[CTRL] John G. Roberts: Gitmo-police-state freak and Cheney cabalist

[Total Information]

-Caveat Lector- < http://www.total411.info/2005/07/john-g-roberts-gitmo-police-state.html >


John G. Roberts, he new Supreme Court nominee is sure to keep the skids greased in the continuing story of this nation's decline. Check out one of this police-state freak's big opinions on the Appeals court -- from Law.com
02-22-2005:

There was another WMATA [Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority] case -- known as the french fry case -- which some critics point to as a sign of a certain hard-heartedness in Roberts' decision making.

In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a D.C. Metrorail station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.

Not content to rubberstamp cops kidnapping little girls off the subway and searching through car trunks without a warrant; Roberts ahs also done his level-best to cover-up Cheney's pre-Iraq shenanigans. As People for the American Way points out:

In re: Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18831 (D.C. Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9205 (2003): secrecy of Vice President Cheney's energy task force

Judge Roberts was one of the dissenters in the court's 5-3 denial of a petition for rehearing en banc (with one judge not participating) filed by the Bush Administration in its continuing efforts to avoid releasing records pertaining to Vice President Cheney's energy task force. This ruling came in litigation brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club charging that the Vice President's task force had violated federal law by not making its records public. The court's ruling marked "the fourth time a judicial panel has rebuffed efforts to keep the information from the public." Carol D. Leonnig, "Energy Task Force Appeal Refused," Washington Post (Sept. 12, 2003). At the Administration's urging, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case; a decision is expected by the end of June 2004.

You may recall that lawsuit produced documents proving that Cheney and his oil cronies were carving up maps of Iraq's oilfields months, or even years before the invasion. And then, just last Friday, Roberts earned his final bones just last week by backing the military detention of "enemy combatants" -- even Americans-- in the Guantanamo concentration camp in the name of the unConstitutional undeclared War on Terror. This is from an opinion roberts signed on to issued last Friday, July 15 2005 in the case of Hamdan v Rumsfeld:

"The trial and punishment of enemy combatants," the Court further held, is thus part of the "conduct of war." Id. We think it no answer to say, as Hamdan does, that this case is different because Congress did not formally declare war. It has been suggested that only wars between sovereign nations would qualify for such a declaration. See John M. Bickers, Military Commissions are Constitutionally Sound: A Response to Professors Katyal and Tribe, 34 TEX. TECH. L. REV. 899, 918 (2003). Even so, the joint resolution "went as far toward a declaration of war as it might, and as far or further than Congress went in the Civil War, the Philippine Insurrection, the Boxer Rebellion, the Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Panama, the Gulf War, and numerous other conflicts." Id. at 917. The plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in suggesting that a military commission could determine whether an American citizen was an enemy combatant in the current conflict, drew no distinction of the sort.

This opinion cited the phantom "war against terrorism" and the offical 9/11 legend in its justification of military concentration camps for Americans.


--
www.total411.info
www.total911.info www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om