Padilla case reversed: Bush can detain U.S. citizens without charging them - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

raveneye · 09-11-2005, 06:37 AM

Quote:

ahh... now simple internment won't meet the thread's criteria, it's full-blown prison? these discussions often end up with moving goal-posts.

The goalpost was always a court decision authorizing the president to detain someone as Padilla has been detained. Note the occasion of this thread was a court decision involving Padilla.

The only way "internment" would meet my criteria is if a federal court ruled that "internment" were legal. Korematsu did not do that. Endo in fact did the opposite, in 1944.

Paq · 09-11-2005, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

This is likely...the scariest thing I have ever seen posted on these boards.

that's what i was saying

Yakk · 09-11-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Because it shows the government is willing to go to lengths maybe previously not yet gone to in pursuing terrorism. Plus, anything that reduces the rights of people (espeically those accused of crimes) will inherently lead toward more safety for all.

So, if I accuse you of being a murderer, we should just shoot you? I mean, if we reduce your right to life, it should inherently lead towards more safety for all.

After all, if you are accused of being a murderer, you are probably guilty of it.

pig · 09-11-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tec quoting and commenting on alansmithee

Because it shows the government is willing to go to lengths maybe previously not yet gone to in pursuing terrorism. Plus, anything that reduces the rights of people (espeically those accused of crimes) will inherently lead toward more safety for all.

This is likely...the scariest thing I have ever seen posted on these boards.

Aw come on Tec, it's very simple. If everyone is in prison, then everyone outside prison will obviously be perfectly safe.

editMojo or whoever:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

Pigglet it's not an issue of Iraq, or a matter of declaring war against a sovereign, or a phantom word. Articles of War refer to rules/law and conduct set in place by our congress.

I guess what I'm asking is whether or not we're officially "at war?" I was under the impression that we had skirted that by making this an "operation," and that while the President / Armed Services had certain executive privelages, that technically, in a legal sense, we're not "at war" in the same way we were in Vietnam, Korea, WWI and II, etc.

/pigglet potentially reveals his shocking ignorance of the situation.

Elphaba · 09-11-2005, 12:15 PM

I'll join you in the not being sure ignorance. I don't believe Korea or Vietnam were ever formerly declared wars.

Willravel · 09-11-2005, 12:32 PM

Does anyone know the legal description on an "enemy combatent"? Is there an official descrpition, or is it a blanket term that can be applied to a host of people and situations?
Edit: are we talking the GCIII description? Is there a description in US law?

pig · 09-11-2005, 12:38 PM

will

I think I can give a little information on that one - looks pretty blanket to me.

A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
- or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

*******************

/off to see what I can find about this articles of war / being at war business

alansmithee · 09-11-2005, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I'll join you in the not being sure ignorance. I don't believe Korea or Vietnam were ever formerly declared wars.

IIRC, Korea was officially a war but Vietnam wasn't.

alansmithee · 09-11-2005, 04:54 PM

I've never been afraid of what people aren't allowed to do. But what they are allowed to do scares me greatly. Nothing in history has shown that people are ready for freedom. No right should be absolute.

alansmithee · 09-11-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

So, if I accuse you of being a murderer, we should just shoot you? I mean, if we reduce your right to life, it should inherently lead towards more safety for all.

After all, if you are accused of being a murderer, you are probably guilty of it.

You aren't differentiating between an individual and the gov't. I trust the gov't to make a proper decision far more than just a random person. The current thresholds for evidence are greatly in favor of the defendant (unless you're black, but that's a different issue). There are some times when it is best for someone to be kept locked away, even when evidence might not merit it from a legal standpoint. This is one case. I'm sure there will be more in the future, and I'm glad that the gov't now has the ability to do so.

Yakk · 09-11-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

You aren't differentiating between an individual and the gov't. I trust the gov't to make a proper decision far more than just a random person. The current thresholds for evidence are greatly in favor of the defendant (unless you're black, but that's a different issue). There are some times when it is best for someone to be kept locked away, even when evidence might not merit it from a legal standpoint. This is one case. I'm sure there will be more in the future, and I'm glad that the gov't now has the ability to do so.

