Subject: anarchist girl Kate Sierra: First Crack In The Dam?

From: Tesla Coil <tescoil@irtc.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2001 10:40 PM

On 3 Nov 2001, nu-monet wrote:
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/011103/80/ceas0.html

Anarchist Teen Pulled From School
Associated Press - November 27, 2001

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A high school student who was
suspended last month for her anti-war, pro-anarchy
stances has been pulled out of school by her mother
because of safety concerns.

Amy Sierra said her daughter, Katie, 15, has been
attacked, threatened and insulted by students at
Sissonville High School. The mother said it was
her choice to withdraw Katie and enroll her in a
program in which she will complete assignments on
a computer from home.

"She was getting assaulted over and over again, and
I got fed up," Amy Sierra said Monday. "I'm just so
worried somebody's going to hurt her bad."

Katie, a ninth grader, was suspended for three days
in October for defying school orders not to form an
anarchy club or wear T-shirts that include slogans
opposing the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.

The school claimed the girl's actions disrupted
student learning and a Kanawha County Circuit judge
upheld the suspension.

The West Virginia Supreme Court on Tuesday voted 3-2
not to consider Katie Sierra's petition to prevent
the lower court from "continuing to deny her freedom
of speech."

The handwritten message on the T-shirt that got her
in trouble read: "When I saw the dead and dying
Afghani children on TV, I felt a newly recovered
sense of national security. God Bless America."

Students spit on her mother's car at the high school.
Her friends' parents wouldn't give her rides home
from school. A boy wore a T-shirt signed by many
Sissonville students that read: "Go back where you
came from."

Katie Sierra, who was born in Panama, has attended
15 schools. She has lived in Texas, New Mexico,
Ohio, Florida and Kentucky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>

It being North Carolina, there should be some tie-in
there with segregation:

"The same people who take away freedom of speech used
to call black people 'niggers'."

"Does it make you feel patriotic to beat up a girl?
If you really want to feel patriotic, you should
beat up a negro!"

"Did the South lose the Civil War because it couldn't
tolerate free speech?"

"Every time you take away an American Civil Right,
you're doing Osama's work for him."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: Monseignor Tartarus Sanctus <Tartarus@mail.com>

The sheeple are getting aggressive, but there is much more anti-war
and anti-Bush material showing up in the press. I hope public
attitude starts to catch up. The William Safire column today about
military tribunals today was excellent, but I can't find it in my
net usual resources.

--
Monseignor Tartarus Sanctus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: "little toad" <littletoad@this.is.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.slack

"Monseignor Tartarus Sanctus" <Tartarus@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3C04679B.B74CD7E2@mail.com...

> attitude starts to catch up. The William Safire column today about
> military tribunals today was excellent, but I can't find it in my
> net usual resources.

here ya go. :)
==============================================

November 26, 2001

Kangaroo Courts

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON -- As soon as German U-boats put eight
saboteurs on U.S. shores during World War II, one of the
eight calledm the F.B.I. to betray the mission but was
brushed off as a crackpot. Days later, he called again and
managed to persuade the F.B.I. he was an authentic
saboteur. Partly to keep this embarrassment of
bungled enforcement from becoming known, the eight were
secretly tried by a military court inside the F.B.I.
headquarters.

Unexpectedly, a U.S. Army lawyer assigned to the Germans
mounted a spirited defense. Col. Kenneth Royall, citing the
landmark 1866 Supreme Court decision of Ex Parte
Milligan - holding that martial law could not be applied
where federal civil courts were in business - challenged the
secret tribunal's legality.

F.D.R. told his attorney general, according to Francis
Biddle's memoirs, that he would resist any Supreme Court
decision to give the accused saboteurs a regular court trial: "I
won't hand them over to any United States marshal armed
with a writ of habeas corpus." Confrontation was averted
when a cowed Supreme Court unanimously acknowledged
the extra- judicial power of a president armed with a
Congressional declaration of war. Six of the eight captives
went to the electric chair; J. Edgar Hoover was awarded a
medal of honor.

