Lawmakers claim administration opening door to Gitmo transfer with Illinois prison buy [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
"Searching for Sugar Man" is a stunning documentary about an unsuccessful Detroit singer-songwriter named Sixto Rodriguez, who released two long-forgotten albums in the early 1970s. Almost no one bought his albums, and his label dropped him. Sugar Man's lesson for markets and politicians
The Obama administration plans to buy an Illinois prison that at one point was considered for housing Guantanamo prisoners, in a move Republican lawmakers claimed would open the door for ultimately carrying out that plan.Â
Administration officials, though, denied that they were looking for a new home for Guantanamo inmates. They insisted the decision to buy Thomson Correctional Center, an under-used state prison 150 miles west of Chicago, was a move to alleviate overcrowding and create jobs in the process.Â
"This is about public safety and 50 percent overcrowding in high-security prisons," one Justice Department official said.Â
Officials insisted Guantanamo detainees would not be coming to Illinois.Â
But Virginia Republican Rep. Frank Wolf, among the lawmakers who opposed the federal purchase of the prison, claimed Tuesday that the Obama administration could still carry out its plan -- perhaps by moving prisoners from another federal prison to Thomson, and then using that prison to house Guantanamo detainees.Â
"The president says his goal is to shut down Guantanamo Bay and move the prisoners here," Wolf told Fox News, accusing the administration of circumventing Congress. "This gives him a great opportunity to do it, particularly right after the election."Â
Wolf chairs a key House subcommittee overseeing the sale. He was referring to Obama's pledge immediately after taking office that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp -- a pledge that stands as one of the president's most glaring unfulfilled promises to his base.Â
The move to transfer prisoners stateside, though, was met with a fierce backlash among some lawmakers who worried it would pose a security risk.Â
The Obama administration and Federal Bureau of Prisons is now going ahead with the $ 165 million purchase of the Illinois prison, though strictly as a move to ease overcrowding, they say. The move was first announced by Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and Gov. Pat Quinn.Â
"This historic action will lead to the creation of hundreds of construction jobs and over 1,000 permanent jobs at this federal facility," Durbin said in a statement. "After facing a political standoff in the House of Representatives, I went directly to the President and asked him to take this action."Â
Quinn called it "excellent news."Â
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., warned his committee would oppose the purchase.Â
"The Obama administration has been trying for years to open Thompson prison in order to transfer terrorists from Guantanamo Bay onto U.S. soil," Rogers said in a statement. Â "This back-door move by the Obama Administration to open Thompson and reject the will of Congress and the American people is dangerously irresponsible, and will be met with the full and unfettered opposition of the Appropriations Committee."
Thomson was built in 2001, but budget troubles kept it from fully opening.Â
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Recommend Lawmakers claim administration opening door to Gitmo transfer with Illinois prison buy Topics Question by Sutter Kane: Will John S please factually refute this? PREFACE: I've posted this before several times. This one is for John S "The short answer? No, you are not. In fact, no one is. Allow me to explain. Citizenship is defined, by The United States Supreme Court, as; "Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE on the part of the member and a DUTY OF PROTECTION on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other."- Luria v. U.S, 231 U.S. 9, 22 [EMPHASIS MINE] Notice duty of allegiance in exchange for a duty of protection[1]. We find that without either element, their is no legal relationship, i.e. citizenship. It just so happens the US Supreme Court as well as every single State Supreme Court, have all unanimously ruled that government has no duty to protect. Hundreds, literally hundreds, of cases. No duty to protect= no duty of allegiance owed=no citizens. This raises issue with the matter of the legitimacy of the "State", or rather existence. A "State" is not something geographical, but rather political. Factually, a "State" is a political body, or "Body Politic", consisting of citizens who get together to do, say, XYZ. However, no citizens=no body politic. No body politic=no state. Suffice to say, no state=no "United States", no "Country" or "Nation", rather a HALLUCI-Nation. What you have is roughly 300 million, who are just people. Not "Citizens" living in "States", or other erroneous fictions, just real people in a real world. That isn't to say if you live, for example, in Oregon (the physical/geographical/tangible land mass), that you're living in a delusional figment. There is a factual difference between Oregon and the State of Oregon(the "body politic"). [1] For a few references (and I mean a few, there are hundreds)... 1. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States (1997), pp. 9, 22, 19. 2. Ibid., pp. 14, 25. 3. Gordon Witkin, Monika Guttman, and Tracy Lenzy, “This is 911 . . . Please Hold,†U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1996, p. 30. 4. Ibid., quoting Northeastern University Professor George Kelling and lawyer Catherine Coles. 5. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981), quoting the trial court decision. 6. California Government Code, § 845. 7. Souza v. City of Antioch, 62 California Reporter, 2d 909, 916 (Cal. App. 1997). 8. Mass." Now, as I prefaced, I've posted this before, more than once. In one post, user John S informed me that I was violating the guidelines and that I should stop because I had already been given the "right" answer. But that's not accurate, as I was never given the correct answer. Just an answer. To my shame I resorted to childish tactics and insulted John. It was uncalled for, unprovoked, and unacceptable. I apologize John S. Upon posting it again, I ended with asking John S to provide a factual refutation. He said because I acted like a jerk the last time he had no interest in engaging me in a debate. Now, I admit I did act like a jerk, but this time I won’t. I’m not sure if he was truly offended or if he was simply using a typical lawyer trick. The trick being, that when asked a question instead of answering the person, you tell them you feel that any answer you give them simply would not be adequate or satisfying, so you would rather not answer at all. It’s a great way of avoiding the question, especially if the person asked is slick and/or the person asking is to naïve or lazy to call them on it and instead allow them to weasel their way out of it. John S, you’re free to weasel if you wish, but it certainly won’t help your credibility any. So let me ask again. John S, will you-if you can-provide a factual refutation to my post? Please and thanks. [Part 1] “Your premise is wrong. The statement ‘We find that without either element, their is no legal relationship, i.e. citizenship’ does not appear in Luria.†I never claimed it did. You’re trying to straw man my argument. "There is thus no support for your premise that you cannot be a citizen of a county unless the government of that country has a duty to protect you.†“"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE on the part of the member and a DUTY OF PROTECTION on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other."- Luria v. U.S, 231 U.S. 9, 22 [EMPHASIS MINE] Citizenship is very clearly defined. Can you a cite a case in which that definition has been changed? [Part 2] “In fact, as was correctly answered before, the definition of a citizen of the United States is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.†Ok, if your argument rests on the validity of the United States Constitution, then please answer these questions: 1)Factually, what is the Constitution? 2)Is the Constitution a contract? 3)How many factual elements are in a contract? 4)Are these elements present within the Constitution? What empirical evidence do you rely on to factually connect the US Constitution to anyone? Is citizenship a mutual/consensual agreement, or is a relationship based on compulsion? Since you’re an attorney in California, and I imagine your represent the “State of Californiaâ€, factually what is the State of California? [Part 3] If I were the defendant and you the plaintiff, “representing†the “State of Californiaâ€, if I asked you “Is there evidence of a complaining partyâ€, would you answer Yes or No? and would if Yes, what evidence would you produce? And when you claim to “represent†the “State of California†(if you make such claims), are you referring to the body politic? [Reply 1/3] “ADD: Luria does not, and did not purport to, define citizenship.†“"CITIZENSHIP IS membership in a political society, and implies a DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE on the part of the member and a DUTY OF PROTECTION on the part of the society.†-Luria v. U.S, 231 U.S. 9, 22 [EMPHASIS MINE] Just for clarification, you are maintaining that this in no way is a definition of what citizenship is or entails? This is just an opinion from a group of robed lawyers that has no more merit than my lay opinion? “Your post at least implied that SOME court…†The United States Supreme Court, John. “…had made the statement …†Statement or ruling? Was it just in jest? [Reply 2/3] “Beyond that, the concept of citizenship is based upon what the people of a country accept as citizenship…†Then what do “the people†accept? Is this unilateral or individually? Does it require consent or can it be based on compulsion? Is this ever-changing or is it concrete? Can I reference something to fact check and verify, or is it similar to was what Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., said about words;"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used."? Best answer for Will John S please factually refute this?:
