This post is dedicated to the memory of Habeas Corpus.

1215-2001 RIP

Dear said Government Lawyers,

Go rot in the same hell as the 9/11 hijackers.

Yours truly,
SilentStrider

King Something: This post is dedicated to the memory of Habeas Corpus.

1215-2001 RIP

Wouldn't that be Posse Comitatus?

Fark being what it is, I expect someone will be along shortly attempting to defend this.

But only if they are terrists.

King Something: Habeas Corpus.

Not really relevant at all.

posse comitatus and the national guard. Yea, that's speakin my language. And still unfeasible.

Javacrucian: Fark being what it is, I expect someone will be along shortly attempting to defend this.

5000_gallons_of_toothpaste: But only if they are terrists.

28 seconds.

King Something: Javacrucian: Fark being what it is, I expect someone will be along shortly attempting to defend this.

5000_gallons_of_toothpaste: But only if they are terrists.

28 seconds.

i think it was sarcasm, not an actual defense.

Sgt Otter: King Something: This post is dedicated to the memory of Habeas Corpus.

1215-2001 RIP

Wouldn't that be Posse Comitatus?

What he said.

Sgt Otter: Wouldn't that be Posse Comitatus?

Yes. The FBI is supposed to do that sort of thing. Not federal military. But, Bush probably issued one of his hundreds of "signing statements" saying it was legal.

OK. So, I've asked this before, and I ask it again: Americans, why have you allowed this to go on? Why haven't you rebelled? Why haven't there been marches in the street, calls for impeachment, hell, any civil unrest at all? Why are you willing to give this man and his cohorts a free pass? Why has no-one stood up (and I don't mean blogged about it or posted in an internet forum, I mean in the real world) and said that this is unacceptable?

Why are you all just sitting here on Fark biatching about this?

The biggest asset those who would take away your liberties one at a time would have to be your apathy.

/and don't give me this crap about his time being almost up anyway, that's crap.
//This sets a bad precedent for the next person who takes up the job.
///Why do you have fixed times for your elections anyway? Why can't a vote of no-confidence be passed, the government sacked and election called right now?

ghost_who_walks: Why do you have fixed times for your elections anyway? Why can't a vote of no-confidence be passed, the government sacked and election called right now?

Because we don't have a parliamentary style of government? And, don't want one?

The main problem with American government right now, and about for the last 60 years, is the two-party system, which has no basis whatsoever in the US Constitution. It developed almost immediately in US history. George Washington warned against it. Thomas Jefferson was the first Democrat. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican. If Tom and Abe were alive right now, Tom would be a Republican, and Abe would be Democrat.

In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

Sun God: The main problem with American government right now, and about for the last 60 years, is the two-party system,

An advantage and a set back.

slobarnuts: Sun God: The main problem with American government right now, and about for the last 60 years, is the two-party system,

An advantage and a set back.

It's indeed an advantage because we don't have 35 other political parties vying for votes in the government--you can only sharpen a pencil for so long before your ability to use it disappears into sawdust. Recently, it took 9 months for Belgium to get a government.

It's a setback, because of state politics, and the electoral college (which is in the US Constitution).

Sun God: Tom would be a Republican

Actually, I don't think he'd get along too well with the social conservatives that now dictate a large portion of the Republican Party's positions.

This is all to keep you safe, citizen.
If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.
Now go back to watching TV.

JPJ007: Sun God: Tom would be a Republican

Actually, I don't think he'd get along too well with the social conservatives that now dictate a large portion of the Republican Party's positions.

That's true. I didn't think it through. Tom is a bad example, because he was extremely smart and level-headed most of the time. A better example would be LBJ, a Democrat, who signed the Civil Rights laws in the '60s. He said something like, "We have just given The South to the Republican Party for many years."

And actually, this won't affect most Americans, hence the non-story nature of the piece, but such a procedure will prove a successful deterrent, especially in the not-so-distant future when it may prove necessary to dispatch peacekeeping operations following the news of McCain's win to the Presidency.

Sun God: ghost_who_walks: Why do you have fixed times for your elections anyway? Why can't a vote of no-confidence be passed, the government sacked and election called right now?

Because we don't have a parliamentary style of government? And, don't want one?

The main problem with American government right now, and about for the last 60 years, is the two-party system, which has no basis whatsoever in the US Constitution.

OK, fair call. You could still have some sort of capability to call a snap election though surely? Why the restriction of a set date and time? At the moment you have an election cycle stretching out beyond two years, and a guy in charge who knows his time is up in less than a year and can basically get away with doing nothing (oh, how I wish he would just do nothing).

