Comments on: Agree to Disagree, Even with that "Nutcase" http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/ Politics, Programming and Possibilities Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:09:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Going Up » Tyrany is Worse Than Terrorism http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-784 Going Up » Tyrany is Worse Than Terrorism Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:27:27 +0000 http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-784 [...] A friend of mine, Jeff Moss, with reference to the Military Commissions Act, recently made the following comment on my post, “Agree to Disagree, Even with that ‘Nutcase’“: “Or is awaiting such determination” would only mean that anybody who claims to be a citizen but cannot (will not) present proof should be held until it can be determined whether or not they are a citizen. The feds could determine citizenship of a cooperative suspect in a matter of minutes. The alternative of releasing a dangerous person is more of a concern to me. [...] [...] A friend of mine, Jeff Moss, with reference to the Military Commissions Act, recently made the following comment on my post, “Agree to Disagree, Even with that ‘Nutcase’“: “Or is awaiting such determination” would only mean that anybody who claims to be a citizen but cannot (will not) present proof should be held until it can be determined whether or not they are a citizen. The feds could determine citizenship of a cooperative suspect in a matter of minutes. The alternative of releasing a dangerous person is more of a concern to me. [...]

]]> By: Jeff http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-665 Jeff Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:24:36 +0000 http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-665 Or is awaiting such determination would only mean that anybody who claims to be a citizen but cannot (will not) present proof should be held until it can be determined whether or not they are a citizen. The feds could determine citizenship of a cooperative suspect in a matter of minutes. The alternative of releasing a dangerous person is more of a concern to me. You guys don't seem to concerned with security, while there is a debate raging right now on whether past and former presidents fell short of their constitutional duty to protect the country. Or is awaiting such determination would only mean that anybody who claims to be a citizen but cannot (will not) present proof should be held until it can be determined whether or not they are a citizen. The feds could determine citizenship of a cooperative suspect in a matter of minutes. The alternative of releasing a dangerous person is more of a concern to me.

You guys don’t seem to concerned with security, while there is a debate raging right now on whether past and former presidents fell short of their constitutional duty to protect the country.

]]> By: Duane Johnson http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-606 Duane Johnson Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:37:23 +0000 http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-606 Thanks for the comments and info, Pat. The wording is so clear it scares me. Thanks for the comments and info, Pat. The wording is so clear it scares me.

]]> By: Pat Maddox http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-605 Pat Maddox Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:18:20 +0000 http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-605 By the way, in the original blog post I saw re: MCA, you mentioned that in theory you could be held without trial for donating to an international charity that somehow ended up being linked to Al Qaeda. According to the bill, it's much worse than that. From Section 7, "Habeas Corpus Matters": "`(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." The key language is "or is awaiting such determination." Under this bill, it's entirely possible for law-abiding permanent legal residents to be arrested for something as nebulous as "suspected of being an enemy of the United States" and then being detained without trial. By the way, in the original blog post I saw re: MCA, you mentioned that in theory you could be held without trial for donating to an international charity that somehow ended up being linked to Al Qaeda. According to the bill, it’s much worse than that.

From Section 7, “Habeas Corpus Matters”:

“`(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.”

The key language is “or is awaiting such determination.” Under this bill, it’s entirely possible for law-abiding permanent legal residents to be arrested for something as nebulous as “suspected of being an enemy of the United States” and then being detained without trial.

]]> By: Pat Maddox http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-604 Pat Maddox Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:11:46 +0000 http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/01/agree-to-disagree-even-with-that-nutcase/#comment-604 Regarding the Military Commissions Act, anyone calling you a nutcase is blind. I asked an immigration attorney friend of mine about it, and he said, "Yep, according to that, the feds can imprison people forever without ever seeing a courtroom." September 29th was the day 12 million people were explicitly stripped of their constitutional rights, and on that there can be no debate. Regarding the Military Commissions Act, anyone calling you a nutcase is blind. I asked an immigration attorney friend of mine about it, and he said, “Yep, according to that, the feds can imprison people forever without ever seeing a courtroom.”

September 29th was the day 12 million people were explicitly stripped of their constitutional rights, and on that there can be no debate.

]]>