Posted on 06/16/2002 5:32:24 AM PDT by magnum opus dejure
Well, it's been 4 years since I first found Free Republic. I have always felt like I belonged here and have really enjoyed the banter back and forth between us members. I am afraid all this is now over. I am really suprised and shocked at it's suddenness. Before I leave I want to thank a freeper from Michigan who sent me a DVD player last year to give to my kids for Christmas. You reaffirmed my faith in humanity.
I know this thread will be deleted before many people get to read it, but I just can't go without saying a final word. Every since 911 the 'vibe' here at FR has been decidedly hostile. I guess it was a matter of time before the newbie moderator got around to weeding me out for my sometimes unpopular views. So I join the ranks of A+Bert and so many others who gave FR a interesting flavor. I will miss coming here 20 times a day and keeping up on things. But without posting priviledges there is just no point. I must go find another conservative group to try to be a part of.
In the future, when a freeper who has been a loyal member since August 1998 crosses the line, how about a note instead of banning? Would that have been too much? I may have gotten out of line, how is beyond me, but if such a tresspass would have been pointed out I would gladly have refrained from doing so again. It is just not right to just ban an account with no explaination. Especially when the freeper has been here 4 years. I have no idea what I am going to do with my days now that I no longer have FR. Well, I guess I have said my part. It is a sad day when one has to leave family and friends. I feel like some of you were just that. But apparently I am no longer wanted around here. I bid my good day to you all and hope that karma pays it's respects to those who do injustice.
Dog, we do NOT give Enemy Combatants a "notice of charges". If a German-American joined the Sixth Panzer Army against the Americans in the Battle of the Bulge, he would NOT have received a "Notice of Charges", even if he was just a grunt on the front line. He was an ENEMY COMBATANT. We shoot them.
And yet the traitorous Rosenbergs received more than just a "notice of charges", they received a Legal Trial... and they did far more damage to the USA than some front-line German grunt.
The Rosenbergs were considered *Traitors*. The German grunt was considered an *Enemy Combatant*.
Different protocols.
What's the Protocol here? Does anyone know?
They either wrote it themselves and had it waiting for just such an occassion, or somebody else did. Who?
Sadly, I do NOT read any conspiracy into this. FEMA has had "contingency plans" lying around to dismantle the Bill of Rights for decades; 9/11 just provided a pretext to actually do so. Nothing more "sinister" than that, IMHO.
What I am saying is, I am all for shooting Traitors, and I am all for shooting Enemy Combatants...
...but one Legal Class gets a Trial, and one doesn't get a Trial.
How are we distinguishing the Question? ARE we distinguishing the Question?
I am not Ex-Military, so I don't know. Does anyone know?
Only the Government should have Guns, because you can Trust the Government.
There is no evidence that this person was an enemy combattant. The fact that he went to Pakistan is not an indication of his guilt. He was not caught with any nuclear material and Wolfowitz admitted publically that they had no idea who his "associates" were in the same sentence where he claims he "clearly has associates."
I have associates as well and anyone can make up BS about who I'm associating with as evidenced by some posters on this thread. Unless the government has something more to offer, I am inclined to disbelieve their claims about his intentions.
We are speaking about an American citizen. Not some fellow who came into the country on a student visa.
It says right there on our FRN's that we should trust the Government: "In God we Trust."
Now that the government is the suitable replacement for God, I suppose I should start praying to Bush...
He started this thread. It was one of those exit speeches. I just flagged you because JR had done so regarding this topic. I apologize if I misconstrued the post.
If we are at war, and if Padilla really did give aid and comfort to the enemy, then the Constitution is extremely clear. He cannot be convicted for Treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses or an admission in open court. And he must be brought to trial upon charges of Treason for this to apply. The Constitution does not provide for any "military tribunals" in the case of Treason.
You are correct, in that the combattants are shot first. However, the government already conceded that he wasn't a combattant when they failed to shoot him upon his re-entrance into the U.S. Obviously they didn't even consider him threat enough to shoot, their hysterical claims to the contrary notwithstanding by virtue of their actions.
I think our government is more trustworthy than you and Jose Padilla.
Hi, there.
It was a great ride while it lasted.
However, the recent endorsement of global warming prattle by the current administration, along with the blind endorsement of the Republican Party by The Free Republic, especially its de facto leader, the President of the United States, is the last straw.