Anyway, this is beside the point. Why has there been no civil unrest over the sort of things that are spoken about in this article? Why have the people not risen up and said "no more"? I mean, not even 10% of the population has done this; not even 5% of your people have said "I will not take this and I want my voice to be heard". Hell, even if 1% of 0.5% did it would bring hope to those around the world who think you have lost your way, and that the people are complicit in the actions of your government.

I think that it is a sad thing, to see a country with so much hope restricted by so much fear.

ghost_who_walks: OK. So, I've asked this before, and I ask it again: Americans, why have you allowed this to go on? Why haven't you rebelled? Why haven't there been marches in the street, calls for impeachment, hell, any civil unrest at all? Why are you willing to give this man and his cohorts a free pass? Why has no-one stood up (and I don't mean blogged about it or posted in an internet forum, I mean in the real world) and said that this is unacceptable?

Because people have "stood up" about this issue. The entire point of the article is that there is a case in Federal court right now about this guy and the way he was apprehended and is now being detained. Marches and civil unrest will do exactly nothing about this, courts are the mechanism by which alleged government abuses of power are addressed.

The other reason there is no rioting in the street is because, despite the hysterical claims of fascism and the death of habeas corpus, this has not in fact affected Americans in any negative way. Most people don't really care whether the government overstepped its authority on some technical level in order to apprehend this guy; they see that someone who clearly is a terrorist was apprehended.

I guess people would rather read news stories about the government being aggressive in apprehending terrorists, than ones about how twenty hijackers spent years in the U.S. plotting right under the noses of the Feds who were too incompetent to stop them. Go figure.

ghost_who_walks: OK, fair call. You could still have some sort of capability to call a snap election though surely?

Not on a federal level. The only way to remove a POTUS is to have him convicted by The Senate (with a 2/3 vote) after being impeached by The House by a simple majority. It has never happened in US history.

Occasionally, some US states can call for a referendum, or a recall, according to that state's Constitution. The current famous example is California's governor (Gray Davis) was recalled. And now Conan the Barbarian is governor of California.

Phaid: ghost_who_walks: OK. So, I've asked this before, and I ask it again: Americans, why have you allowed this to go on? Why haven't you rebelled? Why haven't there been marches in the street, calls for impeachment, hell, any civil unrest at all? Why are you willing to give this man and his cohorts a free pass? Why has no-one stood up (and I don't mean blogged about it or posted in an internet forum, I mean in the real world) and said that this is unacceptable?

Because people have "stood up" about this issue. The entire point of the article is that there is a case in Federal court right now about this guy and the way he was apprehended and is now being detained. Marches and civil unrest will do exactly nothing about this, courts are the mechanism by which alleged government abuses of power are addressed.


I'm sorry, but that's bullshiat. The reason the government oversteps the bounds in the first place is because it thinks it can get away with it, and so far it has. If the people marched in the streets, you don't think their local representative would think twice about what bills they did or didn't vote for? The reason these things happen, the actions of government agencies, the bills that give the teleco's a get-out-of-jail-free card, the bills that say the government doesn't have have a warrant to search, the reason they happen is because the people's representatives are no longer held accountable, and they know this, and so they do whatever the hell they want, and do just enough to keep themselves in power.

You don't think the Civil Rights marches of the 60's changed the law in America? For how long had the courts decided a black man was worth a fraction of a white one?

The other reason there is no rioting in the street is because, despite the hysterical claims of fascism and the death of habeas corpus, this has not in fact affected Americans in any negative way. Most people don't really care whether the government overstepped its authority on some technical level in order to apprehend this guy; they see that someone who clearly is a terrorist was apprehended.

I guess people would rather read news stories about the government being aggressive in apprehending terrorists, than ones about how twenty hijackers spent years in the U.S. plotting right under the noses of the Feds who were too incompetent to stop them. Go figure.

That I agree with. As I said originally, apathy is the best help those in authority have. So here we are, angrily posting on Fark about it, and look what good that does...

ghost_who_walks: You don't think the Civil Rights marches of the 60's changed the law in America? For how long had the courts decided a black man was worth a fraction of a white one?

Comparing this to the civil rights marches of the 60s is silly, though. This just isn't an issue that any rational person cares about, because it doesn't affect them. People marched in the street for civil rights because they saw real injustices being committed in the name of institutionalized racism, and saw real people that they knew personally being denied rights they deserved as Americans. On the other hand, not too many people are going to march in the streets to defend the rights of someone who wants to kill them.

That I agree with. As I said originally, apathy is the best help those in authority have. So here we are, angrily posting on Fark about it, and look what good that does...

