It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Federal Court: Bush Can 'Indefinitely' Detain Civilians!

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
When a citizen is prosecuted in a US court, the judge will say: “This court is not concerned with the reason the law was violated, this court is only concerned with the fact of whether the law was violated or not.” In other words: “There is no excuse for violating the law.”

In this case the judge is effectively saying: “Fighting terrorism is an excuse to violate the law.” This is an oath violation and it is perjury. Judges are evil hypocrites.

In the Nazi death camps the “officers” allegedly had an excuse: “I did not kill all those people, I was just following orders!”

Evil policy dictator bullies are powerless without “officers” following orders and enforcing their policies. The military/police/authorities are the critical link in the chain. How much of this crap are you “authorities” going to enforce? Apparently you are going to enforce a lot of it because the policy dictators have control of the monetary system and you do not get a paycheck unless you enforce their crap. Are you “authorities” pleased with yourselves? The policy dictators are certainly pleased with you. They fly in private jets with luxury and “recreation” at their fingertips while you “authorities” are doing their dirty work for them. They have got you exactly where they want you. Are you laughing your sadistic laugh? They are!




posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


Granted, as some other posters have stated, I want to wait and see when an actual U.S. citizen is held without charge or trial.

This is why I’m so opposed to the way we treat non-citizens. If you wait to speak for the rights of other until your rights are already being demolished you can’t do much good. Best we put an end to the presidential powers increasingly overriding the constitution now, when we still have time.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
He is a republican and not a very good one. But he is in no way a conservative.


What the hell are you talking about? Are you a liberal who is here to confuse people? You talk all your talk and then you say this!

At one moment you agree with Bush. You think we need to kill all the terrorists
you say liberals are evil and stupid. You pretend to agree with everything Bush does and now you have the nerv to to say he ain't a conservative!!! You sound like a liberal terrorist lover with talk like that! He's your friend until some pinko asks you a hard question? You bend with a gust of the wind one minute Bush is rite and the next minute he ain't conservative?A real patriot don't change like a reptile! Your either with us or against us, maybe you forget that.

On second thought don't come to Georgia, we don't like turncoats like we hate Liberals.
Its people like you who lost us the war for what? Well we ain't lost the war for good -
you pretend that we ain't trying to take back the country. We have a camp here for terrorist and pinkos it ain't no secret and we almost there. Ain't no liberal gonna stop it
and you better figure which side you on real fast! Your ether rite or wrong, whats it gonna be?

[edit on 17-7-2008 by winged patriot]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by winged patriot
 


Are You serious?????



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgnosticX
reply to post by winged patriot
 


Are You serious?????


I ain't a lier and I wasnt talking with you!
This guy talks like a conservative and acts like a conservative and then he goes bad mothing the greatest patriot we have. He ain't very patriot I don't care what he says!



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by winged patriot
 


I actually laughed out loud when I read that. That was good.

"He ain't very patriot"-Thats classic.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by AgnosticX]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgnosticX
reply to post by winged patriot
 


I actually laughed out loud when I read that. That was good.

"He ain't very patriot"-Thats classic.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by AgnosticX]


Well I ain't trying to be funny. Why are you making fun with me? I ain't done nothing to you? Your probly a liberal terrorist lover to! Mind your own busness dammit and I'll mind mine.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by winged patriot
 


The title of this post should be "SO WHAT!"



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by winged patriot
 


How is someone questioning and properly defining a presidential mess such as Bush un-patriotic? I think you are confused. Questioning a president and what he tries to label himself is just that, patriotism doesn’t belong in this argument, so why do you keep flinging it around? Can you describe why everyone who disagrees with your opinion is automatically not a patriot?

I have trouble believing you are actually this hostile, I think you're just trolling.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
It's the paranoia cha-cha.

You take something from an ati-american, pro-terrorist site and quote it as Gods truth. If information comes from the U.S. it is facist propaganda. But if it comes from anti american sources it is honest.

And you think I am nuts.

I know how your response will read...

"You refuse to see the truth. You follow like cattle. You are sad and pathetic. Yadda, Yada..."

In your case it is not the red or blue pill; it is simply thorazine.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


LOL. We never saw that coming, did we? Come on in, guys...the waterboarding's fine. ;-)



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by winged patriot
What the hell are you talking about? Are you a liberal who is here to confuse people? You talk all your talk and then you say this!

