Who is Yaser Hamdi?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I despised what happened in NY. I disliked seeing the Taliban on TV acting with their usual defiance before the camera and shaking their fists at the U.S.A. I didn't like it that it took us as long as it did to cross the length of Afghanistan and to begin our non-nation building program. I dislike it that they hate us for buying their gas and making their leaders rich beyond belief.

 

We are not what they think of us. How we act and react outside the field of battle to even one of them is our example and will form their opinion of us in the future. If they are to choose something other than money hungry despots and prophets for the submission and torture of their own people, then they must be shown something much better than what they have known.

 

We have now beaten them into rubble. Hatred of the acts must now be tempered with thought when we deal with them off the battlefield. We have had our turn at shooting them; now let's take them to court. They may want to return and take their chances in battle. FB

 

[acco40]

"Anyone who moves to a foreign country and takes up arms against the United States, has voluntarily relinquished any rights he had as a citizen. In response to the question in the subject line...who cares?"

 

I'm sure glad that Abe didn't feel that way about members of the Army of Virginia.

 

[KoreaScouter]

The Army of Virginia didn't move to a foreign country; they stayed in the United States, the preservation of which was Lincoln's point in prosecuting the war.

 

KS

[scoutldr]

Lincoln's Declaration of Amnesty required that the "rebels" repent and renew their allegiance to the United States and swear a written loyalty oath before God. If Mr. Hamdi is willing to do that, we can reconsider.:::

 

Whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said

rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States and to

reinaugurate loyal State governments within and for their respective

States:

 

Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do

proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly

or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as

hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted to them

and each of them, with restoration of all rights of property, except

as to slaves and in property cases where rights of third parties

shall have intervened, and upon the condition that every such person

shall take and subscribe an oath and thenceforward keep and maintain

said oath inviolate, and which oath shall be registered for permanent

preservation and shall be of the tenor and effect following, to wit:

 

"I, ________, do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God, that I

will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the

Constitution of the United States and the Union of the States

thereunder; and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully

support all acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion

with reference to slaves, so long and so far as not repealed,

modified, or held void by Congress or by decision of the Supreme

Court; and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfully support

all proclamations of the President made during the existing rebellion

having reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modified or

declared void by decision of the Supreme Court. So help me God."

 

[scoutingagain]

I don't disagree that those that take up arms against the US government may give up certain civil rights. However the point of the article seems to be that when asked why this individual has not been given the opportunity to excercise his rights, the government could not come up with a good explantation. If the govenment is going to deny a citizen their rights, all the court is asking for is a valid explanation. In this instance, it appears the government lawyers to too lazy or dumb to come up with a reasonable explanation, or the government's official position is that it does not have to provide an explanation.

 

If a citizen is denied their rights, I want to know why. Not because I sympathize with a citizen that takes up arms against the US, but because I care about how the government chooses to repond to threats against the US government and it's citizens.

 

SA

[Twocubdad]

Originally there were several exceptions to Lincoln's (and later Johnston's) blanket pardons: those charged with treason, officers in the Confederate goverment and army, former US Congressment, those who owned property worth more that $20,000 and others. But even those people were provided with due process to appeal the denial. Eventually almost everyone who applied for a pardon received it, largely because it played in to Andrew Johnston's 1868 re-election effort. Of course that's not to suggest that presidential politics would ever be a factor in the War on Terrorism.

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[NJCubScouter]

TwoCubDad says:

 

Of course that's not to suggest that presidential politics would ever be a factor in the War on Terrorism.

 

There you go again.

 

By the way, you refer to Andrew Johnson's "1868 re-relection effort." It had always been my impression that he didn't run in 1868, and after searching about this on the Internet, I am pretty close. He was pretty much a man without a party at that point, the Democrats distrusting him because he had run with Lincoln on a bipartisan ticket (temporarily named the "Unionist Party") in 1864. (The losing Democratic candidate in 1864 being New Jersey's own General George McClellan.) The closest thing I found to an answer was that he "did not actively campaign" for the Democratic nomination in 1868, though he did "figure in the balloting." However, I found a list of top 2 or 3 candidates on each of the many ballots at that convention, and John son was not on the list. At the time of the convention, he had just narrowly escaped removal in a Senate impeachment trial.

 

I suppose it is possible, however, that for some period shortly after he took over for Lincoln, that he had some hope of being re-nominated, and that the pardons were part of that effort.

[Twocubdad]

Correct again, my friend. "Re-election effort" was probably a historically poor choice of words. Johnson's Reconstruction policies quickly drew the ire of the Radical Republicans and even most moderates who in 1865 were still looking for more vengeance than reconciliation. Johnson hoped that by quickly repatriating (if that's the right word) many Confederate foot soldiers, that they would support him.

[scoutingagain]

Johnson was a southerner, who sympathized with the plight of poor whites in the south and the effect the war had on them. Initially he intended to be rather harsh on the plantation owning class as he blamed them for the war, but soon realized that if this class was completely stripped of it's property (other than slaves) it would upend the established social order in the south. He really hoped things would kind of just go back to the way they were before the war. That free blacks would return to the fields, work for slave wages and things would move on. It's quite possible he also considered the political aspects of these policies. However, the newly freed slaves didn't seem to accept this approach.

 

Just happened to catch some stuff on Johnson on the History Channel this weekend. Certainly can't claim credit for knowing this stuff off the top of my head.

 

SA

[edott]

 

Here's is one of few stories that has been done on who Yaser Hamdi is, instead of focusing on his legal case.

 

http://charleston.net/stories/030704/ter_07hamdi.shtml

[Hunt]

"Anyone who moves to a foreign country and takes up arms against the United States, has voluntarily relinquished any rights he had as a citizen. In response to the question in the subject line...who cares?"

 

Even if you agree with this--shouldn't a person have the opportunity to try to show he didn't do this? Maybe Hamdi did take up arms against the US--but Judge Doumar wasn't convinced. I will tell you that I know Judge Doumar, and he takes no BS from anybody. He is also about as far from a bleeding heart liberal as you can get.