From: Anonymous on
In article <-9mdnUwGTKMj-fXWnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)>,
HeyBub <heybub(a)> wrote:
>docdwarf(a) wrote:
>> In article <4KOdnbXYY6vHw_7WnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)>,
>> HeyBub <heybub(a)> wrote:
>>> docdwarf(a) wrote:
>>>> The President, to the best of my knowledge, has powers enumerated by
>>>> the Constitution and none of these include abrogation of Amdnement
>>>> VI protections, ie 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
>>>> enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
>>>> of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been
>>>> committed...'
>>> Your knowledge is incomplete. As CinC, he has all the powers
>>> normally vested in a military leader according to the usual rules of
>>> war. Further, our Supreme Court validated this proposition in the
>>> "Prize Cases" (67 US 635) in 1862.
>> This does not, by my reading, abrogate the rights enumerated by
>> Amendment VI; if you be]ieve it does then please cite the section and
>> interpretation which supports this belief.
>Lincoln, on his own initative and without statutory authority, blockaded
>Southern ports in April 1861.

That President Lincoln choe to act without statuatory authority in no wise
grants similar license to any otner individual; this is a variant of the
Brooklyn Bridge defense. This seems similar to saying that since
President Nixon was pardoned for crimes he may or may not have committed
any other President doing/having done similarly is equally exonerated.

>It wasn't until July of that year that
>Congress got around to "legalizing" the president's actions. The Prize Cases
>affirmed that the president has the inherent authority to do as he thinks
>best in times of belligerency or insurrection, without regard to
>constitutional niceties.

The Prize Cases decision had to do with naval blockades and seized ships.
not with the declaring of human beings to be other-than-human. The
relevance to the question of non-citizens being considered 'persons' seems
to be negligible


>To review, the 6th Amendment starts with "In all criminal prosecutions...."
>If the situation is not "criminal" in nature, the subject is not necessarily
>entitled to the provisions of the amendment.

If the situation involved in the deliberate murders which occurred on
Septermber 11 are not considered 'criminal' than it seems you are dealing
with a set of definitions which are completely outside those usually
employed by American jurisprudence and further establishment of
definitions relevant to the case at hand need be established before
discussion is to continue.


>The question is more general than the 6th Amendment: "Can the president
>suspend ANY provision of the Constitution in times of national emergency?"
>The answer is "Yes."
>You may not like that answer, but, in fact, every single court decision
>balancing the president's power in time of national emergency versus a
>presumed Constitutional right has come down on the side of the president.

Cite, please. Be so kind as to show where it has been determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States of America that the Constitution is
enforceable as the Supreme Law of the Land only during such times as the
President has seen fit, as 71 US 2 1866 (Ex Parte Milligan) and 343 US 579
1952 (Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v Sawyer) appear to deny. Your
interpretation would, it seems, change the nature of a Constutional
Republic and a Government of Laws into a Whimful Despotism.

(When dealing with law it is helpful to remember that a answer should
begin with 'it depends'; law is not science and precedence is not to be
equated with reproducible results.)


From: Anonymous on
In article <7ZCdnT8njLIj-PXWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d(a)>,
HeyBub <heybub(a)> wrote:
>SkippyPB wrote:
>>> Quirin and his buddies were hanged.
>> OK, let me rephrase:
>> The use of "Enemy Combatants" by the United States is....a phrase used
>> to ignore the constitution of the United States, i.e. due process.
>> If we go to war to defend our Constitution then those we go to war
>> against should be held accountable to it and under it, not be ignored
>> by it.
>No. "Due process" et al are provisions that apply to "criminals."

You have not clarified what you believe to be due process, let alone "due
process", but Amendment V refers to 'No person' (in the case of human
beings 'criminal' is a subset of this group and thereby covered) and
Amendment VI refers not to criminals but to criminal prosecutions.

I do not understand what there is in the English language which makes this
particularly difficult to apply.


>Had the framers meant otherwise, the 6th Amendment (for example) would have
>begun "In all legal proceedings...." instead of "In all criminal

Had my Sainted Grannie wheels she'd had been a trolley-car... she didn't.


