If we keep the repugnants in power, of course it can happen to us here in the US.

Have you heard the saying, "You can't get there from here, you have to go someplace else first?"
Dude, you can't get there from here. You have to go someplace else first.
We don't arrest Americans like that.
There are many stories of "good" Muslim photographers and journalist assistants who were really working for the terrorists.
And this was a suspicious guy. And "our" reporters are often deceived.
Please, read abouit Islam, and its instructions on the acceptable use of deceit by Muslims.
Read the Koran.
Know thy enemy.
And, before you start typing away, I know you think George Bush is the enemy. You think you know him well.
So, please, give just one example of this treatment happening to an American.
Just one.

gimpel, this is a man and an administration that cares nothing about the rights of the individual. Treading on the constitution means no more to them than taking a drink of water.

They pretty much think they have a blank check to do anything they want to. With the rubber stamp house and senate they have, that is pretty much how it has been.

On December 16, 2005, New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau broke a front-page story, "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts," that won them a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting—and an investigation by the Justice Department for possible unlawful releasing of classified information that may ultimately include charges of violating the 1917 Espionage Act. (The president had urged the Times not to publish the story, and condemned its appearance.)

Now, in a 43-page decision in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Anna Diggs Taylor, an alumna of the civil rights movement and the first black judge to sit on that Michigan federal court, has greatly intensified the fierce national debate—in and out of Congress—caused by the Times' adherence to James Madison's message to insure the future of the Constitution: "The censorial power is in the people over the Government—and not in the Government over the people."

The Justice Department had instructed Judge Taylor to not even hear the case on whether the president had allowed the National Security Agency to spy on Americans as well as suspected terrorists overseas—without first going to the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 to exercise judicial oversight over this kind of operation. "State secrets are involved," Judge Taylor was told. The case must be dismissed.

But since the administration's repeated defenses of this spying program—following the New York Times story and the subsequent disclosures by other reporters—have undercut the "state secrets" argument, Judge Taylor went ahead. She concluded that the president had violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the separation of powers, and the Fourth Amendment privacy protections of Americans.

Not only did the president violate a statute but he also, the judge added, "blatantly disregarded the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights" (very much including the Fourth Amendment).

As for the constant claim by the president, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales that, as commander in chief, George W. Bush has the "inherent constitutional power" to conduct the war on terrorism unilaterally when necessary, Judge Taylor said—and I hope future schoolbooks will include this definition of Americanism: "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent' powers must derive from that Constitution."

What makes this regeneration of the powers of Constitution all the more important, even if her ruling is overruled by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on its inevitable way to the Supreme Court, is that Judge Taylor represents the awakening, at last, of more of the judiciary to its crucial responsibility to respect—and act—on the separation of powers.

In June, the Supreme Court itself unambiguously told the president he had acted outside the law in establishing the sham military commissions at Guantánamo—and has violated the Geneva Conventions and our own 1996 War Crimes Act in our abusive and, I would add, sometimes fatal, treatment of suspected terrorist prisoners wherever we hold them.

Then, this year, when the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit against AT&T for handing over to the omnivorous, Bush-protected National Security Agency "secret direct access to phone calls and e-mail detailing the activities of millions of ordinary Americans," the federal district judge in that case—Vaughn Walker in San Francisco—was also warned by the Justice Department to dismiss the case without hearing it because of "state secrets."

While the unintimidated Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit has had her ruling questioned because she was appointed by a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, Judge Vaughn Walker was put on the bench by George W. Bush's father, and is regarded as a conservative by the legal community in California.

As the California First Amendment Coalition reported, the Justice Department had even sent Judge Walker in San Francisco "super-classified documents . . . transported under armed guard to California" to persuade him to dismiss the case summarily. The judge read them, and like Judge Taylor in Detroit, refused to be intimidated, and the case proceeded.

The furor created by Judge Taylor's confronting the president with the Constitution he swore to uphold has quickened the Justice Department's eagerness to get Congress to pass a bill by Republican senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, before the midterm elections in case Republican control of the Senate winds up in jeopardy.

Attorney General Gonzales believes Specter's legislation "would address some of the concerns raised by the judge in her opinion."

Gimpel wrote: "We don't arrest Americans like that." ... "So, please, give just one example of this treatment happening to an American."

What about José Padilla, Mr. Gimpel? He was held without charges as an enemy combatant for three years. American citizens are not immune from being labeled "enemy combatants" at the government's discretion. Under the new law just cased by Congress, they are entitled to certain legal proceedings that non-citizens are not entitled to, but if they lose there is no appeal. There is nothing to prevent the President from designating an American citizen an "enemy combatant". They would be entited to see non-classified evidence being used against them but not classified evidence (the classification status of the evidence again being at the government's discretion).

Anyone concerned about our most basic civil liberties should be concerned about the loss our right to the writ of habeas corpus whose roots go back to the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D. (C.E.) and which has been codified in English law for over 400 years and in American law since the founding of the republic. This most basic protection is now out the window in the brave new world of George W. Bush so-call War on Terror.

Congress in its lust for re-election passed a clearly unconstitutional law that will not stand up to legal scrutiny, but for now it is the law of the land, and George W. Bush has all the powers of a King before the Magna Carta limited their power. I understand there are also provisions that King George W. Bush can order the assissination of an American citizen inside this country under his powers as the supreme Unitary Executive during "wartime".

When the writ of habeas corpus was briefly suspended during the Civil War and during other insurrections it was always time limited. This suspension is not time limited just as Bush's War on Terror has no time limits whatsoever or guidelines as to when this "war" is over.

There you go weekapaug05!!!!!!!!!!

I had told IMDSTUF that under this administration it COULD happen. Then when gimpel asked the question I went on to talk about the way KING GEORGE handles the constitution and treads on civil liberties to back up my statement that it COULD happen.

I didn't even think about Jose Padilla. So there's your answer that you were so concerned with.

The republican party has always stood for STATE RIGHTS, SUPPOSEDLY INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS, AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY....
Under Dubya all of that has gone right out the window.

FrozenOne, the point is the question WAS answered. Once again gimpel was proven wrong. Whether I do it or someone else does matters not the tiniest bit to me.

I was showing how BUSH was trampling all over the constitution.
And actually that was the point IMDSTUF was trying to make in the first place.

AND that was the point I was trying to make that if this crooked bunch stays in power, there is no telling what civil liberties they may attack next.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure there little party is about to be broken up. LOL

By the way FrozenOne I will admit to only having one brain where you on the other hand have 2.

Of course 1 of yours is lost and the other one is out looking for it.

Another thing while I am thinking about it FrozenOne, be sure to watch Joe Scarboro on MSNBC tomorrow night. The former REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN from Florida is going to have a segment about all of the "IN THE CLOSET GAY REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN" I'm sure that should be especially interesting viewing for you.. WINK WINK