Answer by John S
First, thank you for your apology, I have accepted it despite your use of it for another veiled insult. I did refute this after your prior apology (which was nicer), but the question got deleted, probably because you keep posting the same question. My complaint was not that you had gotten the right answer, but that you posted the same question repeatedly, which is a violation of Y!A gjuidelines. Anyway, here is your answer. Your premise is wrong. The statement "We find that without either element, their is no legal relationship, i.e. citizenship," does not appear in Luria. (The misspelling of the word which should be "there" should be a clue.) In fact, the phrase, properly spelled, does not appear in any case I can find decided by any court in the United States, ever. In fact, the only place I can find that statement is in your posts! Luria concerned only the validity of a (since superseded) provision that a person applying for naturalization who resides in a foreign country for five years is deemed not to desire to live permanently in the U.S. It has to do with the requirements for naturalization, not with the hallmarks of citizenship, and the discussion is focused only upon the obligations of the person applying for naturalization (and any statements made beyond that would be dicta, anyway). There is thus no support for your premise that you cannot be a citizen of a county unless the government of that country has a duty to protect you. In fact, as was correctly answered before, the definition of a citizen of the United States is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. (Of course, if you do truly not believe you are a citizen, try committing treason and see if any court anywhere accepts your argument.) ADD: Luria does not, and did not purport to, define citizenship. Your post at least implied that SOME court had made the statement that without a duty of protection, there was no citizenship (e.g., "We hold . . . ). It this was just your own conclusion, the use of "we" is misleading. I did not erect any straw man, I responded to the argument presented. Beyond that, the concept of citizenship is based upon what the people of a country accept as citizenship, and what the other nations of the world will accept as citizenship, in a system of interconnecting legal rights and obligations. If your point is that if you reject all of those factors there is no "Platonic ideal" of citizenship to which one can point, you are right--but the point is entirely meaningless and irrelevant in the real world, and you are just wasting time--your own and mine.
Answer by killuminati
I think we are just property of the state,that's why we need birth certificates and social se curity cards,when the truth is so simple the lie has to be very complex.
Ahmadinejad sur les effets de la propagande...de nos dirigeants [FR]Cette playlist intitulée «politic (orient-occident)» à pour intérêt d'apporter une approche objective... Il est essentiel de ne pas tomber dans le piège de « l'émotion ». Il est inutile de se faire une opinion sur une chose que nous appréhendons partiellement. Il est tout aussi inutile de se cristalliser sur une idée. Il faut toujours chercher pour comprendre les mécanismes, et ce objectivement et sereinement. Beaucoup sombrent dans le cliché délirant conspirationniste (prétendues théories complotistes). Le cas particulier ne doit pas établir la règle. Certaines pensées, idées... peuvent semblées de prime à bord néfastes ou au contraire saines. Cela dépend d'où on se place. L'essentiel (si je puis dire) est ce que le sujet en comprend et comment il l'applique... On note souvent que les points de vues sont divergents et ne « s'accordent » pas toujours. Cela entraîne une communication bloquée voir inexistante. C ela vient du fait que certains ne regardent pas la volonté réelle des personnes mais ce qu'elles sont censées représentées... Or, ce qui est intéressant c'est justement cela : la volonté, l'aspiration de ces personnes... Peu importe le « nom » de cet idéal, l'essentiel est naturellement cette volonté... Rare sont ceux capables de dépasser cela...
0 comments:
Post a Comment