Re: US Presidents; an outside view WAS: Any comments? (Evolution

Donald Tees wrote:
> Nobody is a criminal until they have been convicted of a crime. Not in
> any country that I know of, anyway. Certainly not just because they exist.

Existing is not a crime.  Being present within our borders, contrary to
established law, is.  And I don't care if they've been tried and
convicted, they *are* breaking the law, and they're *flaunting* the fact
that they're breaking the law.

This whole thing is a turning point for our country, I believe.  Will we
enforce our laws, or bow to the desires of a pissed group of illegal
aliens?  Judging from our recent past, I'm afraid I know how this will
turn out.  :(


--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

In article <942cb$4446de34$45491d12$6683@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Donald Tees wrote: 
>
>Existing is not a crime.  Being present within our borders, contrary to
>established law, is.  And I don't care if they've been tried and
>convicted, they *are* breaking the law, and they're *flaunting* the fact
>that they're breaking the law.

You 'don't care', Mr Summers, for one of the core presumptions of American
jurisprudence... and you ask others why they don't go someplace more
'socialist'?

Ah well... it is a large country, there is room for many folks.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <4as40rFuhmblU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
>
>
> Softly, softly, Mr Dashwood... if it were determined that illegal aliens
> in the United States of America *do*, as determined by appropriate
> judicial authority, have rights under the Constitution (the Bill of Rights
> being Amendments to same) then would this counter-argument be
> unsupportable?
>
> DD
>
And a further point ... if a war is being fought based on "inalienable
rights", should the rights only be extended to one side? Or should the
people fighting that war have to abide by them to prove, at the very
least, that they have some sort of respect for those rights?

Donald

Howard Brazee wrote:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness.
>
> Unless they are Mexicans or Arabs, of course.

This doesn't say that they're free to engage in those pursuits *here*...

And remember, as has been pointed out many times here before, the
Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with our country...

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e2ang7$j19$1@reader1.panix.com.
.
> 
>
> If that were to be determined it is tantamount to saying that anyone who
> happens to be on American soil has the same rights as an American citizen.
> So, I'm on holiday in Florida or California and I can expect to have the
> same Constitutional rights as someone who was born and raised there?
>
> What then, is the point of being a tax paying citizen?
>
> Pete.

And if you are on holiday in Florida, or in an airport on a stopover
during a flight to Europe or Canada, should you have any rights?  Or
should you be open to any indignity any law official wishes to inflict
on you? What for example, if they grabbed you and threw you in jail
because they thought you were a terrorist.  Should you be allowed a
lawyer? By current practices, you not only have no right to a lawyer,
but they do not even have to admit to arresting you.  In fact, they can
through you into a jail for an interterminate time, and keep it entirely
secret. They do not have to bring charges.

Donald

Pete Dashwood wrote:

> I followed your link and read about Mr. Arar. It was pretty dreadful. Even
> though the United States did not impose all of the indignities he suffered
,
> there is a certainly a good case that it would never have happened f he ha
d
> been dealt with properly in New York. I couldn't see their objection to
> sending him on to Montreal. They could have alerted the Canadians and hand
ed
> over a Canadian citizen to the Authorities there. They obviously genuinely
> believed he was Al Que'da. Presumably he could bring a civil case?

Yes, there are several under way, though I doubt they will go far.

>
> Answering your question above...
>
> If I was on holiday in the USA (and I am fairly frequently), I would expec
t
> (as Mr. Arar did...) to have access to a phone and a lawyer. I would expec
t
> to have my basic Human Rights respected even if I didn't expect the
> protection that an American citizen could expect. That means no beatings,
> proper food and rest breaks, and no inhumane treatment. I think transit
> passengers could reasonably expect to have access to the representative of
> their country in America, also.
>
> It's a fine line. He HAD had contact with people who were known to be Al
> Que'da, even though he was quite innocent. I can understand the Americans
> putting pressure on (and let's be fair, they were gentle compared to the
> Jordanians and Syrians)
>
Yes, but that is precisely why he was deported ... so they would not
have to be gentle.

> The awful thing here is that because he was not allowed to contact anyone,
> there was no chance of anyone doing anything to help him, like notifying t
he
> Canadian representation in New York. That is the most severe violation I s
ee
> the Americans guilty of. Deporting him to Syria is almost farcical. How ca
n
> they get it that wrong?
>

Only be claiming that American laws do not apply to Canadians. Makes a
bit of a mockery out of the right to work in the states that they
negotiated by treaty, does it not?

