RadioBanter - We are acting like Soviets in the '60s

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)

- - We are acting like Soviets in the '60s (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/76235-we-acting-like-soviets-60s.html)

We are acting like Soviets in the '60s

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.

Part of that article says Syria and Canada cleared him.What if it turns
out he is a terrorist? Do you think I would not be supprised that Syria
AND Canada cleared him?
cuhulin

In case you haven't heard yet,U.S.A.and our Allies are at War agains't
the terrorist and terrorism.In such situations,the "rules" change.
cuhulin

"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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

{other bs snipped}

who in the hell cares???? why do you post this BS on a
radio newsgroup??????

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."

"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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That says it all. Boy Im crying real tears after reading this.

J

With the gun related crimes data base showing that the source of guns used
in crimes in Canada coming from the US, perhaps anyone trying to smuggle a
gun in their motorhome on a trip through Canada to Alaska should be
identified immediately as a terrorist and flown involuntarily to a Cuban
jail, with info to his government provided to him after he's gone. Of
course, this would not happen in a democracy with checks and balances and a
constitution would it?

The Arar story can be heard on radio as it unfolds if you wish to listen.

nospam wrote:

"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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

{other bs snipped}

who in the hell cares???? why do you post this BS on a
radio newsgroup??????

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."

"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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That says it all. Boy Im crying real tears after reading this.

J

War taking toll on Miss. www.clarionledger.com We are fighting the
terrorist and terrorism.y'all mealy mouth Cowards,just get out of the
way! www.devilfinder.com World War Two
cuhulin

David wrote:
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.

why should foreigneer have more rights in the US than Americans?

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.

how is this like the Soviets

We are at least holding hearings on the subject

DaviD - So in 'your' Mind the US Government is out
to Destroy the USA - Wow ! What A Mind ? ? ?

"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.

"David" wrote
Bull****. This is all contrived by sinister forces in government who
want to destroy the USA.

Are you admitting to being a spy Dr. David?

Ah, but David, you failed to mention WHO was behind "the forces" in Germany
who told Hitler to "ignore the Soviet Communist threats in the east" and
attack the terrorists (Jews) instead.

Come on David - You can do it!

"David" wrote in message
...
On 12 Aug 2005 10:20:21 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

DaviD - So in 'your' Mind the US Government is out
to Destroy the USA - Wow ! What A Mind ? ? ?
.
DaviD - 'you' are such a good little Political Cadre
of the Democrat Party of the USA. {How Soviet of You}
.
DaviD - Keep On Keeping On . . .
Tote that Daily Gloom and Doom Message Dude ~ RHF.
. . . . .

The Democratics are just as bad as the Neorepublicans. I like the
old-timey Republicans (but they are a rapidly vanishing species).

''When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was
barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered
well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They
commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace
that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic
crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign
ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but
the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The
intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would
eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue
elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most
recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels,
in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to
be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the
majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted.
He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw
things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to
understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and
internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his
political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and
often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats,
foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and
media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an
occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved
skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he
didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his
response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most
prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who
had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he
proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded
by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with
emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God,"
he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its
ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to
the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their
religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built
in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous
terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was
everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window
display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular
leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating
terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that
suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and
habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones;
suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and
without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's
homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State"
passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil
libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the
national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then,
the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the
police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say
they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal
police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious
persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the
first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected
were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to
offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity
ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were
many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered
police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones
safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the
meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking,
learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He
became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion
of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common
usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so,
instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to
it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction
to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda
movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with
pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our
land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply
foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones
worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human
rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better,
it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with
the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any
international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best
interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus
withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and
then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden
of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people
that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were
rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of
the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New
Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt
buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of
them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined
that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation
were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated
administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the
nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern
ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and
various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a
single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland,
consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police,
border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this
new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it
a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist
attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices
questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising
questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's
recollection as his central security office began advertising a
program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious
neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of
the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations.
Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities
who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he
now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't
enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing
former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high
government positions. A flood of government money poured into
corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry
terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars
overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire
media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation,
particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle
Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one
corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the
first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more
would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices
of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had
started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose
Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his
bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people
away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government,
questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the
oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held
in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he
began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small,
limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the
suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with
the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building
was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if
they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He
called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the
leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He
claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations
across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it
was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide
empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying
with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of
the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military
action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous
British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike
doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria
in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so
often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and
replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German
corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said,
"Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with
brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying.
I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my
people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there
met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as
tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of
his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press
began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and
the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure
that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in
splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they
said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one
commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his
advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that
critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those
questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and
it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing
in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in
uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and
pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the
"intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was
successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of
opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release
of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells
wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A
full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing
rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence
against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony
capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate
sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation
was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the
name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first
experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones
worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus
van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament
(Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to
legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his
successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no
German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader
in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later
Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland,
known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply
by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly
violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while
generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly
desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to
the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National
Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of
government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close
alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using
war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of
government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right,
typically through the merging of state and business leadership,
together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to
remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the
United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt
chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and
prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and
reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the
commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and
create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding
war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class,
enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations,
increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals,
created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort
through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts,
and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is
again ours.''

Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the
author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The
Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom
Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog,
or web media so long as this credit is attached.

###

"FDR" wrote

How many right are you willing to give up to be free? Answer honestly.

It depends on how much freedom I gain from my rights.

"uncle arnie" wrote
With the gun related crimes data base showing that the source of guns used
in crimes in Canada coming from the US, perhaps anyone trying to smuggle a
gun in their motorhome on a trip through Canada to Alaska should be
identified immediately as a terrorist and flown involuntarily to a Cuban
jail, with info to his government provided to him after he's gone. Of
course, this would not happen in a democracy with checks and balances and
a
constitution would it?

Yes it would. Smuggling a gun is a serious crime and a stupid one.

Says who? Maybe your front lawn is free space to **** on?

"David" wrote
An airport should be a ''free space'' unless
the person is being pursued.

"SeeingEyeDog" wrote in message
...

"FDR" wrote

How many right are you willing to give up to be free? Answer honestly.

It depends on how much freedom I gain from my rights.

What freedom are you gaining?

"SeeingEyeDog" wrote in message
...
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.

Actually, we treat the soviets better.

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.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 05:36:27 -0500, "SeeingEyeDog"
wrote:

"FDR" wrote

How many right are you willing to give up to be free? Answer honestly.

It depends on how much freedom I gain from my rights.

You don not have the right to restrict mine.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 05:27:43 -0500, "SeeingEyeDog"
wrote:

"David" wrote
Bull****. This is all contrived by sinister forces in government who
want to destroy the USA.

Are you admitting to being a spy Dr. David?

Yes. I am a ****ing spy.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 05:34:31 -0500, "SeeingEyeDog"
wrote:

Ah, but David, you failed to mention WHO was behind "the forces" in Germany
who told Hitler to "ignore the Soviet Communist threats in the east" and
attack the terrorists (Jews) instead.

Come on David - You can do it!

Prescott Bush?

David wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 05:27:43 -0500, "SeeingEyeDog"
wrote:

"David" wrote
Bull****. This is all contrived by sinister forces in government who
want to destroy the USA.

Are you admitting to being a spy Dr. David?

Yes. I am a ****ing spy.

You're also a f***ing 'tard boy!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

What's the matter Dr. David? Propaganda bureau chief got your tongue. Tsk
tsk.

"David" wrote

Come on David - You can do it!

Prescott Bush?

Communist Canad'uh Deports Immigrant To Her Death

Falun Gong practitioner Ms. Xiaoping Hu was deported to China on August 5,
despite protests from thousands of Canadians, NGOs and Members of
Parliament.

"Our government has not lived up to its responsibility. .Anyone who faces a
risk of human rights abuses in China should be protected from that fate, not
cavalierly sent back to harm.", wrote Mr. Alex Neve, secretary general of
Amnesty International of Canada, in his statement regarding the deportation.

Falun Gong supporters gathered in front of the offices of the Minister of
Public Safety Anne McLellan and Minister of Immigration Joe Volpe on August
9 to express their despair and indignation over what they consider a "tragic
deportation of their fellow practitioner," according to a Falun Dafa
Association of Canada (FDAC) press statement. They were also dismayed that
it took the government three days to make their decision known.

There is strong concern that Ms. Hu may suffer a similar fate to Canadian
art professor Kunlun Zhang. Despite being a Canadian citizen, Mr. Zhang's
adherence to Falun Gong resulted in Chinese authorities sentencing him to
three years in a forced labour camp while he was visiting China in 2000. He
was rescued back to Canada in 2001, but not before being severely tortured
with an electric baton. He was also forced to denounce his beliefs, and then
to thank his torturers on camera, leaving him with a feeling "worse than
death."

There are other strong precedents for fearing for Ms. Hu's safety. In a
similar case last March, Mr. Jiang Renzheng and his family were sent back to
China from Germany because the German refugee board did not consider them to
be at risk. One month after arriving in China, Mr. Jiang was taken from his
in-laws' home and sentenced to three years of forced labour, leaving his
wife and two young children behind.

