posted on June 14, 2002 08:27:41 AM new
"people love to use hyperbole when expressing fear as to the LARGE numbers of Americans who will now be arrested"
Before it was denial that any such thing would happen.
Now it is - There will never be LARGE numbers arrested.
How many is acceptable or would start to worry you?
posted on June 14, 2002 12:04:50 PM new
"There was an article last week that said that the terrorist have a plan to eliminate the entire southeast portion of the US from florida right out to the Mississippi river by driving a trainload of radioactive camel dung up from Mexico and dynamiting it in front of a Jewizsh temple in St. Louis, MO with a shaped charge aimed southeast. It was on the UP and UP news. "
I travel and do business in Mexico all the time..there are very few camels in that country, and none of them are radioactive!
posted on June 14, 2002 12:08:23 PM new
>>I travel and do business in Mexico all the time..there are very few camels in that country, and none of them are radioactive!<<
Thanks prof, you know I was kinda concerned about that one.
"U.S. officials say Padilla, an American Muslim convert, planned to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States. Padilla's passport application raised the suspicions of a consular official who tipped off the FBI -- a notification that ultimately led to Padilla's arrest May 8 in Chicago."
And there you have it: Ashcroft and Bush telling Bald Face Lies to the American People. At first, they claimed that the information initially came from a mid-level Al-Qaida suspect who told about the plot and fingered Joe Padilla. Right. The clerk got suspecious (which is good), informed the FBI (also good), and then after some investigation and not finding a lot, then they questioned the Al-Qaida officer.
And he lost his U.S. Constittuional Rights for this? *SHAME ON BUSH AND ASHCROFT!*
posted on June 15, 2002 01:58:46 AM new
Is this what's next for America?...A federal government that takes upon itself the divine role of "judging the thoughts and intents of the heart"? (Heb 4:12) Have the barrage of terrorist threats dominating the headlines of late so overwhelmed us that we can no longer function as free men and women under constitutional law? Must we now sanction, no, DEMAND that our bureaucratic caretakers capture, process, question and interpret our every word and deed with spies, cameras, recorders, satellites, computers and tribunals in order to protect us from ourselves? Is that what it's coming to here in the "land of the free"? Look at the pattern forming in the media and the precedence being set in Washington.
First, the US military goes to "war" overseas in search of a SUSPECT named Osama Bin Laden. Then we turn our sights on his homeys...an evil group of radical Islamics called the "Taliban" who were widely reported by alternative news sources to have actually been a federally funded creation of the CIA from years gone by. When we "couldn't find" Osama and began running out of Taliban to chase and photograph, POOF...a new target appeared named "Al Qaeda". Then "Johnny Taliban" (Lindt) was captured and bound before the
cameras for all to see and detest...a pathetic American turncoat, accused of living and fighting alongside the Taliban against the United States over in Afghanistan. They ran that footage of him kneeling in the sand in silence with his hands and feet tied behind him over and over and over again to make absolutely certain that his image was burned into our memories.
Now we have a new face of evil all over the media is Jose Padilla (alias "Abdullah al Muhajir"...another American citizen who allegedly posed a threat by spending the last couple of years in Pakistan planning something "suspicious". For THIS and THIS ALONE he is now locked away in solitary confinement INDEFINITELY like so many others before him, with no attorney, no rights and no one to talk to but his accusers. And even though they've backed almost completely away from every claimed evildoing by the guy, there he sits - somewhere in a military jail.
But never mind Jose, what about the rest of us? His intent may have been as evil as Judas kiss but if he, a United States citizen, is denied due process of law and is unofficially declared guilty of PLANNING SOMETHING by reason of SUSPICION without any legal representation or opportunity to publicly defend himself then, my friends, we have bigger problems here in America than fighting terrorism.
If we are going to start handing out life sentences to our own citizens for things they MIGHT HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT DOING then bush might as well appoint Miss Cleo as the head of Homeland Security, burn the Constitution and be done with it. We won't need all these departments,agencies and courts, they cost money that could be spent on missiles and other fun toys. Bush could just call her up each day on her 900 line and see who's thinking and saying what, make a quick list of names and send the "New FBI" out to round 'em all up before they have a chance to commit whatever misdeed Miss Cleo *sees* them planning.
