Homestead mailing list

[bob ford <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>]

I don't remeber all of the sites I visited the night we discussed this, but 
they all had wording which included "alien" ....bobford



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


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, paxamicus AT earthlink.net <paxamicus AT earthlink.net> wrote:

> From: paxamicus AT earthlink.net <paxamicus AT earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Homestead] Stealing an Election-Big Picture
> To: bobford79 AT yahoo.com, homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 8:12 PM
> There were two versions, the one that passed eliminated the
> word  
> "alien" and does
> (or did)  in fact allow for US citizens to be named
> unlawful enemy  
> combatants.
> 
> 
> 
> > "[edit] Scope of the Act
> > Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally
> >
> > (a) Purpose— This chapter establishes procedures
> governing the use  
> > of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy
> combatants  
> > engaged in hostilities against the United States for
> violations of  
> > the law of war and other offenses triable by military
> commission. "
> >
> > ****Note "alien unlawful enemy combatants".
> 'not' "joe the citizen"
> >
> >    &
> >
> > ****SCOTUS has ruled that 'section 7 " of the
> Act is  
> > unconstitutional, though you wouldn't know it by
> going to the ACLU  
> > site.  This is just fund-raising fodder for them -
> ignore their  
> > propaganda. By the way, I still don't know what
> section 7 is, but  
> > evidently that is what was found most objectional by
> the plaintaffs  
> > seeking habaeus corpus.
> >
> > The Constitution does 'not' specifically give
> any rights to foreign  
> > combatants who are fighting against us on foreign
> soil.  It just  
> > does not.  This Act maight be good or bad depending on
> your view of  
> > "human" rights in war.  But it does not
> conflict with the  
> > Constitution. .....bobford
> >
> >
> >