> I'll be putting emergency rocedures in place with friends before my next
> visit to the US. Not because I have contacts in Al Que'da, but because
> bureaucratic bungling is a definite possibility. Especially when a nation 
is
> conscious that they are under attack.
>
> Pete.
>
Wise move. But you see what I meant about it placing the entire country
in disrpute?  How do you trade with someone, or work with them, when
they can have you tortured for disagreeing?

I've done lots of work in the States over the years, but I doubt I'll
ever enter the country again. I'd be afraid to, frankly.

Donald

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote in message

<snip> - lots of interesting stuff
>
> The awful thing here is that because he was not allowed to contact anyone,
> there was no chance of anyone doing anything to help him, like notifying t
he
> Canadian representation in New York. That is the most severe violation I s
ee
> the Americans guilty of. Deporting him to Syria is almost farcical. How ca
n
> they get it that wrong?
>
> I'll be putting emergency rocedures in place with friends before my next
> visit to the US. Not because I have contacts in Al Que'da, but because
> bureaucratic bungling is a definite possibility. Especially when a nation 
is
> conscious that they are under attack.
>

You make the point about no contact with Canadian representatives. The
horrifying part is that Canada DID KNOW. I glanced the document like you
- but my eyes popped when I saw that Arar was confronted by his US
interrogators, with a photo-copy of a document he had signed in Canada -
without checking back, something to do with leasing (?).

We know the CIA are the 'bad guys'. Where did they get that document. -
from their friends in either the RCMP or CSIS our intelligence service.

Seen it yet in NZ ? Excellent UK TV Program on the WMD-man Dr. David
Kelly. The gentle-natured scientist responsible for searching out WMDs.
(He was totally unprepared for the world of espionage or politics). He
let observations slip to a BBC correspondent. Recall there was one hell
of a mess in UK for Tony's government and eventually the Head of the BBC
quit. Due to the pressure, Kelly walked off to the local woods and
committed suicide.

Here's a link to the BBC if your memory needs refreshing :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth...iry/default.stm

Politics is a dirty game in any country.

Jimmy

James J. Gavan wrote:

> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
>
>
> <snip> - lots of interesting stuff
> 
>
> You make the point about no contact with Canadian representatives. The
> horrifying part is that Canada DID KNOW. I glanced the document like you
>  - but my eyes popped when I saw that Arar was confronted by his US
> interrogators, with a photo-copy of a document he had signed in Canada -
> without checking back, something to do with leasing (?).
>
> We know the CIA are the 'bad guys'. Where did they get that document. -
> from their friends in either the RCMP or CSIS our intelligence service.
>
> Seen it yet in NZ ? Excellent UK TV Program on the WMD-man Dr. David
> Kelly. The gentle-natured scientist responsible for searching out WMDs.
> (He was totally unprepared for the world of espionage or politics). He
> let observations slip to a BBC correspondent. Recall there was one hell
> of a mess in UK for Tony's government and eventually the Head of the BBC
> quit. Due to the pressure, Kelly walked off to the local woods and
> committed suicide.
>
> Here's a link to the BBC if your memory needs refreshing :-
>
> [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2003/david_kelly_inquiry/default.stml[/ur
l]
>
> Politics is a dirty game in any country.
>

Yes, the RCMP did share information with the states. As to them knowing
that he was taken prisoner, they did not know.  Not only was Arar
refused the right to comunicate, but the police officials in the states
did not share anything back.  Currently, they are refusing to even
identify the officials that took part, or to allow any of the
documaentary trail to be looked at by Canadian police.

I doubt american security will be assisted in the future. In fact, by
the time the inquiries and lawsuits are done, I doubt that the RCMP will
be be allowed to, by law.

Donald

In article <2b7a8$44492ca3$45491de7$6053@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i  <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>Howard Brazee wrote: 
>
>This doesn't say that they're free to engage in those pursuits *here*...
>
>And remember, as has been pointed out many times here before, the
>Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with our country...

Mr Summers, I believe that it has been pointed out that the Declaration
does not have the status of law while the Constitution does; I do not
believe that it has been pointed out, anywhere, that 'the Declaration of
Independence has nothing to do with our country'.  Please be so kind as to
document this assertion.

DD

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:58:15 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> 
>
> My point is that if everything is the same except for the one word
> "illegal", I have good reason to suspect that the word "illegal" isn't
> the important reason behind the behavior - it is only the excuse for
> claiming that "this time it's different".
>
> It isn't.

Yes, it is.  You and Holly and all these other people claiming that
there is racism behind folks like me who desire that all *illegals* get
the heck out of our country.  I don't appreciate it.  In fact, I
downright resent it.

I'm losing a *lot* of personal respect for several posters here...

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine