Comments for National Security Law Brief http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:03:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Tossing the Baby Out with the Bathwater: Avoiding Protectionism While Using Existing Law to Safeguard Against Counterfeit Chinese Goods by Andy Purdy http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2011/12/26/tossing-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater-avoiding-protectionism-while-using-existing-law-to-safeguard-against-counterfeit-chinese-goods/comment-page-1/#comment-1197 Andy Purdy Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:03:50 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=7067#comment-1197 Good perspective. Good perspective.

]]> Comment on Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg: Heroic or Traitorous Leakers? by dich vu bao ve http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2012/01/08/bradley-manning-and-daniel-ellsberg-heroic-or-traitorous-leakers/comment-page-1/#comment-1189 dich vu bao ve Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:33:06 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=7102#comment-1189 Is it just me or does it seem that Vietnamese government are strong supporters of China? The reason I wonder is because of all of the anti China protests that go on there. Is it just me or does it seem that Vietnamese government are strong supporters of China? The reason I wonder is because of all of the anti China protests that go on there.

]]> Comment on Are all Terrorists Muslim? by shaffiate http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2010/10/17/are-all-terrorists-muslim/comment-page-1/#comment-1164 shaffiate Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:11:41 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=5441#comment-1164 When did this change? quote: " There are good men and bad men in all nationalities, creeds and colors; and if this world of ours is ever to become what we hope some day it may become, it must be by the general recognition that the man's heart and soul, the man's worth and actions, determine his standing." Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, 1901--1909 Letter, Oyster Bay, NY, September 1, 1903 quote: " No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." " Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, 1901--1909 Third Annual Message to Congress, December 7, 1903. When did this change?

quote:

” There are good men and bad men in all nationalities, creeds and colors; and if this world of ours is ever to become what we hope some day it may become, it must be by the general recognition that the man’s heart and soul, the man’s worth and actions, determine his standing.”

Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, 1901–1909

Letter, Oyster Bay, NY, September 1, 1903

quote:

” No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it.” ” Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.”

Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, 1901–1909

Third Annual Message to Congress, December 7, 1903.

]]> Comment on Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg: Heroic or Traitorous Leakers? by baove http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2012/01/08/bradley-manning-and-daniel-ellsberg-heroic-or-traitorous-leakers/comment-page-1/#comment-1158 baove Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:29:22 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=7102#comment-1158 Is it just me or does it seem that Vietnamese government are strong supporters of China? The reason I wonder is because of all of the anti China protests that go on there. Is it just me or does it seem that Vietnamese government are strong supporters of China? The reason I wonder is because of all of the anti China protests that go on there.

]]> Comment on 9/11 Trial Likely to Be Moved to Military Court by Kurt Spehr http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2010/03/05/911-trial-likely-to-be-moved-to-military-court/comment-page-1/#comment-1135 Kurt Spehr Thu, 05 Jan 2012 03:30:58 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=4294#comment-1135 These suspect terrorists/p.o.w.'s deserve some form of "due process."The Geneva Convention should be upheld by the U.S. which I believe it has! These people trained to kill as many U.S. citizens whether combatants or non-combatants. Under U.S. 1821 precedent pirates were hung when caught in an act of piracy without trial! The U.S. Navy strung them up just as the British Navy did. The first Twin Tower terrorists were tried in Federal Court! Did this set U.S. precedent? Why try the first bunch in a Federal Court and the next bunch in a military tribunal? Why are military tribunals O.K. for our own military members and not for terrorists? Do terrorists have more rights then our brave men and women in uniform? I hope not! Why did they attack the U.S.? They attacked us because of their radical Islamic religious belief is that all non-Muslims can be killed like cattle! I am a Christian and I am as worried about Detroit Michigan Islamic neighborhoods that prohibit "free speech" on city public streets! Any Christian public speech is forbidden! This is what is coming to all the U.S. We the U.S. through the Obama administration are providing weapons to Muslim troops in Indonesia that have been burning Christian churches and killing indigenous Christian tribe members! The Leahy Act stopped this during the Bush administration! Why is Congress allowing Christians to be killed in West Papua (Indonesia) with U.S. supplied weapons and ammunition and U.S. training? These suspect terrorists/p.o.w.’s deserve some form of “due process.”The Geneva Convention should be upheld by the U.S. which I believe it has! These people trained to kill as many U.S. citizens whether combatants or non-combatants. Under U.S. 1821 precedent pirates were hung when caught in an act of piracy without trial! The U.S. Navy strung them up just as the British Navy did. The first Twin Tower terrorists were tried in Federal Court! Did this set U.S. precedent? Why try the first bunch in a Federal Court and the next bunch in a military tribunal? Why are military tribunals O.K. for our own military members and not for terrorists? Do terrorists have more rights then our brave men and women in uniform? I hope not! Why did they attack the U.S.? They attacked us because of their radical Islamic religious belief is that all non-Muslims can be killed like cattle! I am a Christian and I am as worried about Detroit Michigan Islamic neighborhoods that prohibit “free speech” on city public streets! Any Christian public speech is forbidden! This is what is coming to all the U.S. We the U.S. through the Obama administration are providing weapons to Muslim troops in Indonesia that have been burning Christian churches and killing indigenous Christian tribe members! The Leahy Act stopped this during the Bush administration!
Why is Congress allowing Christians to be killed in West Papua (Indonesia) with U.S. supplied weapons and ammunition and U.S. training?

]]> Comment on Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Proceedings: Is it Legal? by janice http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2011/11/23/prosecutorial-discretion-in-immigration-proceedings-is-it-legal/comment-page-1/#comment-1112 janice Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:33:01 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=6936#comment-1112 is it a lw in california too or not I mean can that law used in ca or not? is it a lw in california too or not I mean can that law used in ca or not?

]]> Comment on Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Proceedings: Is it Legal? by Rita Espinosa, Esq. http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2011/11/23/prosecutorial-discretion-in-immigration-proceedings-is-it-legal/comment-page-1/#comment-1097 Rita Espinosa, Esq. Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:37:23 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=6936#comment-1097 I am not sure I agree with your constitutional analysis and I think you are confusing the Due Process Clause with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Ultimately, the memo is simply reminding officers of their inherent discretionary powers and provides needed guidance on what factors officers should look to when deciding a particular case warrants their discretion. It is incorrect to phrase the set of favorable factors mentioned in the memo as creating a protected class. Also remember that immigration proceedings are not like a criminal trial and most immigrants face deportation proceedings without the aid of counsel. Finally, with respect to national security, immigration officers will never use their discretion to help someone they believe is a national security threat. In immigration practice, most simple criminal convictions are used by DHS attorneys and immigration officers as excuses for detaining people for indefinite periods of time and to deport them. If an officer believes an individual poses even the slightest threat to national security, they will certainly not be lenient, regardless of how many factors they have in their favor. I am not sure I agree with your constitutional analysis and I think you are confusing the Due Process Clause with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Ultimately, the memo is simply reminding officers of their inherent discretionary powers and provides needed guidance on what factors officers should look to when deciding a particular case warrants their discretion. It is incorrect to phrase the set of favorable factors mentioned in the memo as creating a protected class. Also remember that immigration proceedings are not like a criminal trial and most immigrants face deportation proceedings without the aid of counsel. Finally, with respect to national security, immigration officers will never use their discretion to help someone they believe is a national security threat. In immigration practice, most simple criminal convictions are used by DHS attorneys and immigration officers as excuses for detaining people for indefinite periods of time and to deport them. If an officer believes an individual poses even the slightest threat to national security, they will certainly not be lenient, regardless of how many factors they have in their favor.

]]> Comment on U.S. Government Reacts to Protest Movements by willyz http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2011/02/21/u-s-government-reacts-to-protest-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-1085 willyz Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:14:47 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=6095#comment-1085 OK lets be fair, thats what our govt. was founded on. Equal rights!!!! Now I hear that congress is contemplating new legislation for cutting of unemployment benefits for people who have received 6 mo. of benefits and that will be the new limit on benefits. Well how unlucky am I that I didn't get laid off in 2009 those people got extensions of up to 2 years in benefits but I was laid off in late 2010 am 58 years old and will soon loose my benefits!It was also reported that in order for people to receive those benefits they will be drug tested!!!!!! That's fine lets be fair....test everyone that receives govt. money Congressmen, Senators, fed. employees, wellfair recipients, food stamp recipients, medicare and medicaid recipients, social security recipients, and social security disability recipients. My generation protested back in the late 60's early 70's and made a difference in rights for Women, gays, blacks, equal pay ect.so KEEP PROTESTING YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES> This is a govt. for the people, and we have the freedom to assembly, and freedom of speech, it's time WE TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!!! Protest for term limits. the life time senators and congressmen make millions of dollars and if terms were limited to 2 four year terms I don't think anyone who is there to get rich would be there. willyz OK lets be fair, thats what our govt. was founded on. Equal rights!!!! Now I hear that congress is contemplating new legislation for cutting of unemployment benefits for people who have received 6 mo. of benefits and that will be the new limit on benefits. Well how unlucky am I that I didn’t get laid off in 2009 those people got extensions of up to 2 years in benefits but I was laid off in late 2010 am 58 years old and will soon loose my benefits!It was also reported that in order for people to receive those benefits they will be drug tested!!!!!! That’s fine lets be fair….test everyone that receives govt. money Congressmen, Senators, fed. employees, wellfair recipients, food stamp recipients, medicare and medicaid recipients, social security recipients, and social security disability recipients.
My generation protested back in the late 60′s early 70′s and made a difference in rights for Women, gays, blacks, equal pay ect.so KEEP PROTESTING YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES> This is a govt. for the people, and we have the freedom to assembly, and freedom of speech, it’s time WE TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!!!
Protest for term limits. the life time senators and congressmen make millions of dollars and if terms were limited to 2 four year terms I don’t think anyone who is there to get rich would be there.

willyz

]]> Comment on U.S. Government Reacts to Protest Movements by willy z http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2011/02/21/u-s-government-reacts-to-protest-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-1084 willy z Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:37:11 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=6095#comment-1084 term limits now 2 terms maximum term limits now 2 terms maximum

]]> Comment on Mandatory HPV Vaccination Debate: Is it a Threat to National Security? by Mandatory HPV Vaccination Debate: Is it a Threat to National Security? | SaneVax http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2011/12/03/mandatory-hpv-vaccination-debate-is-it-a-threat-to-national-security/comment-page-1/#comment-1083 Mandatory HPV Vaccination Debate: Is it a Threat to National Security? | SaneVax Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:51:17 +0000 http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/?p=6970#comment-1083 [...] Read the entire brief here. Filed Under: Gardasil / Silgard, HPV, United States Tagged With: constitutionality, Gardasil, mandates, public health [...] [...] Read the entire brief here. Filed Under: Gardasil / Silgard, HPV, United States Tagged With: constitutionality, Gardasil, mandates, public health [...]

]]>