Are we heading toward the formation of something called "The Department of Precrime"? Don't even think about it!! (They'll know)
posted on June 15, 2002 10:56:24 AM new
You summed that up right nicely, KRS. Too bad it's buried back here on page 7 or 8. Maybe we ought to start a new thread? My briend's brother is STILL in Hot Water over SUSPICION. Remember that stuff? It's still not over, for to get the INS to simply nod their heads and agree with the FBI who dug deep and found absolutely nothing wrong, he now has to take it to a FEDERAL COURT -- so that whatever ruling is made is not going to be called invalid if it goes against what the INS wants. In the meantime, he's nearly destittue, having sold most of everything he's owned or invested in to pay his lawyer's fees and court costs. He's working six to seven days a week now in order to help raise the funds. Like you said: "unofficially declared guilty of PLANNING SOMETHING by reason of SUSPICION."
posted on June 15, 2002 11:03:58 AM new
Enchoate conspracies do not have to be completed to be prosecuted.
Conspiracy is a crime itself and no further acts need to be committed for arrest and conviction.
If Padilla met with terrorists and there is evidence of criminal intent, that is all that is needed to arrest and convict.
The crime of conspiracy has everything to do with "judging the thoughts and intents of the heart". And there are many other criminal statutes in which the accused's state of mind is an essential element of the crime.
Once there is a conspiracy, any act committed by any conspirator in the furerance of the criminal goal(s) is imputed to each of the conspirators, regardless of their non-participation in the act.
That's why the 20th hi-jacker can be prosecuted for what the other 19 accomplished.
If it is shown that Padilla conspired with these terrorists, he can be convicted for conspiracy and any act they commit in furtherance of the criminal goal, unless he renounces the conspiracy and squeals the others out.
But, how do we handle US "citizens" that conspire and/or act in concert with foreign entities to commit crimes against the US in furtherance of the foreign entities' goals?
In this case, is it a domestic criminal act, an act of war, an act of espionage ?
While I have some reservations about these arrests, I also have sympathy with the administration in trying to place these cases into a nice neat category for punitive action.
We are in new terrority. We are at war with people who do not wear uniforms, have no offical state, no official leaders, and will use our laws and constitutional freedoms against us at every turn, and will use any weakness we overlook to attack us. They do not march towards our shores in tanks, battle ships, or submarines, but on public transportation airplanes and cargo ships and rental cars.
We do not now, and never have extended constitutional protections to foreign combatants.
Being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get you killed in these times. But this should not only apply to US civilians, it should also apply to terrorists and those that associate with them.
posted on June 15, 2002 12:15:17 PM new
"If Padilla met with terrorists *in the United States* and there is evidence of criminal intent, that is all that is needed to arrest and convict".
Important distincion. The so-called 20th hijacker, if he committed the crime charged did so within the jurisdiction of these states, while padilla, though charged with nothing, was arrested for suspicion of having committed a conspiracy on foriegn ground. He certainly didn't do it here as he hardly had time to set foot before being whisked away.
posted on June 15, 2002 12:31:39 PM new
Maybe he was trying to talk them out of further terrorism? Maybe he was trying to explain to them that they are wrong and should stop?
But not in this administration's plans>
We are right
They are wrong
We are good
They are evil
Our support for the killing of innocent people is justice
Theirs is terrorism
There are only 10 types of people in the world
Those who understand binary and those who don't
posted on June 15, 2002 12:37:20 PM new
krs- that might be an distinction, but it doesn't resolve the issue.
Conspiring outside the US doesn't prohibit a conspiracy charge for a crime against the US.
If I go to Columbia and conspire to import cocaine into the US, the fact that I did the actual conspring in Columbia is of no defence to a conspiracy charge in the US.
Should Padilla be in the domestic criminal justice system for conspiracy to commit terrorism with a foreign entity ?
This is all somewhat new and without clear precendence. In the WWII cases we had a clear combatant state and combatants.
Conspiring to commit acts of war with a foreign entity clearly gives the govt the right to strip the person of citizenship, but what are the standards of evidence and procedure if we opt not to proceed through the civilian justice system ? Once it is established that the person is no longer a citizen, different rules will apply.
I think to strip someone of their citizenship should be done through the civil justice system. Once that is satisfied, the criminal prosecution should not be through the civil justice system.
However, the evidence to strip of citizenship will essentially be the same as for the conspiracy.
krs- you're an old gorilla fighter from Nam, you know how the game is played, you know how the rules change.
How do you suggest we protect our country and at the same time afford some level of secrecy and justice when fighting a foe such as this ?
posted on June 15, 2002 01:06:08 PM new
In the first place, I do not subscribe to the premise that this is a war by any definition. There's been no declaration and there's not been even a classification of a police action. How could there be when there is no enemy other than the concept and act of terrorism?
There was a criminal act, and the government is desperately trying to show that it has caught SOMEONE because portions of certain individual's political wellbeing depend upon them doing so. That same party's success relies on this charade termed war.
If I go to Columbia and conspire to import cocaine to this country I can return to the country and be charged with importation if I do that, but not with having conspired to do so. If I conspire HERE with you to go to Columbia and we do the same thing we can be charged with both crimes only if our conspiracy can be proved by evidence. Conspiracy is like a tango.
posted on June 15, 2002 02:57:26 PM new
While you two whittle away on fine points of law, I think that one main point here is that confusion reigns. First, there is no War even though the President has declared one. That's AGAINST the Law. With the President Breaking The Law, how can we possibly prosecute any "combatants?" I mean, if the Judge is drinking Vodka in the courtroom during the trial, the Prosecutor is on the Take, the Cops are all in a Conspiracy to commit Fraud, how can anyone be fairly tried under those circumstances. We have a similar situation on our hands.
Item 1 - Legitimacy
---------------------------------
Bush MUST go before Congress and request that they Declare a State of War exits in this country. That puts the United States Constitution into the picture and the Rule of Law.
Item 2 - Pursuit
---------------------------------
Bush must then point out the next country to harbor these criminals and their organization. An Ultimatum sent to the government of that country to hand over the criminals or face invasion by the United States. If they refuse to produce the terrorists, Congress will pass an Act of War, declaring that a State of War exists between our nation and that country. We then will do to that country what we did to the Taliban in Afghanistan. We will continue this process until we are satisfied that we no longer need to be at War with any nation.
Item 3 - Home Defense
---------------------------------
The best Offense is a strong Defense sometimes. In this case, unite the Intelligence agencies, but NOT the policing agencies. Our current level of Civil Rights is more than adequate to handle any enemy agents entering or residing in this country. We do not need to go down a path to a further erosion of American's Civil Rights. Then try the military combatants in a Military Tribunal as is proper, and let the civilian courts try those agents who have not committed acts of War against us. In other words, those who shoot at us or take up arms and fight against us go to Military Court; those who do not commit a specific criminal act or actively take up arms against us, let them be tried in a Civilian Court all nice and proper!
the problem is is the the conspiracy laws themselves pose more danger to the liberties granted than any crimminal actions do.
I wish some of these fools would get it, Washington and Jefferson, Nathan hale and Franklin knew what petty beaurocrats and corporate types would do when added together in the mix of politics.
The fact of the matter is is that in terms of a nations exisitance treason is a worse crime to the state than murder or rape. in other words someone can kill you but the nation goes on. Now then our fore fathers did not write conspiracy laws and REAMOND in case you are not aware of it we had homegrown terror on a grand scale, they were called tories. No where did our forefathers have to resort to petty police state measures to run this place. after the war There were no reprisals against tories in fact the constitution specifically forbade gun control. Now this state apparatus with
nuclear weapons and poison gas and biological weapons and lazers and satellites
and Jets and Submarines and millions of troops and millions of police and security
wants even more power BULL SH T, what we have had here is POOR MANAGEMENT. Show me a sales person who says that they cant make a sale without a catalog or sample and i'll show you someone who belongs in the ever growing fast food industry at entry level. The fact of the matter is this without his daddies dallas Cia connections el busho would be a used car dealer or some other petty hustler. is guy going to pay pack that 200.000.00 he got from a failing savings and loan ? and its not just him during the
Vietnam war we funded social programs food stamps loans
korean spectacle, and much more now we are not more than a handful with the poor out in the street and a loss of the Vietnam war and we cant afford anything ? anything other than secretaries that cant type, Missing congressional aides self investigation at all turns with no results.
If they cant work with in the frame work of our original document it is they who are Un american and a Threat.