I was going to do this when all the censorship started and when so many courageous and thought provoking posters were either driven away by it or themselves restricted from posting. But, the reversal of global warming policy for political gain on the part of the national administration is the "nail-in-the-coffin" for any hopes of anti-statist reforms for which the G.O.P. at one time presented a slight glimmer of hope.
So, with undue fanfare, I respectfully request that all scape32 files and registration information be deleted from the Free Republic's servers. I, consequently, will be de-bookmarking the site on my browser.
In fact, I would treasure a banning of scape32 from the page, as I would wear that with a badge of honor. There's just too many other great places to spend my time surfing for truth.
I trust that this can be accomplished with little effort.
scape32, 06/03/02
PS: I knew we were in trouble when Gingrich couldn't keep the government closed until their fingernails bled.
......... Of course, there's been no action taken. Does anyone have any pull with the censors to get me taken down and have all record of my postings removed?
Or do I have to mention George Bush is a statist and I don't like removing my shoes before boarding a plane?
Agree. The only refinement I would make would to make the deletion automatic if this warning email bounced twice.
Government has no business getting involved in real estate, the private sector, or financial institutions. My Constitution says that the government has limited power.
Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution.
We are nothing but cash cows for the government to feed off of anymore. It's time to change the oil in Washington.
Remember when we were all alarmed at secret search warrants, asset forfeiture, cokeheads in the white house and other legitimate issues? As I recall, you were one of my most vocal critics regarding asset forfeiture - and your comments caused me to re-examine my positions and modify them. Back then the discourse here involved honest debate, even if it did sometimes get heated. We did just fine without the moderators and everyone learned from everyone else. (for the most part)
Seems that now, if someone criticizes Bush at all they are slapped down regardless of whether their point is legit or not. There is an immediate attempt, via flame posts, to disrupt the thread. LEGITIMATE criticisms should never be stiffled with the "we are at war" mantra.
I've got no problem supporting the war - as long as we respect the rights of all citizens. For the record, registering foreign students is NOT unconstitutional - if they don't want to be registered let them get an education elsewhere. Allowing our borders with Mexico to remain open is just plain stupid when "we are at war." So, am I allowed to criticize Bush for his Mexico policy or do I automatically get flamed and banned, just because "we are at war." Blind obediance due to a state of war led to all sorts of abhorrent practices on the part of the US government during WWII.
I WOULD NOT support another round of internment camps or other unconstitutional activities just because we are at war - would you? If you've got a problem with that than you need to re-examine your values and party desgination.
__
All I want is for people who may be innocent, to be given the chance to argue their case. We've seen that the government can act without just cause, as it did many times during the Clinton administration.____________The legal premise of Habeas Corpus at least allows an American citizen to defend himself because a charge is defined and leveled against them. The present circumstances has Padilla confined, indefinitely, with no charge and chance to refute the claims the government has made. This is bad precedent, Jim. This allows President Hillary to do this to us.
The Friday Wall Street Journal made three recommendations that would be satisfactory. It would establish procedures that would protect our rights, while still allowing action against traitorous Americans when top secret considerations might prevent a standard civil criminal trial. I'll see if I can find the post.
I need to live in a country where if you are innocent, you can defend yourself against an untrue charge levied against you by the government.
784 posted on 6/16/02 11:31 PM Eastern by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Lazamataz
Yeah, right.
789 posted on 6/16/02 11:33 PM Eastern by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Jim, I expect this sort of uneducated, sophmoric reply from Roscoe and his cronies at the RNC. I rarely post anymore because there is just no educating those morons and I have better things to do with my time that argue with a two-year old that relies on tangents and personal attacks when they are wrong.
From you, however, such a reply is unprecedented. 99% of your posts are lucid, well-thought replies that state your position and refute with logic, positions contrary to your beliefs. I again come back to your discussions with me regarding asset forfeiture.
What gives? Laz has a very legitimate point and is not trashing Bush, merely asking that this government respect the rules laid out for it over 200 years ago.
Have you changed your position on secret search warrants, asset forfeiture, the Constitution in general and coke-heads in the white house? (You know what I'm talking about.)
I miss the old Jim and the old FR. Some time soon I'd like to buy you an adult beverage or two and talk about old times and how the hell we got to this point....Regards.
Could be. I doubt we have time to investigate that during an attack.
Then, again, aren't you the same fellow who once said that Arlington National Cemetery is a 'socialist enterprise'?
I know. I was making a joke. He started this thread about HIM,and here we are 1200+ posts later,and may as well have never existed.
So you'll have something to do.
I bet Helen Thomas (whitehouse correspondent un-extroidinare') has Sinatra beat :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.