You pretend to agree with everything Bush does and now you have the nerv to to say he ain't a conservative!!!


I must be more hard-core than you because I don't think Bush is conservative enough. I think Bush needs to be MORE of a conservative.

Hey, slow down. I think you are jumping to conclusions here.
Look, I like Bush and I agree with Bush on numerous issues but I also disagree with him on others.
I disagree with Bush on his stance about illegal immigration. He has done nothing on this issue and he wants amnesty.
I disagree with Bush on his spending habits. He and congress have spent way to much money on government programs.
I disagree with Bush on his expansion of government. He has created way to many new government offices, programs and services.

Other than that, I think I agree with Bush on most other issues. But, because of those things I listed, how does that make Bush a conservative?
Conservatives want less spending, less regulation, less government and less taxes.


You think we need to kill all the terrorists
you say liberals are evil and stupid.

Yes, that is true and nothing has changed.



You sound like a liberal terrorist lover with talk like that! He's your friend until some pinko asks you a hard question?

I am a liberal terrorist lover because I disagree with Bush on 3 or 4 different things not related to terrorism?



Well, the last thing I thought I would be called on this forum is a liberal terrorist lover.


[edit on 18-7-2008 by WhatTheory]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 

Bye Bye habeau corpus? Last month’s decision from the United States Supreme Court granted habeas corpus rights to prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay. Seems like people are getting more rights. All this does is let the president detain these prisoners here instead of having to detain them in gitmo. Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, said the decision properly recognized “the president’s authority to capture and detain Al Qaeda agents who, like the 9/11 hijackers, come to this country to commit or facilitate warlike acts against American civilians.”
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said the president might detain members of organizations or nations against which Congress had authorized the use of force who mean to harm people or property to further military goals.

To reverse the trial judge’s decision allowing Mr. Marri’s detention to continue “because he was not captured on a foreign battlefield or foreign soil,” Judge Wilkinson wrote, “is akin to a judicial declaration that Congress and the executive may fight only the last war.”

Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, writing for herself and three other judges, disagreed, saying that Mr. Marri was at most a civilian criminal who may be prosecuted in the courts but not detained by the executive branch.

“This does not mean that al Marri, or similarly situated American citizens, would have to be freed,” Judge Motz wrote. “Like others accused of terrorist activity in this country, from the Oklahoma City bombers to the convicted September 11th conspirator [Zacarias Moussaoui] they could be tried on criminal charges and, if convicted, punished severely. But the government would not be able to subject them to indefinite military detention.”

So yes if you are accused of terrorism activities you can be detained. But you still get your trial and nobody, except that guys lawyer, states it gives the president authority to pick up innocent american citizens. It will never happen. If it happened to a few there would be such an outrage.

BTW nice article Rawstory.com. I advise everyone to read the whole NYT article. I love how raw story shows you the quotes from Marris lawyers yet it doesnt tell you the quotes or how the actual judges came to their conclusions. Typical consiracy story. Tell only the part that proves your point. Read the whole story.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


"states it gives the president authority to pick up innocent American citizens. It will never happen. If it happened to a few there would be such an outrage."
Write down this quote and today's date. You may be called to defend it in the not so distant future. Those outraged will soon learn to shut up or be locked up.



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by andolin
reply to post by tide88
 


"states it gives the president authority to pick up innocent American citizens. It will never happen. If it happened to a few there would be such an outrage."
Write down this quote and today's date. You may be called to defend it in the not so distant future. Those outraged will soon learn to shut up or be locked up.


I am not worried about it. I will write it down, put it on my favorites. Also I will put your name and quote down. Question is when you are wrong, will you admit it. Also, what exactly do you mean in the near future. Does the "near future" end when the Bush administration ends? All these predictions about what Bush is going to do have yet come true. I can't wait till he leaves office, just for the pure joy of seeing half the rediculous predictions made on this site end. Of course then you all will expand those predicitions to the next administration, and then the one after that. After all, if McCain becomes president, all of you will say it is just an extension of bush's administration. Right?



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 

My apologies for the delay in responding - I do have a life outside ATS [minimal].

I was unaware of asking a question.

However, the out of context snippet you replied with applies only to those that are deemed involved in the attacks of 9/11/2001.

I agree that if this applies to a US citizen it should be used to determine any involvement in those attacks regardless of who it is or what office they hold.

Don't you?




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join