Sickening Petty Fascist Corporate theives.
posted on June 16, 2002 06:04:38 PM new
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
this is from our constitution.
this is the Constitution Bush has sworn to uphold.
posted on June 16, 2002 09:59:33 PM new
krs- How is it that the WTC attack is a criminal act rather than an act of war - how do you differentiate this.
War, or acts of war, are politically defined terms. In fact, some scholars have said that the term "declaring war" hasn't any definite meaning.
It also makes no difference if Padilla or the 20th hi-jacker met with the terrorists outside the US for a conspiracy charge to stand, the actual crime or conspiracy need not even take place in the US. See UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. HUMBERTO ALVAREZ MACHAIN, the defendant was .... charged in a sixth superseding indictment with: conspiracy to commit violent acts in furtherance of racketeering activity (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 1959); committing violent acts in furtherance of racketeering activity (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(2)); conspiracy to kidnap a federal agent (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(5), 1201(c)); kidnap of a federal agent (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(5)); and felony murder of a federal agent (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111(a), 1114). App. 12-32. -- ALL of these Conspiracies took place in Mexico as did the crime itself, the defendant was KIDNAPPED and brought to the US and tried for the conspiracies and crimes that took place in Mexico.
Bor- Congress has voted to give Bush the power and funds to prosecute the war on terrorism. The use of the armed forces is largely a political question. If Congress goes along with Bush's action, there is nothing more to be done.
Aurora- Check your history a little better- our "founding fathers" put in place the "Alien and Seditions Act" which was far worse than anything we've ever seen. There were also repraisals against Torries. In fact there is a very early Supreme Ct case dealing with the taking of a Virginia plantation from a tory.
posted on June 16, 2002 10:39:24 PM new
They aren't tacking on the all important phrase "in pursuit of racketeering activities" in padilla's case, an important little variance, or are they? You must know that the federal anti racketeering laws give a wide scope to authorities to detain foriegn nationals on foriegn soil (as done with Noriega) if applicable but so far it hasn't dawned on them to try that in these situations. Perhaps because they know that they'd never get it down the craw of a court to do so? No, they're depending on the so-called 'patriot act' to hassle padilla, and that does not include racketeering, only acts of war. But conspiracy is not an act. Padilla has done nothing at all..
posted on June 17, 2002 12:05:31 AM new
REAMOND, I'm aware that some people compare the "war on terrorism" to the "war on Drugs", which is like the "war on poverty" and "the war on crime." Presidents get to pick their pet project and call it a "War" for amusement; an honorary title at best. But that does not give Bush the right to command troops and send them in to invade another country and Congress simply giving support - for now, to his "private little war" is not constitutional. I've heard some idiots before now think themselves out of the interpretation of legal concepts, including War. Given enough time, anyone can reason anything or any interpretation that they like out of anything. That is why the Constitution is clear about what has become a clouded issue. It is an undeniable fact that:
a) Only Congress may declare a Act or state of War.
b) Congress has not done so.
Another undeniable fact is that in order to change the Constitution:
* The President can issue no Executive Order that makes changes on the Constitution.
* Congress can pass no Bill, Measure, Regulation or Law that changes the Constitution.
* The U.S. Supreme Court cannot make a Ruling that changes the Constitution.
That right is reserved for the People of this nation to do under States Rights.
Furthermore, requiring Congress to be the Sole Body to Declare War or a State of War means that the EXECUTIVE BRANCH cannot do that! And what has Bush done? 1) He has openly declared that a state of War exists; 2) That we are a nation At War; 3) He has sent in troops to foreign soil of a sovereign nation; on his authority as President - Authority that he does not have in any case; 4) He has committed armed Troops of the United States Armed Forces to attack foreign troops on foreign soil for the stated purpose of overthrowing a foreign country.
Sorry, but that ain't the same as "The War on Poverty", bub!
It is the clear intention that the representatives of the People of the United States of America have the SOLE RIGHT to declare War, commit troops into battle, except States which "unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
NOWHERE IS THERE A PROVISION FOR A PRESIDENT TO HAVE *ANY* AUTHORITY TO DO JACK when it comes to acts of War!
posted on June 17, 2002 01:42:08 PM new
Bor- How is it that Bush came to Congress and asked for funding and consent to prosecute a war and Congress granted the funding and gave consent, but this is not a "state of war"?
