From: Greg Burch (gregburch@gregburch.net)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 15:42:36 MDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samantha Atkins
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 4:02 PM
>
> You do not consider a very soft and flexible defintion of
> "terror" and "aiding
> and abetting terror" and the wholesale denial of fundamental
> rights once the
> label is applied (without formal proof) to be a real danger? How
> is it not?
> You don't consider the government granting itself the power to
> search any of
> our homes with far fewer constraints than ever before and without our
> knowledge to be dangerous and against the intent of the
> Constitution? You
> don't consider the possibility of being accused of terror for whatever
> reasons, stripped of all assets (even including citizenship), detained
> indefinitely, without trial or legal counsel to be a real danger? Then
> what, pray tell, would you consider dangerous?
I've seen people object to throwing "credential" authority around on the
list before, but I'm going to play lawyer here -- like I do in a courtroom.
When someone says a law says something, I (and the judges I practice before)
demand that I cite to specific language to support that assertion. Here
you've made two specific assertions:
1) applying the label of "terror" and "aiding and abbetting terror" results
in a "wholesale denial of fundamantal rights" under PA and PAII. What,
specifically counts as a "wholesale denial of fundamental rights" under the
cited statutes? I'm particularly interested in ways in which *citizens* are
subject to such a result upon mere application of the cited labels.
2) Even more seriously, in the last list of horrors you provide, you say
that someone can be stripped of their citizenship without counsel or trial.
Again, I'd like to see how the laws you cite work that way.
Thanks.
GB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 15:53:51 MDT