Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Mxsmanic on 10 Aug 2006 04:49 Carole Allen writes: > Are you talking about personal property, real property? Both. If the government suspects that property belongs to someone thought to be dealing drugs, for example, it will assume that the property represents the spoils of drug-dealing and will seize it without any due process. It is then up to the suspect to prove that he is innocent and then petition the government for return of property that was unconstitutionally seized from him, if the government hasn't already sold it to add money to their own coffers. This includes houses, vehicles, and all other forms of property. The procedure is to seize first, and then dare the suspect to try to get it back. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: mrtravel on 10 Aug 2006 05:02 The Reid wrote: > > what would be your guess on % of Americans who travel abroad and > who travel abroad beyond Mexico and Canada (a guess, I'm not > interested in a cites war). Are there a lot of countries US > doesn't need passports? There are few left, but that will soon end as the US Government will require them for re-entry. The percentage of foreign travelers is lower because the US is a large country with great diversity.
From: Dave Frightens Me on 10 Aug 2006 05:28 On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:49:41 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Carole Allen writes: > >> Are you talking about personal property, real property? > >Both. If the government suspects that property belongs to someone >thought to be dealing drugs, for example, it will assume that the >property represents the spoils of drug-dealing and will seize it >without any due process. That is not a civil matter, it's criminal. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: Dave Frightens Me on 10 Aug 2006 05:34 On 9 Aug 2006 18:19:42 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Dave Frightens Me wrote: >> On 8 Aug 2006 19:14:10 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >The Reid wrote: >> >> Following up to Hatunen >> >> >> >> >For >> >> >instancve, the courts have already ruled that American citizens >> >> >do not lose their rights when detained at Guantanamo. >> >> >> >> pity about everybody else. >> > >> >Yeah, I have a hard time sleeping at night thinking about these poor >> >people who seem to have lost some of their rights when all they did was >> >to maim, kill, torture thousands of Afghans, participate in terrorist >> >acts, and other minor infractions. >> >> Perhaps you should read this: >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4708946.stm >> >> "According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the >> Americans themselves. > >Yes. Most were captured by Afghans. > >> Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a >> widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in >> exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban. > >Good idea. Offering bounties for suspects is a good idea??? >> The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans >> handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can >> receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch >> al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers. >> >> "This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your >> tribe for the rest of your life." >> >> So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as >> though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were >> handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct >> result of these bounties. " >> >> Not quite the same picture? > >???? Exactly the same picture. People with links to Al Qaeda and the >Taliban absolutely are covered by my statement above regarding >terrorists and murderers. Utter rubbish. These people are no more likely to have links with Al Qaeda and the Taliban than anyone else. They were just rounded up so the USA could have some spoils. They are being deprived due process only because many of them would be found to have done nothing. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: Dave Frightens Me on 10 Aug 2006 05:35
On 9 Aug 2006 17:36:28 -0700, "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >The Reid wrote: >> Following up to Mxsmanic >> >> >> Yeah, I have a hard time sleeping at night thinking about these poor >> >> people who seem to have lost some of their rights when all they did was >> >> to maim, kill, torture thousands of Afghans, participate in terrorist >> >> acts, and other minor infractions. >> > >> >The people being held did not generally do any of these >> >things--although it's true that the definition of "terrorist acts" has >> >become very broad. >> >> For Tchiowa its enough that they are accused or suspected, why >> would you need a trial? > >As it always is with prisoners of war. The fact that they were captured >on a battleground is all that it takes. There is nothing to suggest they were all captured on the battleground. You are just taking the official word for it. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |