“I’ll try again: provide the case(s) where someone was indefinitely detained (not arrested) for carrying a concealed weapon”

I’m not sure how much more plain I can state what I have already said. The general nature of hypothetical questions or situations preclude a necessity of evidence. For example, the question, “If you were on Pluto, how much would you weigh?” in no way asserts that you are standing on Pluto. Nor does it suggest that someone else is standing on Pluto or has ever stood on Pluto. It doesn’t even suggest that Pluto is or is not a planet. It is a simple question with a simple answer. My simple question which, is the simplest of all forms because it is a closed question (requiring a yes/no or other definitive, quantitative answer), is “Would you support the suspension of habeas corpus if a state or municipality decided to deny habeas corpus to citizens it thought was hiding a gun?” So we are clear, this does not suggest a state has done this. It is hypothetical and asks only whether or not you would support a state where guns are illegal if it decided to enact such a law. It’s a yes/no question. If you care to elaborate upon your answer, as to why you would or would not support this, I will happily read your reasoning.

You said: “And the DHS was not acting under color of law; the Patriot Act gave them no authority to act as they did.”

My question is not did the PATRIOT Act authorize DHS to do something in particular, but I understand you do not think it did. Ok. Now, back to my original questions, which I will rephrase in light of your response above. I am looking for specifics. What did DHS do that was outside its purview? Isn’t part of the job at DHS to assemble reports on potential terroristic threats? Are all of their reports on potential threats, including those on left wing groups like ELF also outside the color of law? Why or why not? Why do you believe this action is not under the color of law? And for what purpose did DHS act illegally? Finally, why should we care if DHS fashions a document that paints a large portion of Americans as possible national security threats? These are fairly simple and straight forward questions, which are not asking you to delve into the mechanics of law–though I will gladly follow you there should you decide to take it there. Moreso, they are asking you for your opinion on what specifically was illegal and why American patriots such as you and I should care if we fall into one or more of those categories.

Sgt Tim responding: No. You were making paranoid statements without proof about the use of the Patriot Act and your failure to again provide a valid, Patriot Act related case, ends this debate. I live in the real world, not the one you live in of make-believe to spread fear.

The Dog responding I provided two cases. Though I have made no paranoid assertions and you have avoided the questions about DHS which indicate you have some sense of paranoia regarding the current admin and the DHS report, I think it is best you close this thread before you begin to appear as what you labeled me. Thanks for the conversation.

Sgt Tim responding: I recall your building a straw man by asking if I would support indefinitely detaining someone for carrying a concealed weapon. This is not about me; the conversation was about the law, as is, and alleged abuses of power. The Patriot Act places limitations on authority, with oversight; as long as agents operate within those limits there is no individual abuse and as long as the Executive (or his appointed officers) does not direct the operation beyond the Act’s authority, their is no abuse of power. The law stands until rescinded, superseded, or struck down. The DHS was clearly being run off the rails to search for “domestic terrorists” based upon “evidence” they disagreed with Obama’s political agenda. I get it yet the Patriot Act did not authorize it.

American citizens waging war against America are different. Under federal law, TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 115:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

So, while it may be warfare as you correctly suggest, we still have “criminal” laws pertaining to treason and the treatment of American citizens who wage war against America.

There was no equation of terrorism with robbery &tc. The question was prefaced with let us step out of one realm into another. It was solely a way of digging deeper into your thoughts on where a line might exist on the suspension of constitutional rights and where you might draw that line. While the suspension of habeas corpus is analogous and can be seen to apply, O:o as D:? does not mean a capital O and D are the same letter.

As for your final paragraph, its brevity opens it to further questions and I want to ensure I am understanding your point correctly. Is your assertion that the document itself is an abuse of power? If so, how? There are other such documents regarding the left. Are those also abuses of power? Isn’t part of DHS’s mission to collect information on terrorist groups in order to better defend America? And what is the danger of having DHS paint a wide swath of Americans as potential terrorists if, as you suggested earlier, PATRIOT would not be used as a political tool when you stated, “I wrote that you are a conspiracy theorist and challenged you to show evidence that Bush 43 employed the Patriot Act against Americans illegally, unfairly, or for a political purpose”?

UPDATE to your UPDATE:
No, there is no false equation. The question was a simple one. Would you support the suspension of habeas corpus for those who might find themselves accused of hiding a gun in cities and states where such is illegal? There is no assertion that this has happened and our liking or disliking such laws bears no merit either.

What does suspending habeas corpus for American citizens do that trial and execution cannot?

So we are clear:
I support water boarding, Gitmo, Abu Graib, the detention of any and all foreign nationals as POWs (without Geneva Convention rights for those identified as “unlawful” combatants), and the tapping of international phone calls to and from suspected terrorists. Going further than our government will, I am a proponent of blowing up houses and mosques where combatants are, even if they are using women and children as human shields. Civilian casualties are a tragedy of war. While they should be avoided if possible, they should not be avoided to the point that we hamstring our military or put soldiers in harm’s way. After we blew up a few mosques, the Taliban and such would realize we are not trying to wage a “politically correct” war and that using babies as shields will not save them. So, there would be no further point in repeating that tactic. In WW2, we did what we needed to win. In these campaigns, the government is constantly shirking its responsibility to the military in attempt to keep the left wing media from getting any anti-American propaganda by which it can aid our enemies. On top of that, countless traitors with a -D after their name insist on doing everything possible to hinder our military efforts. I support our military and full-blown war that does not bother with PC pretense. Go in, kill the bad guys, kill those with the bad guys if needed, and be done with it.

Imagine if all these modern democrats (neo-socialist traitors) were in Congress in 1945. They would never have allowed Hiroshima or Nagasaki. My position is America and Americans First. My line in the sand is the Constitution. I believe it is just as applicable today as it was in 1942 and 1791. My belief in the Constitution does not mean I believe in helping domestic terrorists. It means I believe in seeing them brought to justice quickly and legally, rather than allowing them to have three halal meals a day at the expense of taxpayers for an indefinite amount of time until liberal lawyers or an anti-American president like Obama can find a legal loophole by which to turn them loose so they can kill Americans.

Regarding Quirin, it no longer is the prevailing case law.

The DHS abuses are abuses of power, not authority vested in that agency by the Patriot Act. The acts of the actors is the illegality, not the Act.

Update: I missed addressing the issue of gun control. Like state gun control law or not, you falsely equate the lawful detention of those arrested for violating those laws with indefinite detention. Am I wrong? If so, provide the case(s) where someone was indefinitely detained (not arrested) for carrying a concealed weapon.

Acknowledging your ad hominem is not patronizing you. As I have continued to be civil and you have continued to lob insults at me, I thought perhaps that acknowledgement would allow us to move beyond personal digs and linger in the realm of civil, erudite discourse.

As for Ashton Lundeby, I read this article back in April:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5049867
You are correct that subsequent articles now indicate the PATRIOT Act was not used and I stand corrected.

You have misunderstood my position regarding Hamdi and Padilla. I made absolutely no assertions about their innocence. My point was–and remains–that Americans accused of plotting terrorist attacks against Americans (treason in my estimation), should be tried and executed if found guilty. The Constitution lays out guidelines for trying treason. We have many instances of redacted or sealed cases and these could have been sealed until an appropriate time. Locking up citizens without charging them of crimes will only prevent them from committing those crimes (if they are so inclined) until the next president, congress, or liberal justice decides to release them. Trying and executing them will guarantee they can never carry out a plot. Moreover, I don’t believe the way to fight lawlessness is by violating law. Yes, I support water boarding, Gitmo, and most everything else we have been accused of doing–including Abu Graib, because I do not view them as legal infractions and I do not believe the Constitution applies to foreign nationals. But when it comes to Americans, I believe that no matter the crime, whether it is mugging an old lady or contemplating blowing up a building, the rights our forefathers secured with their blood should remain.

As for Quirin, and these two men: Hamdi was captured overseas, while Padilla was arrested in Chicago. In his dissent during Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Scalia wrote, “The Government argues that our more recent jurisprudence ratifies its indefinite imprisonment of a citizen within the territorial jurisdiction of federal courts. It places primary reliance upon Ex parte Quirin.” In Rumsfeld v Padilla, Rehnquist stated, “the Government contended that the President has authority to detain Padilla militarily pursuant to the Commander in Chief Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §2, cl. 1, the congressional AUMF, and this Court’s decision in Ex parte Quirin.” This is why I mention Quirin, as it was a mainstay of the government’s argument for detention of US citizens without due process.

Perhaps we can take this out of the PATRIOT Act realm for a moment and ask: would you support the government not charging, but incarcerating people accused of robbery or possession of marijuana? What about the governments of places like New York indefinitely imprisoning people suspected of having a hidden gun?

Finally, why the uproar over the recent DHS report labeling tea party goers, pro-lifers and returning vets as potential terrorist threats?

That aside, you are also making an unsubstantiated claim about the Ashton Lundeby case straight from the Lew Rockwell crowd; the case against Lundeby is still pending (see yesterday’s news report) so whether he is guilty has yet to be established in court of law. His claim of not being home at the time strikes me as the ‘Hal 9000′ defense, e.g. his PC must have made the threat all on its own.

As to the innocence of Padilla and Hamdi, Padilla pled guilty in federal court and Hamdi was released to Saudi Arabia after surrendering his U.S. citizenship. Neither was innocent.

In Quirin, all were arrested on American soil and one of the six executed was an American citizen. (Dig deeper for the case law that currently prevails; Quirin is not it.)

Simple as that.

Where in the HELL did I say that the founders of the constitution are “irrelevant”??

Perhaps if you took 30 seconds to pull your head out of your backside & read with a clear set of eyes…..you’d realize that it’s just the OPPOSITE: That the development of nuclear proliforation, technology, transportation & communication are in fact RELEVANT.

DUH!

By your logic (and those of your ilk), it would be just fine to teach college graduate-level engineering or calculus with nothing more than a chalkboard & a piece of chalk.

Good grief, we’d all have to be incinerated in a mushroom cloud for you guys to finally get it.

Of course, it really wouldn’t matter by then, now would it.

You folks are really a piece of work!