Well, you are posting angrily. I'm perfectly fine with the situation -- not out of apathy, mind you; I actively support the government's actions in this case.

Phaid:
Well, you are posting angrily. I'm perfectly fine with the situation -- not out of apathy, mind you; I actively support the government's actions in this case.

I'm sorry, I just want to be clear on this: You actively support the government sending in the army to hold a suspect without warrant, charge or notification? No police, no lawyers, but the armed forces?

ghost_who_walks: Phaid:
Well, you are posting angrily. I'm perfectly fine with the situation -- not out of apathy, mind you; I actively support the government's actions in this case.

I'm sorry, I just want to be clear on this: You actively support the government sending in the army to hold a suspect without warrant, charge or notification? No police, no lawyers, but the armed forces?

You got trolled.

That's right Arseholes have rights too.
Let's just ignore them till they kill then let them fark us in court again.
No we don't want to catch them before they do their thing cause that would be unfair. OK?

Phaid: ghost_who_walks: You don't think the Civil Rights marches of the 60's changed the law in America? For how long had the courts decided a black man was worth a fraction of a white one?

Comparing this to the civil rights marches of the 60s is silly, though. This just isn't an issue that any rational person cares about, because it doesn't affect them. People marched in the street for civil rights because they saw real injustices being committed in the name of institutionalized racism, and saw real people that they knew personally being denied rights they deserved as Americans. On the other hand, not too many people are going to march in the streets to defend the rights of someone who wants to kill them.

Which is why our rights mean nothing.

Happy Memorial Day!

Javacrucian: Fark being what it is, I expect someone will be along shortly attempting to defend this.

I think it would be entirely appropriate to release this man in your neighborhood.

I speak muslim

larry00: That's right Arseholes have rights too.
Let's just ignore them till they kill then let them fark us in court again.
No we don't want to catch them before they do their thing cause that would be unfair. OK?

Is it worth it? Living every moment in fear of being victimized by a criminal? Is it worth it to trade that chance victimization for a constant and subtle victimization by the government? Is this some perverse form of "The devil you know versus the devil you don't"?

Phaid: This just isn't an issue that any rational person cares about, because it doesn't affect them.

Martin Niemoller would like to have a word with you.

ghost_who_walks: Phaid:
Well, you are posting angrily. I'm perfectly fine with the situation -- not out of apathy, mind you; I actively support the government's actions in this case.

I'm sorry, I just want to be clear on this: You actively support the government sending in the army to hold a suspect without warrant, charge or notification? No police, no lawyers, but the armed forces?

In this particular case, in light of the investigation and evidence that had been obtained prior to his arrest, yes.

I think the phrase "the Armed Forces" conjures images of tanks, helicopters, and squads of men with machine guns ripping down entire neighborhoods. The fact is though that the military has counter-terrorism units that are far better trained and equipped than any civilian police force. Those people are more likely to succeed and less likely to cause civilian casualties than even a well-trained SWAT team. And because this fundamentally involves intelligence operations, it makes more sense from an operational security perspective to have military people with security clearances carry out this kind of thing, than to involve civilian police.

As to why I support this, again in this particular case: terrorism is not a law-enforcement problem to be handled by police and lawyers. We had enough of that thinking in the 1990s, and it got us nowhere. The military exists to defend the country against threats to national security, and that is what they have done in this case.

Sun God: The only lawful way to remove a POTUS is to have him convicted by The Senate (with a 2/3 vote) after being impeached by The House by a simple majority.

FTFY.

I propose this argument be celebrated by our next president by having Dubya and Dicky thus detained for questioning about their conspiracy against the Constitution.

larry00: That's right Arseholes have rights too.
Let's just ignore them till they kill then let them fark us in court again.
No we don't want to catch them before they do their thing cause that would be unfair. OK?

6/10. Not bad. The gratuitous use of profanity and utter lack of correct punctuation really drew me in. You also have a great name for ignorant Republican trolling.

One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.

How on earth do people not get this? How? Yes, Bush isn't sending out the military to round up people just because they oppose him politically, or because he doesn't like them. Is that really a justification to eliminate the legal barriers to that happening? Good grief, how on earth is that supposed to be a good thing, or even a barely acceptable thing?

And this guy's a judge. Chilling. farking chilling.

But, but...England is a Nanny State!!111!!

Spielman: One judge questioned why there was such anxiety over the policy. After all, there have been no mass roundups of citizens and no indications the White House is coming for innocent Americans next.