If a declaration of war has not been definitively stated, but described in the Congressional Bill, what is the state of hostilities we are in ?
If this situation ever made it to the Supreme Court, the Court would declare the situation was a" political question" and not subject to revue by the Court.
The Court would further state that Congress has many remedies to the war powers doctrine, including the removal of funding, and impeachment. The court need not determine what the declaration is called or order that the Bill be in fact called a declaration of war. The Congress produced a Bill that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, flys like a duck, and quacks like a duck, whether the Congress or the President calls it a duck has no Constitutional ramifications, and the Bill is perfectly Constitutional in every other regard.
The President asking and the Congress to declare war in all respects except a title of a declaration of war, is a constitutional manner in which to prosecute a war.
The war powers doctrine of the Constitution is to prevent a President from unilaterally entering into war hostilities without the consent of Congress, it has nothing to do with what Congress calls the Bill supporting the acts of war.
If the name of a Bill actually had Constitutional import, then every Bill in Cogress would have to be dedicated to a singular subject, and have the explicit function and operation of the Bill in the Bill's title. This has never been supported by Constitutional Juris Prudence, and is considered a Political Question.
Would it be unconstitutional if there were a Copngressional Bill that was called Aid to Family Farmers, which only provided for reduced lunch prices for underpriveleged school children ?
Congress has the right under the Constitution to provide reduced lunch prices to school children, and it has the right to call the Bill whatever it wishes.
Under the same Constitutional rubic, Congress has the right and duty to assent/dissent and fund or not fund a war without ever calling it a declaration of war.
[ edited by REAMOND on Jun 17, 2002 01:45 PM ]
[ edited by REAMOND on Jun 17, 2002 01:45 PM ]
posted on June 17, 2002 02:49:07 PM new
By that reasoning then I guess there is no lie or misdeed to big to swallow as long as both the president and congress are agreed to wink at each other and ignore reality.
posted on June 17, 2002 03:06:32 PM new
Brush up on what?
The fact Is you have brough out red herrings to drag across the trail of the fact that the Constitution is the Base for all other actions, all of which if in defiance of the constitution are illegal.
The fact that you are well enough versed to discuss this in terms of the early years of our country make me disgusted to see you slink around the fact that the Israelis Murdered our soldiers aboard the Uss Liberty
and it is obvious to me that you are intelligent to know damm well that that is what had happened.
Now because you and others sympathize with a foreign nation
all of America should give up everythig we stand for so your cohorts can justify driving tanks over kids, shooting a little boy against a stone wall while his father tries to use his unarmed body as a sheild.
The fact is is that there was no wholesale purge of tories during the years after the war in fact many of them were elected to public office.
This scenerio reminds me of a painter who says his painteings would be better if only he had better paints, and when someone brings up Renoir or Michealangelo instead of admitting he is a poor painter he wants the paintings outlawed.
we need to close our borders until we can find a way to deal with this terror threat that does not require a major police state.
posted on June 17, 2002 03:20:32 PM new" Bor- How is it that Bush came to Congress and asked for funding and consent to prosecute a war and Congress granted the funding and gave consent, but this is not a "state of war"?"
As the Story Grows in the Telling, so the Crime Grows in the Repetition. REAMOND, in the past with the War Powers Act, the President had a set time limit to complete any action and all that was open to review and oversight, something that this case lacks entirely.
As for asking as to why Congress granted funding and gave consent, REAMOND, I am surprised at your asking that question. If you'll recall, we had just been attacked Pearl Harbor-style and the only known enemy was the one Bush was pointing at. I suspect that any politician who didn't go along at that time faced more than the end of his or her career, but their lives might have been in actual jeopardy, as anyone who stood in the way of America's revenge would look like a guilty traitor. Is it any wonder that Bush got everything that he asked for?
I'll continue to answer your questions, even though you should keep the above answer in mind to keep your perspective on the past (being said in a nice way, BTW).
"If a declaration of war has not been definitively stated, but described in the Congressional Bill, what is the state of hostilities we are in?"