From: Pete Dashwood on
docdwarf(a) wrote:
> In article <7spacnFd4nU1(a)>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)> wrote:
>> docdwarf(a) wrote:
>>> In article <4KOdnbXYY6vHw_7WnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)>,
>>> HeyBub <heybub(a)> wrote:
>>>> docdwarf(a) wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> Pay attention to the point: A terrorist is NOT automatically a
>>>> criminal.
>>> Pay attention to the point: the Constitution states, black-letter,
>>> that people have rights. Such a denial of humanity has not, to the
>>> best of my knowledge, been legally codified.
>> You are right, it hasn't been.
> We agree? Quick, somebody mark the calendar.
>> My arguments here are predicated on it being axiomatic that inhuman
>> behaviour CAN be used to "deny humanity", and hence application of
>> Human Rights.
>> I know it is heresy, but it is certainly worth exploring.
> If one's enemy's inhuman behavior causes one to choose to act
> inhumanly then one is acting in the manner of one's enemy... and if a
> oal of the enemy is 'to have around only People Who Act Like Us' then
> one has become one's enemy.
> 'When fighting monsters one must take care not to become one'... or
> something like that.

"Two wrongs don't make a right", huh?

Sound logically, but I still can't buy it... :-)

Monsters ned to be stopped and if they break the rules then they exclude
themselves from having the protection of those rules.

I guess there is a bit of monster in me somewhere because it doesn't bother
my conscience one jot or tittle to write this. :-)

The only compassion I can find for them is to remove them quickly and


"I used to write I can do anything."

From: Tony Harding on
On 02/02/10 14:10, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:49:02 -0500, Tony Harding
> <tharding(a)> wrote:
>> Have you had any thoughts regarding people like Menachem Begin, who, as
>> a member of the Irgun, blew up enemy forces (the British) back in the
>> 1940's while working for Israel's statehood, who later became high
>> ranking govt officials?
> "None dare call it treason". Winners define the rules.

Absolutely, plus they write the history books.
From: Tony Harding on
On 02/02/10 13:19, SkippyPB wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:38:19 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood(a)> wrote:
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:32:16 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
>>> <dashwood(a)> wrote:
>>>> It depends on HOW they are waging the war against us. I think HeyBub
>>>> made the point that legal combatants are entitled to rights and
>>>> protection; illegal ones are not.
>>> Legal protections are primarily about making sure we punish the
>>> guilty, and not just scapegoats. It doesn't really matter whether
>>> we punish innocent people for lawful war or whether we punish innocent
>>> people for unlawful war.
>>>> Think about the images of those people jumping from
>>>> the buring skyscrapers. Does that seem like a "legal" or fair war to
>>>> you? Suppose it was YOUR family? And it isn't about getting revenge.
>>>> It is about treating people who are capable of such acts the way
>>>> they deserve to be treated.
>>> "Legal" war is one which a legal state declared. If, say
>>> Afghanistan had declared war against the U.S. before that attack, and
>>> my family had been victims of that attack, I wouldn't have been
>>> comforted at all about it being "legal" and "fair".
>>> But if I were accused of such a heinous action - legal or not - I want
>>> my rights to prove my innocence.
>> And what if you are guilty? Can you think of any reason you should still be
>> afforded the same rights as decent tax-paying citizens?
>> The people who did it don't even recognise the right of a US court to try
>> them, so why should the US?
>> I think there is a point where people stop being human in every accepted
>> sense of the word and do something SO mind-numbingly awful it redefines them
>> as something "inhuman". For some people the end (their own end) simply
>> justifies the means (whatever means they care to use, including perversions
>> of human concepts like fairness, compassion, and mercy). At that point I
>> think a little needle is fair and humane.
>> Like I said, earlier, it is just as well I don't rule the world.
>> However, I have done considerable soul-searching on this and there is no
>> point in lying about how I feel.
>> I don't know whether anyone else sees it this way too, and it really doesn't
>> matter.
>> As always, I call 'em like I see 'em.
>> Pete.
> Have you ever read "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding? I think
> the lessons he was trying to show in that novel apply here. As others
> have said, if you treat inhumanity inhumanly, you then become inhuman
> and are no better than the ones you are punishing.

"Sucks to your auntie!"