How on earth do people not get this? How? Yes, Bush isn't sending out the military to round up people just because they oppose him politically, or because he doesn't like them. Is that really a justification to eliminate the legal barriers to that happening? Good grief, how on earth is that supposed to be a good thing, or even a barely acceptable thing?

And this guy's a judge. Chilling. farking chilling.

It's absolutely ridiculous. It's like people honestly think that only the guilty are suspected. That criminals don't have rights, or if they do it's a bad thing. farking insane.

He doesn't look scared at all, so fark him.

Half Man Half Biscuit: Phaid: This just isn't an issue that any rational person cares about, because it doesn't affect them.

Martin Niemoller would like to have a word with you.

"They came first for the terrorists... "? Yeah.

See my earlier post about why comparing this to civil rights marches makes no sense. Rational people could easily see that injustice was being done to large numbers of people they saw every day, even if not to themselves. This has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Phaid: Half Man Half Biscuit: Phaid: This just isn't an issue that any rational person cares about, because it doesn't affect them.

Martin Niemoller would like to have a word with you.

"They came first for the terrorists... "? Yeah.

See my earlier post about why comparing this to civil rights marches makes no sense. Rational people could easily see that injustice was being done to large numbers of people they saw every day, even if not to themselves. This has absolutely nothing to do with that.

You're right, this isn't exactly comparable. But the idea that it's okay not to respect the rights of "terrorists" is completely asinine. How do you know who is a terrorist?

According to court documents citing multiple intelligence sources, al-Marri spent months in al-Qaida training camps during the late 1990s and was schooled in the science of poisons. The summer before al-Marri left for the United States, he allegedly met with Osama bin Laden and Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The two al-Qaida leaders decided al-Marri would make a perfect sleeper agent and rushed him into the U.S. before Sept. 11, the government says.

A computer specialist, al-Marri was ordered to wreak havoc on the U.S. banking system and serve as a liaison for other al-Qaida operatives entering this country, according to a court document filed by Jeffrey Rapp, a senior member of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

According to Rapp, al-Marri received up to $13,000 for his trip, plus money to buy a laptop, courtesy of Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who is suspected of helping finance the Sept. 11 attacks.



Ya, poor guy. Jesus Christ Farkers, why do you have a problem with this? Paranoid much?

I think that those whinging about stuff like this are idealists, who want to pansy around peple who want to kill them.

Thunderpipes: According to court documents citing multiple intelligence sources, al-Marri spent months in al-Qaida training camps during the late 1990s and was schooled in the science of poisons. The summer before al-Marri left for the United States, he allegedly met with Osama bin Laden and Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The two al-Qaida leaders decided al-Marri would make a perfect sleeper agent and rushed him into the U.S. before Sept. 11, the government says.

A computer specialist, al-Marri was ordered to wreak havoc on the U.S. banking system and serve as a liaison for other al-Qaida operatives entering this country, according to a court document filed by Jeffrey Rapp, a senior member of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

According to Rapp, al-Marri received up to $13,000 for his trip, plus money to buy a laptop, courtesy of Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who is suspected of helping finance the Sept. 11 attacks.



Ya, poor guy. Jesus Christ Farkers, why do you have a problem with this? Paranoid much?

DON'T YOU farkING GET IT? "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY," is it that farking difficult? What is the matter with you people?

This guy is a bad seed. Let the Texans handle this and it will all be over quickly and quietly.

chandrika: I think that those whinging about stuff like this are idealists, who want to pansy around peple who want to kill them.

Agreed.

A computer specialist, al-Marri was ordered to wreak havoc on the U.S. banking system

We've been busy little elves wreaking havoc on ourselves.

ghost_who_walks: OK. So, I've asked this before, and I ask it again: Americans, why have you allowed this to go on? Why haven't you rebelled? Why haven't there been marches in the street, calls for impeachment, hell, any civil unrest at all? Why are you willing to give this man and his cohorts a free pass? Why has no-one stood up (and I don't mean blogged about it or posted in an internet forum, I mean in the real world) and said that this is unacceptable?

Because were one man to stand up, he would be killed and then painted as a lunatic or a terrorist. Were one man to attempt to gather other like-minded individuals to stand up, they would be branded as subversives and rounded up well before reaching any sort of critical mass or taking any sort of action (see: those idiots in Florida).

You don't just stand up and tell a fascist state "No."

larry00: That's right Arseholes have rights too.
Let's just ignore them till they kill then let them fark us in court again.
No we don't want to catch them before they do their thing cause that would be unfair. OK?

Did it ever occur to you that ignoring the Constitution is about as unAmerican as one can get short of committing treason?

No, I don't suppose that ever did.