Now President Bush, with no such Congressional
declaration, is using that Roosevelt mistake as precedent for
his own dismaying departure from due process. Bush's latest
self-justification is his claim to be protecting jurors (by
doing away with juries). Worse, his gung-ho advisers have
convinced him - as well as some gullible commentators -
that the Star Chamber tribunals he has ordered are
"implementations" of the lawful Uniform Code of Military
Justice.

Military attorneys are silently seething because they know
that to be untrue. The U.C.M.J. demands a public trial, proof
beyond reasonable doubt, an accused's voice in the selection
of juries and right to choose counsel, unanimity in death
sentencing and above all appellate review by civilians
confirmed by the Senate. Not one of those fundamental
rights can be found in Bush's military order setting up
kangaroo courts for people he designates before "trial" to be
terrorists. Bush's fiat turns back the clock on all advances in
military justice, through three wars, in the past half-century.

His advisers assured him that a fearful majority would cheer
his assumption of dictatorial power to ignore our courts.
They failed to warn him, however, that his denial of
traditional American human rights to non- citizens would
backfire and in practice actually weaken the war on terror.

Spain, which caught and charged eight men for complicity in
the Sept. 11 attacks, last week balked at turning over the
suspects to a U.S. tribunal ordered to ignore rights normally
accorded alien defendants. Other members of the European
Union holding suspects that might help us break Al Qaeda
may also refuse extradition. Presumably Secretary of State
Colin Powell was left out of the Ashcroft try-'em-and-fry-'em loop.

Thus has coalition-minded Bush undermined the antiterrorist
coalition, ceding to nations overseas the high moral and legal
ground long held by U.S. justice. And on what leg does the
U.S now stand when China sentences an American to death
after a military trial devoid of counsel chosen by the
defendant?

We in the tiny minority of editorialists on left and right who
dare to point out such constitutional, moral and practical
antiterrorist considerations are derided as "professional
hysterics" akin to "antebellum Southern belles suffering the
vapors." Buncha weepy sissies, we are. (Frankly, Scarlett, I
don't give a damn - I've always been pro-bellum.)

The possibility of being accused, however, of showing
insufficient outrage at those suspected of a connection to
terrorists shuts up most politicians. And a need to display
patriotic fervor turns Bush's liberal critics into exemplars of
evenhandedism. Careers can be wrecked by taking an
unpopular stand.

But not always. Forty years ago, my political mentor
introduced me to his senior partner, Ken Royall, who after
World War II had been appointed by President Truman to be
the last secretary of war. Royall, then head of a great New
York law firm, considered the high point of his career his
losing fight to get a group of reviled Nazi terrorists a fair
American trial.

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: "little toad" <littletoad@this.is.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2001 8:36 AM

[military tribunals]

bad form to follow up to oneself, i know, but here's an
additional editorial on military tribunals, this one from
senator arlen spector (pa), hardly known as a flaming
liberal.

===================================

November 28, 2001

Questioning the President's Authority

By ARLEN SPECTER

WASHINGTON -- America is fighting against "the most evil
kinds of people," President Bush said last week, explaining his
executive order creating special military tribunals for foreign
terrorists. "I need to have that extraordinary option at my
fingertips."

But the administration has yet to show where the president
gets the authority for this extraordinary executive order.
I have called for hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
beginning today, to allow the administration the opportunity to
explain itself. I am pleased that Attorney General John Ashcroft
has agreed to testify before the committee next week.

The president's order says it derives its authority in part from
a federal statute requiring that the president, "so far as he
considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules
of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases
in the United States district courts."

The order allows evidence to be admitted without regard to
the normal rules of a criminal trial if it is deemed to have
"probative value to a reasonable person." It permits conviction
by a two-thirds vote of the majority of the military commission
hearing the case. The order also specifically prohibits any
proceeding in federal courts or any other court and allows
for review only by the president or secretary of defense.

The administration argues that these constraints are necessary.
"Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the
nature of international terrorism," applying normal rules of
justice "is not practicable," according to the president's order.
But the order itself contains precious little rationale for
suspending such rules.

Simply declaring that applying traditional principles of law or
rules of evidence is not practicable is hardly sufficient. The
usual test is whether our national security interests outweigh
our due-process rights, and the administration has not yet made
this case. In doing so, it would have to explain how so many
terrorists have been convicted in our federal courts using
time-honored criminal procedures.