"We are at a sad loss to comprehend our government's actions today", said
Xun Li, president of the FDAC, "We ask our Canadian government to take
responsibility for monitoring and ensuring Ms. Hu's safety in China."

Prior to her arrival in Canada, Ms. Hu had already been detained in a
brainwashing centre in China, and like Mr. Zhang, was forced into renouncing
her beliefs. It is clear that she is already well known to Chinese
authorities. Also, like Mr. Zhang, she joined more than 200,000 people who
have written in to the Clearwisdom.net website to rescind such "conversions"
extracted under pressure.

"The determination by the Martin government that a Falun Gong practitioner
returned to China is not at risk is precisely analogous to a statement in
1938 that a Jew sent back to Nazi Germany would not be at risk," said
Attorney Clive Ansley, a Vancouver Island-based expert on Chinese legal
issues.

For Ms. Hu there is another factor that makes her return to China dangerous.
While in Canada, she publicly declared her withdrawal from the Chinese
Communist Party. According to Hao Fengjun, the former officer of the
Gestapo-like "610 Office" who defected to Australia in June, the CCP is
tracking down and persecuting anyone who openly quits the party.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-8-9/31114.html

--- Communist Canad'uh does not have an extradition agreement with Communist
China ---

"uncle arnie" wrote in message
...
nospam wrote:

"uncle arnie" wrote in message
...
With the gun related crimes data base showing that the source of guns
used in crimes in Canada coming from the US, perhaps anyone trying to
smuggle a gun in their motorhome on a trip through Canada to Alaska
should be identified immediately as a terrorist and flown involuntarily
to a Cuban
jail, with info to his government provided to him after he's gone. Of
course, this would not happen in a democracy with checks and balances
and
a constitution would it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

why dont you compare apples to apples? If you're an American
and get caught smuggling guns into Canada you "will" be in a world of
hurt. How Cuba comes into your mind is beyond me. In the original
post the person's home of record was Syria. So send him back. What's
it going to take for you bleeding hearts to quit worrying about
"foreigners"
rights? Maybe a couple hundred pounds of a major toxin in a major
citys water supply, or maybe a dirty nuke in a major city???

He is and was a Canadian citizen. His 'home of record' was in Canada.
Canada treats all citizens equally, whether born here or naturalized. I
thought America did too. Cuba is a reasonable comparison for Americans,
or
you can suggest another if you like, Chile under Pinochet would have been
good.

The world of hurt for an American bringing a gun to Canada is a $3-400
fine
at present at max, with an opportunity to mail it home in many cases and
no
consequence unless he's got a carload.

What's this about toxins in water supplies and dirty nukes? Why don't you
compare apples to apples?

Technically yes, absolutely! But countries and airlines have agreements
regarding overflights in other countries.

I am sure the passenger list MUST be provided to the U.S. authorities for
all passengers onboard ANY international flight that
traverses U.S. airspace even if said flight does not land on U.S. territory
while enroute.

"FDR" wrote

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.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:12:34 -0500, "SeeingEyeDog"
wrote:

What's the matter Dr. David? Propaganda bureau chief got your tongue. Tsk
tsk.

"David" wrote

Come on David - You can do it!

Prescott Bush?

You are psychotic.

DaviD " The Democratics are just as bad as the Neorepublicans. "

The dude (rickets) is priceless,I tell ya,he is priceless.Just like
talking to the tire on my 1948 Willys Jeep that keeps going flat.Nothing
but air in there and not much of it at that.
cuhulin

Ms.Xiaoping would probally/likely get the crap beat out of here before
she got deported if from here in Jackson,Mississippi.(well,most
likely,not really because that would cause such a big stink with the
govts,but y'all get me driff) Over there at the Tysons chicken plant in
Pelahatchie,Mississippi (about twenty miles East of Jackson) it is good
sport for some of those guys over there to sometimes jump them illegal
aliens.The illegal aliens over there know if they go to the law about
it,they will get deported.
cuhulin

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:40:42 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:

It just shows you how easily a nation can crumble when faced with adversity.
How did we ever get through two world wars and a civil war?

We used to believe in "freedom from fear", not in crapping our
pants at the thought of someone with an unregistered peashooter.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:14:32 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:

"SeeingEyeDog" wrote in message
...

"FDR" wrote

How many right are you willing to give up to be free? Answer honestly.

It depends on how much freedom I gain from my rights.

What freedom are you gaining?

I don't know of any freedom I'm gaining, but I sure lost my
freedom to tale a **** when riding the San Francisco BART system.
Every time someone lights a firecracker in Europe, these assholes
immediately leap to lock up the toilets for three months.