RE: [H] US not a nice place to travel through
Hayes, Declarations of war in the 21st century are meaningless and will probably never be used again. Likely true. We are at war. The SCOTUS ruled we are not (at least in regards to the POTUS being able to unilaterally declare anyone he wishes an 'enemy combatant'). It may seem like semantics, but these technicalities are important when matters of the balance of powers are involved. Vince
Re: [H] US not a nice place to travel through
Pretty scary stuff. The one thing that strikes me though: If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason says that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from a legal point of view. Foreign citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Thane Sherrington wrote: http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot_flyrights_20050811 This is scary. Mason (a senior lawyer for the US government) said the interpretation means travellers can be detained without charge, denied the right to consult a lawyer, and even refused necessities such as food and sleep. Is this for real? Sounds sort of insane to me. I guess it's now Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...unless they're just passing through...then tell 'em to watch out! grin T
Re: [H] US not a nice place to travel through
we hold these truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal unless you're just passing through? On 8/11/05, Ben Ruset [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pretty scary stuff. The one thing that strikes me though: If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason says that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from a legal point of view. Foreign citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Thane Sherrington wrote: http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot_flyrights_20050811 This is scary. Mason (a senior lawyer for the US government) said the interpretation means travellers can be detained without charge, denied the right to consult a lawyer, and even refused necessities such as food and sleep. Is this for real? Sounds sort of insane to me. I guess it's now Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...unless they're just passing through...then tell 'em to watch out! grin T -- -jmg Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit. Henry Brooks Adams [1838-1918]
Re: [H] US not a nice place to travel through
The Declaration of Independance is not the constitution. Plus a majority of the drafters of the Consitution owned slaves. j m g wrote: we hold these truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal unless you're just passing through? On 8/11/05, Ben Ruset [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pretty scary stuff. The one thing that strikes me though: If passengers are deemed to be inadmissible, they have no constitutional rights even if later taken to an American prison. Mason says that's because they are deemed to be still outside the U.S., from a legal point of view. Foreign citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Thane Sherrington wrote: http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot_flyrights_20050811 This is scary. Mason (a senior lawyer for the US government) said the interpretation means travellers can be detained without charge, denied the right to consult a lawyer, and even refused necessities such as food and sleep. Is this for real? Sounds sort of insane to me. I guess it's now Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...unless they're just passing through...then tell 'em to watch out! grin T
RE: [H] US not a nice place to travel through
Hayes, This has technically always been the case since WWII when the POTUS was allowed to designate an individual as an enemy combatant. At that time, the SCOTUS ruled that he could have that power only because the Congress had enacted a 'Declaration of War'. Last year, the SCOTUS ruled that minus a Declaration of the War', the POTUS does not have such power unilaterally, that a hearing had to be held to determine whether a person was an 'enemy combatant', then the administration could proceed from there. So far, no hearings have been held, and only sham hearings are scheduled. Vince
Re: [H] US not a nice place to travel through
At 01:47 PM 11/08/2005, Ben Ruset wrote: THOUSANDS of people fly through the US every day. I think we'd hear a lot more about this if it was a common thing. No kidding, that's why it seems strange to me. Secondly, what hasn't the Canadian government said anything about it? Cause they just allowed us to strip search any American tourists we want to in retaliation. :) T
RE: [H] US not a nice place to travel through
Declarations of war in the 21st century are meaningless and will probably never be used again. We are at war. It's not against any government, it is against jihadist piglets worldwide who want to kill the shit out of us (and have done so quite successfully so far). From: Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] US not a nice place to travel through Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 12:51:31 -0500 Hayes, This has technically always been the case since WWII when the POTUS was allowed to designate an individual as an enemy combatant. At that time, the SCOTUS ruled that he could have that power only because the Congress had enacted a 'Declaration of War'. Last year, the SCOTUS ruled that minus a Declaration of the War', the POTUS does not have such power unilaterally, that a hearing had to be held to determine whether a person was an 'enemy combatant', then the administration could proceed from there. So far, no hearings have been held, and only sham hearings are scheduled. Vince