Since the Constitution empowers the Congress to establish
courts with exclusive jurisdiction over military offenses, some
consultation with leadership before the promulgation of the order
would have been appropriate. No member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, to my knowledge, was consulted or even notified in
advance of this order.

Congress has fully cooperated with the president in the war against
terrorism with legislation authorizing the use of force and the
appropriation of billions of dollars at the president's request. We
promptly passed a statute, in public and with detailed rationale
available in the Congressional Record, broadening law
enforcement powers to fight terrorism.

It may be that the executive branch can justify the extraordinary
and far-reaching powers called for in the order. However, even in
war, Congress and the courts have critical roles in establishing the
appropriate balance between national security and civil rights. We
should not forget that decades after interning United States
citizens of Japanese extraction, the government apologized and
paid reparations.

Vigorous Congressional oversight is the indispensable first step
in determining what is "practicable" in finding that balance.

Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, is a member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee.

==========================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: "Rev. Squid Kid" <ask@ma.ultranet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2001 9:13 AM

Tesla Coil <tescoil@irtc.net> wrote in news:3C045CB5.1354D7E7@irtc.net:
>
> The handwritten message on the T-shirt that got her
> in trouble read: "When I saw the dead and dying
> Afghani children on TV, I felt a newly recovered
> sense of national security. God Bless America."

Hell, didn't you know that would happen? When I was in highschool (say in
'91 or '92 thereabouts) I student there got suspended for wearing a T-shirt
that depicted a smiley face with a bullet wound in the forehead. Schools
have a long and storied history of punishing the T-shirt-wearer. Why, I
have no idea, but it seems that the authorities-that-be seem to think that
clothing is the greatest tool available to the revolutionaries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: John Starrett <jstarret@carbon.cudenver.edu>

>
> bad form to follow up to oneself, i know, but here's an
> additional editorial on military tribunals, this one from
> senator arlen spector (pa), hardly known as a flaming
> liberal.
<snip>

Thank you for your bad form. The dam is beginning to crack.

--
John Starrett
"We have nothing to fear but the scary stuff."
http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret/microtone.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2001 1:42 PM

We need to give this girl our support! Somebody find out how to contact
her. I imagine it's pretty hard, what with all the death threats they're
probably getting right now, but I have faith that YOU guys can get it done.
If someone will email me her address, I'll make sure some of the Holy
Pamphlets find their way to her.

I guess I could just put:

Katy Sierra
Hated Anarchist Girl
Charleston, W. VA

But I don't think that would work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: Artemia Salina <y2k@sheayright.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2001 2:11 PM
Message-ID: <3C0536EC.3894F3D8@sheayright.com>

John Starrett wrote:

>
> Thank you for your bad form. The dam is beginning to crack.

And how much do you want to bet that most everyone will completely
overlook the fact that it is a POLITICIAN, in this case, who
is showing enough balls to "question authority", just like
the Portland OR police.

--
Artemia Salina -- http://www.drpez.com/drali1.htm
Concessory Diegesis Aswooned Sdeigns Predicamental Disassimilation!!! -- see page 58

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack

Rev. Magdalen wrote:
>
> We need to give this girl our support! Somebody find
> out how to contact her.

Well, here is the web page of the school that
was so mean to the Hated Anarchist Girl:

http://shs.kana.k12.wv.us/

--
&
"nu-monet is right. No one is safe."
&
Porno Myth #18. If you come across a guy and his
girlfriend having sex in the bushes, the boyfriend
won't bash seven shades of shit out of you if you
shove your cock in his girlfriend's mouth.
&
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: sockfumes@freeGrunt.com (meat balloon)
>

there already been a bunch of cracks in the dam.

but Americans would take to canoes and float around till the dove
shits their collective heads as long as they got free cable on them
canoes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Update: First Crack In The Dam?
From: "NeuroManson" <1llabruf@tsewq.ten>
Newsgroups: alt.slack

This is your dam...
This is your dam on crack...
Any questions?

--
Reverse the e-mail's spelling to reply...

If you cannot think for yourself, it doesn't entitle you to think for me...

Back to document index

Original file name: Update- First Crack In The Dam? - converted on Thursday, 20 December 2001, 03:31