I didn't see where they were stating that they would be detaining someone indefinately without charge. They stated they would be refusing bond. The illegals in this case would have to have been already detained under the charge of illegal entry into the country. I would assume they are subject to deportation but the cases are pending appeal and for this reason, they have been allowed to post bond until the case is heard before the judge. The government is stating that in some cases where national security is concerned that bond be refused.
I don't know because the gov. has not released official figures. Besides, unless there is credible evidence, nothing justifies indefinite jail terms, and if there is evidence, why not have a trial. Of course, this administration has been a champion of providing credible evidence hasn't is? John Ashcroft is the scariest thing to happen to the US since McCarthy.
That's the most insane thing I've ever heard. You're perfectly okay with indefinite, incommunicado imprisonment of immigrants? And the definition of *anyone* from a "hostile" nation being defined as an enemy combatant? That truly makes me sick.
america is pretty big, you are aware that 125 million people live in japan, that's about half what we have in the US, and their land area is 146,000 sq miles. The united states has 3,619,000 sq miles of area.
Revealing the answers to any of those questions would threaten national security, according to Ashcroft.
You don't really think people who support this kind of thing really care about logistics do you? Most of them are just xenophobes.
Sure is! If you are a citizen of the United States!
Doh, guess that doesn't apply here. You may want to take this up with God, Allah, Buddah, or some other higher power and get things straightened out. Otherwise the rules still apply.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
You know what makes me sick? That people like konichiwa are so insecure in their convictions that they must slander, distort, and misrepresent the words of others so as to give the reader a false impression of moral superiority. Evidence? Just look in the quote box above.
Nowhere did Tiger "define" anyone from a hostile nation as being an "enemy combatant", all he did was state the current INS policy that illegals from a hostile nation are subject to detention and investigation prior to being deported back to their country of origin.
That's the way he wrote it, maybe he should have been more articulate in his wording. Or maybe that is exactly what he meant and your trying to spin it.
No, I wasn't. The only law that rules this land is US law. Leave (my preferenc), call your congressman, or vote to change your representation. Or file a lawsuit and take it to the Supreme Court and see if it is upheld constitutionally. As it stands now, the US constitution does not apply to non-citizens, and rightly so.
Wow, the "real America" is a really scary place if there are enough people who think like some of the folks in this forum. Funny how a piece of paper saying you're an American can mean the difference between being afforded rights that should be self evident or spending the rest of your days in jail and never knowing why.
Exactly, but he never defined the reasons that would subject someone to arrest as an enemy combattant. The way he wrote it, it sounds as though all that would subject you to arrest as an enemy combattant is being an illegal immigrant from a country on the terrorist watch list.
"If you are here illegally and from a country known to harbor and fund terrorists you are subject to arrest as an enemy combatant"
How else could that be interpreted? Okay, illegals from a hostile nation. Still, my point stands; he advocates indefinite detention and arbitrary arrest.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
My god, it's like teaching a fish to walk............
Pay close attention: If you are here illegally, that is automatically cause for arrest, detainment, and ultimately deportation. No one is being arrested solely because of their country of origin, they are already in custody because of their illegal entry to the US. The country of origin will establish whether or not they wish to investigate someone as a possible "enemy combatant".
Not a single person would spend the rest of his days in jail without never knowing why. That is the most dishonest argument made yet. Indefinite != forever and secret evidence != not informing the accused of the charges against them.
Please, present an honest argument for once. If you want to discuss what would constitute reasonable limits with regard to the duration of the detention of illegals from hostile countries, that would most likely be productive, instead of bleating emotional rhetoric........
Don't worry about Tiger, he's an angry man with obvious issues who is not very articulate with his feelings. Let's just keep up the constructive debate and leave out the flames.
Thank you Corn. I thought I said that. The others in this thread obviously didn't read my post.
Of course country of origin isn't the sole reason for detention nor should it be.
LilBlinbBlahIce and others against the policy still haven't answered my question.
And yes I am angry. I'm angry that any illegal aliens are allowed to roam this country at will.
If the INS, State Dept. and the FBI had been doing their jobs 9/11 and the DC murders never would have happened.
All of the 9/11 terrorists were here on expired student visa's. John Lee Malvo was a stowaway that should have been deported immediately upon entry but was allowed to roam the country unsupervised for a year.
That is 100% your opinion (i.e. NOT FACT), and not backed up by anything that has spewn from Ashcroft's mouth. Indefinite = when the AG feels like releasing them.
seems that some just read the first paragraph of this article
but it goes on to say
just the fact that they are illegal immigrants shows that they are a flight risk, and if they are suspected of being a security risk it would be idiotic to release them on bond. I don't think anyone is saying lock them up and throw away the key ala gitmo, just detaining them until we decide to deport them or clear them for entry
but it goes on to say
just the fact that they are illegal immigrants shows that they are a flight risk, and if they are suspected of being a security risk it would be idiotic to release them on bond. I don't think anyone is saying lock them up and throw away the key ala gitmo, just detaining them until we decide to deport them or clear them for entry
ornery i hope your penis isn't as small as your mind --
were we afraid of white people after oklahoma?
anyway...you're an idiot that's easy to brainwash - and that's all that matters
that's why america is so great - most of you are the same.
were we afraid of white people after oklahoma?
anyway...you're an idiot that's easy to brainwash - and that's all that matters
that's why america is so great - most of you are the same.
I have a solution to the whole problem. If you're in this country illegally and get caught its an automatic death sentence. That should take care of the 20 yr old thumb sucker's grievances along with everyone else's in addition to being one hell of a disincentive to crossing the border without proper papers. Save us all a bunch of time and money too. It definitely wouldn't be a hard case to prove nor should the proceedings be very lengthy. Hmmm, I wonder if we could also revoke citizenship for certain people that have displayed a bent toward lunacy and stupidity and give them a 24 hour head start before the manhunt begins. Sounds like a plan to me!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter