"MnMikew" wrote in message
...


The sky is falling, the sky is falling.....Please chicken little, take it
elsewhere.



A text book case of paranoid schizophrenia? Do you concur Dr.? :)

B.H.

- Sounds OK to me !
Don't like it;
travel somewhere else
Quite simple..


August 10, 2005
U.S. Defends Detentions at Airports
By NINA BERNSTEIN
Foreign citizens who change planes at airports in the United States
can legally be seized, detained without charges, deprived of access to
a lawyer or the courts, and even denied basic necessities like food,
lawyers for the government said in Brooklyn federal court yesterday

AOF - Illegal Aliens have Only One Right [.]
The Right To Be Deported - ASAP ! [.] ~ RHF

FDR wrote:


"David" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/nyregion/10civil.html
"Would not such treatment of a detainee - in any context, criminal,
civil, immigration or otherwise - violate both the Constitution and
clearly established case law?" Judge Trager asked.

The reply by Mary Mason, a senior trial lawyer for the government, was
that it would not. Legally, she said, anyone who presents a foreign
passport at an American airport, even to make a connecting flight to
another country, is seeking admission to the United States. If the
government decides that the passenger is an "inadmissible alien," he
remains legally outside the United States - and outside the reach of
the Constitution - even if he is being held in a Brooklyn jail.

If a flight that goes over American airspace has an inadmissable alien, can
they arrest him while in American airspace too? After all, that is our
territory.

That's where they're heading. Our selected president has decreed that
all planes flying over American airspace have to submit a passenger list
to the feds to be checked against no fly lists. It doesn't matter
whether the plane's destination or departure point was in America. If
it's flying from Vancouver to Quebec, and passes over American airspace,
it has to be preapproved by the feds. If it's flying from Mexico to
Europe, and passes over Florida, ditto. This goes against every law of
aviation there is. Osama must be loving how America is tearing itself
apart to guard against terrorism. That was his goal, indeed that's the
goal of every terrorist. Not bad for the price of 19 box cutters.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I am glad Jackson,Mississippi (where I live) isn't such a high falutin
major city.athough there are a bunch of homelandsecurity folks around
here.I wish I lived in Timbuktu.
cuhulin

I never ranted agains't the Chinese and Japanese wimmins.In fact,I er
hem like them.
cuhulin

The good folks in my neighborhood aren't thinking about blowing up
anything.
cuhulin

There isn't enough jail space to lock up anybody anymore,they are all
full up.I think a good idea is a lot of razor wire camps out in the
desert valley by Art Bell's house trailer is good.
cuhulin

On flights from Vancouver to Victoria, a 17 minute ride,
the plane is in American airspace for about 2 minutes
(almost always)...
begs the question: What can this little plane DO in
2 minutes? :-)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
www.coffeecrew.com Colin Newell's Daily Grind
rnewell AT vcn DOT bc DOT ca
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

The rules to enter the U.S. are crystal clear and are available on the web
in several languages.
Yes David, the U.S. does indeed treat all foreigners attempting to enter the
country as Soviets.

Thank God!

"David" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/nyregion/10civil.html

August 10, 2005
U.S. Defends Detentions at Airports
By NINA BERNSTEIN
Foreign citizens who change planes at airports in the United States
can legally be seized, detained without charges, deprived of access to
a lawyer or the courts, and even denied basic necessities like food,
lawyers for the government said in Brooklyn federal court yesterday.

The assertion came in oral arguments over a federal lawsuit by Maher
Arar, a naturalized Canadian citizen who charges that United States
officials plucked him from Kennedy International Airport when he was
on the way home on Sept. 26, 2002, held him in solitary confinement in
a Brooklyn detention center and then shipped him to his native Syria
to be interrogated under torture because officials suspected that he
was a member of Al Qaeda.

Syrian and Canadian officials have cleared Mr. Arar, 35, of any
terrorist connections, but United States officials maintain that
"clear and unequivocal" but classified evidence shows that he is a
Qaeda member. They are seeking dismissal of his lawsuit, in part
through the rare assertion of a "state secrets" privilege.

The case is the first civil suit to challenge the practice known as
"extraordinary rendition," in which terror suspects have been
transferred for questioning to countries known for torture.

After considering legal briefs, Judge David G. Trager of United States
District Court prepared several written questions for lawyers on both
sides to address further, including one that focused pointedly on Mr.
Arar's accusations of illegal treatment in New York. He says he was
deprived of sleep and food and was coercively interrogated for days at
the airport and at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn when
he was not allowed to call a lawyer, his family or the Canadian
consul.

"Would not such treatment of a detainee - in any context, criminal,
civil, immigration or otherwise - violate both the Constitution and
clearly established case law?" Judge Trager asked.

The reply by Mary Mason, a senior trial lawyer for the government, was
that it would not. Legally, she said, anyone who presents a foreign
passport at an American airport, even to make a connecting flight to
another country, is seeking admission to the United States. If the
government decides that the passenger is an "inadmissible alien," he
remains legally outside the United States - and outside the reach of
the Constitution - even if he is being held in a Brooklyn jail.

Even if they are wrongly or illegally designated inadmissible, the
government's papers say, such aliens have at most a right against
"gross physical abuse."

Under immigration law, Ms. Mason asserted, Mr. Arar was afforded
"ample" due process when he was given five days to challenge an order
finding him inadmissible.

"The burden of proof is on the alien to demonstrate his
admissibility," Ms. Mason said, "and he did not do that."

"Do you do this to all people on a connecting flight?" Judge Trager
asked, raising his eyebrows.

"Yes, all have to show admissibility," Ms. Mason replied. In some
ways, she asserted, Mr. Arar had more rights than a United States
citizen, because he could have challenged his deportation to Syria,
which he had left as a teenager, under the Convention Against Torture.
He also had 30 days to challenge his removal, she said.

But David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University who argued on
behalf of Mr. Arar and the Center for Constitutional Rights, contended
that the government had denied Mr. Arar a meaningful chance to be
heard, first by refusing to let him call a lawyer, and later by lying
to the lawyer about his whereabouts.

Mr. Arar, who had been told he would be deported to Canada, was not
handed a final order sending him to Syria until he was in handcuffs on
the private jet that took him away, Mr. Cole said, while his lawyer
was told he had been sent to a jail in New Jersey.

"We can't take a citizen, pick him up at J.F.K. and send him to Syria
to be tortured," he said. "We can't hold against Mr. Arar the failure
to file a motion for review when he's locked up in a gravelike cell in
Syria."

Dennis Barghaan, who represents former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
one of the federal officials being sued for damages in the case,
argued that Congress and recent judicial decisions tell federal courts
"keep your nose out" of foreign affairs and national security
questions, like those in this case.

At several points the judge seemed to echo such concerns. He said he
had refused to read a letter from the plaintiffs detailing testimony
before a Canadian board of inquiry into Mr. Arar's case because he did
not know how to deal with questions that might require the government
to confirm or deny classified information.

"How am I going to handle that?" he asked, rubbing his forehead and
furrowing his brow before adjourning the hearing.