In fact none of the terrorist should have rights. Either lock them up,or shoot them.the 2nd one is a little more complicatedWe could go around in circles on that one.At best he should be given a lawyer,and everyone inviled be issued a gag order,so the comunication stay with the involed parties.

posted on Aug, 21 2002 @ 09:34 PM
No, I do not agree with holding detainees or prisoners without releasing the names to family members or the press. From my limited viewpoint, I can't see what uncontrollable damage could be done, and that certainly falls into the realm of inhumane.
Is there a link that you could post, or is their a link to your newspaper? This is news to me, and this is a little disturbing.

I understand your concern, QuickSilver. We've taken a wartime footing before in the past, and our government returns to normal after the threat is destroyed, as with Germany and Japan during WWII. This threat is not as easily defined as those threats, the enemy doesn't wear a uniform and it is politically incorrect to even suggest that the majority might even be of a particular race. This is a new type of warfare our government is trying to fight, and they can innocently infringe on liberties while trying to protect us. The other side of the token is that times have changed, the wisdom and historical knowledge of our citizens has diminished, and many things have come together to make it easier for "them" to relieve us of many of our liberties.

How about that project NASA is undertaking to be able to "read" our minds, so that they can more readily pick out the terrorist in the airport?
"Sir, you're coming downtown with me."
"Why, what's my crime?"
"Bad vibes."

posted on Aug, 22 2002 @ 01:20 PM
I agree that the government has the right to detain people "without cause" during wartime. I take issue with this because for one we are not at war. In order to suspend the writ of habeas corpus the Congress has to officially declare war, which it has not done as we don't have a country to declare war on (though this will change in short time with the situation in Iraq). Since there has been no official declaration holding Americans as enemy combatants is patently unconstitutional.
Even IF we had an official declaration of war these people would STILL have the right to an attorney. I point to a 1945 case in which 2 people who were arrested as German spies were held as enemy combatants. The U.S. HAD declared war. These 2 people claimed to have American citizenship and were still held. They DID however have access to the Courts to plead their cases and their's went to the Supreme Court. They lost and were executed but they were at least given access to the courts.

Give these men their due process. Seal the court dockets if classified info is needed to prosecute them but bring the body before the court.

posted on Aug, 22 2002 @ 02:55 PM
I'll start trying to find those links. I've read atleast 3 distinct online articles regarding this.

posted on Aug, 22 2002 @ 03:44 PM
Ok here are some. These are all from one site, but thats all I have time to look up right now.
Also, these aren't just foreigners..its Americans too..its people they consider dissidents of any fashion.
Really scary if you ask me.

posted on Aug, 22 2002 @ 03:44 PM
Observer, what if we were already in a "wartime" footing, under martial law or martial rule?

posted on Aug, 22 2002 @ 03:48 PM
drat! Alright forgive me, two of the links aren't working, but just go to and do an search in the archives for DETAINEE and you'll get a slew of articles.

posted on Aug, 22 2002 @ 06:07 PM
if we were under martail law id be gone cause they could arrest anyone withut cause. scarry. Flea if martail law is declared as fast as possible.

posted on Aug, 22 2002 @ 06:25 PM
You'd better start running, then. You've been under martial rule since you were born, if you were born in the U.S.

Need proof? Maybe some hints?

What color is the flag suppose to be?

What is the constitutional money?

There are many other hints that are left in the open for the citizen to see. It is your responsibility to understand, it is not their responsibility to draw you a picture.

What are the three ways to rescind martial law? I've written discertations on this before, I'm sure someone remembers.

posted on Aug, 22 2002 @ 06:31 PM

posted on Aug, 23 2002 @ 06:56 AM
Alright Thomas let's debate!!
You are treading dangerously close to my field of Graduate study
The Civil War. You are correct that we are under "martial law" technically because Lincoln suspended Habaes Corpus during the American Civil War. What that means I can honestly say I am not 100% sure. As for the Colors of the flag...??? I don't know, seems more like a trivia question than anything else. The "constitutional currency"? Well I suppose you mean gold or silver (although some would argue against even silver) rather greenbacks. The Civil War needed to be paid for and the then Sect of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase convinced the rest of the government to go to a paper money system. The government was running out of specie and at that moment the South was kickin our butts. I am not sure about whether or not it is "unconstitutional" not have paper money or not though (I plead ignorance on the subject, if there are specific points in the Constitution that ban paper money please point them out to me, that IS one of the reasons I drug my 30 year old butt back to Grad school, teach me please
). The "money question" goes back to the early Republic tho, beyond the Civil War back to the Jackson Administration and the "Bank Wars" between Jackson/Calhoun and the newly emerging (American, I figure I needed to be specific here
) Whig party.

As for the War Footing idea you brought up... indeed we are in a war footing right now, but if memory serves that is not the same thing as a declaration of war. Therefore all Constitutionally given rights are preserved "until further notice".

Yeah, intellectual debates.. I love 'em.

Bring it on!!!!!

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in