Past events have made it a big mess. When Bush announced that his "War" would never end, it was a signal that he had won in Congress, as Congress gave in and did not include oversight and a legal time limit for Bush to prosecute this conflict. If Congress were to come out at this point and announce that a legal State of War exists in this country, that would go a long ways to clear up the mess and to legitimize future military and political actions.
"If this situation ever made it to the Supreme Court, the Court would declare the situation was a" political question" and not subject to revue by the Court."
In the recent past, the U.S. Supreme Court has been seen as the Defender of the U.S. Constitution because it was so pro-active. That the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped it's legal authority and overrode the U.S. Constitution by ruling against State's Rights in the Florida Voter Count in the last Presidential election ought to signal to everyone that we can no longer depend upon them to play the role that they have been. Given the evidence, if the ultra right-wing groups in this country want this action to continue, the Supreme Court would bounce it back to Congress. However, also given the evidence of the recent past and this court's resistance to obstacles for ultra right-wing causes, there can be little doubt that they would rule against Bush and the action if it was part of the right-wing agenda.
" Would it be unconstitutional if there were a Copngressional Bill that was called Aid to Family Farmers, which only provided for reduced lunch prices for underpriveleged school children ? Congress has the right under the Constitution to provide reduced lunch prices to school children, and it has the right to call the Bill whatever it wishes. Under the same Constitutional rubic, Congress has the right and duty to assent/dissent and fund or not fund a war without ever calling it a declaration of war."
REAMOND, you are confusing issues. First, "War" is a term that is legally recognized and has been so for much longer than the Magna Carta has been around. Lawyers and politicians like to dance around issues, but War is a clearly defined concept and simply calling it a different name or to use a different method does not legitimize its non-usage.
Second, the U.S. Constitution did not define HOW one goes about declaring that a state of War exists between our nation and someone else's, which was smart of them, as it leaves a lot of flexibility for the government to conduct matters. Yet, the actual term "WAR" is in the Constitution and it specifies Who has the authority to declare War, and it isn't Bush! That Bush has misconstrued matters that the American Military to be his own private military and his own private causes to be this nation's causes when Congress had their backs were to the Wall does not make this conflict legitimate.
The real question is WHY didn't Congress simply Declare War on Afghanistan? Why didn't they give the full-force of the American People behind this effort, when doing so would have more than unified this country?
posted on June 17, 2002 04:28:46 PM newThe real question is WHY didn't Congress simply Declare War on Afghanistan?
Because after 9-11 it was determined that 60 different countries harbored terrorists. So why only focus on Afghanistan rather than making it an across-the-board 'any person/group' wishing to do what the terrorists did to the WTC will feel America's rath.
Why didn't they give the full-force of the American People behind this effort, when doing so would have more than unified this country?
This seems to be something most here don't get. The majority of American's do support President Bush's War on Terrorism. Just seems different on these political threads.
posted on June 17, 2002 05:08:34 PM new<<Linda's quote>>
"Because after 9-11 it was determined that 60 different countries harbored terrorists. So why only focus on Afghanistan rather than making it an across-the-board 'any person/group' wishing to do what the terrorists did to the WTC will feel America's rath. Why didn't they give the full-force of the American People behind this effort, when doing so would have more than unified this country?
This seems to be something most here don't get. The majority of American's do support President Bush's War on Terrorism. Just seems different on these political threads."
<<End Quote>>>>>
I am trying my best to ask this question nicely. What do you mean by this question. Do you mean to declare war on the 60 countries that you mentioned or terrorism or what? Keep in mind that one of these 60 countries is the United States.
Helen
ubb ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Jun 17, 2002 05:10 PM ]
posted on June 17, 2002 05:27:37 PM new
That's IF you take the fox news polls as your personal holy grail.
Reamond,
I'm not sure, but your posting does not indicate an awarness of the War Powers Act of 1973, and act passed over the veto of the then president nixon which restricts the ability of a president in cases exactly like this one in which hostilities are engaged without a condition or actuality of declared war between state nations, so I brought you the text of it :
...another American citizen who allegedly posed a threat by spending the last couple of years in Pakistan planning something "suspicious". For THIS and THIS ALONE he is now locked away in solitary confinement INDEFINITELY like so many others before him, with no attorney, no rights and no one to talk to but his accusers. And even though they've backed almost completely away from every claimed evildoing by the guy, there he sits - somewhere in a military jail.