First of all, one individual -- the US president -- has, under this ruling, the irreversable, unchallengeable, evidence-free authority to lock someone up and throw away the key. On a whim.

Secondly, it was you who said "odds are if you are accused, you are guilty". I just took you at face value. Apparently you meant "if the government accuses you, then you are guilty". Very well.

So now you place your trust in the government. That, given the power to accuse people and throw away the key, will hold themselves to a high standard and only accuse people who are guilty.

Anything that reduces the rights of people leads towards safety for all.

You said that. Do you mean it?

DA's don't get elected by putting guilty people behind bars, and letting innocent people go. They get elected by putting someone behind bars for every crime, and not losing any case which they start to prosecute.

"It's a results-oriented process today; fairness be damned. The philosophy of the past 10 to 15 years [is] that whatever works is what's right." -- Robert
Merkle (via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)

This is with the "deck stacked against the state".

http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003..._interview.htm

Would 25% false-conviction rates be too high for your ethics? If 1/4 people convicted of murder did not do the crime, would that be acceptable to you?

The lovely thing about DNA testing is that it has allowed retroactive analysis of convictions, and actual beyond-a-reasonable-doubt overturning of cases. If 1/4 cases from pre-DNA days in which DNA evidence was still availiable where overturned because the DNA proved the conviction wrong -- wouldn't that sort of indicate that your trust is misplaced?

The government is just people. When these people are constrained, chained, and held back by checks and balances, you may be justified in having some faith in them. This does not mean that anything good will happen when you remove the constraints. An attack dog on a leash will not kill children in the street. This tells you nothing about what happens when you remove the leash.

The president is occasionally given powers which are best executed by one man (a committee cannot be the top of a chain of command), require quick decision making, or is given the right to hinder other aspects of government. Giving the executive branch the unquestionable power to detain, when there is plenty of time to evaluate the detention, is idiocy.

alansmithee · 09-11-2005, 08:11 PM

Personally, I'm more happy with innocent people in jail than I am with guilty people walking free. People need to know that there is concequences for their actions. I have no problem if 125% of people who commit murder are procecuted, as long as that in that 125% the 100% who did commit the crime are caught.

djtestudo · 09-11-2005, 08:22 PM

I think alansmithee is right when he said, "Anything that reduces the rights of people leads towards safety for all." That can be considered an accurate statement.

However, I don't agree with the idea; that overall safety is more important then individual rights.

About the topic of the thread: were these judges actually appointed by Bush?

There seems to be a few people complaining about him in regards to this, and I'm not sure how he fits in, other then it could increase his power to incarcirate US citizens suspected of terrorist activities (which isn't something I'm arguing here).

martinguerre · 09-11-2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

There seems to be a few people complaining about him in regards to this, and I'm not sure how he fits in, other then it could increase his power to incarcirate US citizens suspected of terrorist activities (which isn't something I'm arguing here).

I think there may be some collective acknowledgement that Alan is not likely to be persuaded by arguments to the contrary.

Valuation of security over liberty is not a decision i can factually prove to be incorrect. I don't think it's smart...i don't think the government has a wonderful track record with unchecked coercive power, nor do i like the idea of a more authoritarian state. but those are mostly value judgements, not factual debates. to be frank, i don't think Alan's rhetoric on this issue is going to convince a great deal of people. He's making such provocative statements as to pretty much alienate him from most folks, even the conservative camp here at TFP which tends to be pretty libertarian, not totalitarian.

alansmithee · 09-11-2005, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

I think there may be some collective acknowledgement that Alan is not likely to be persuaded by arguments to the contrary.

Valuation of security over liberty is not a decision i can factually prove to be incorrect. I don't think it's smart...i don't think the government has a wonderful track record with unchecked coercive power, nor do i like the idea of a more authoritarian state. but those are mostly value judgements, not factual debates. to be frank, i don't think Alan's rhetoric on this issue is going to convince a great deal of people. He's making such provocative statements as to pretty much alienate him from most folks, even the conservative camp here at TFP which tends to be pretty libertarian, not totalitarian.

Why do I need to convince other people? I posted an initial reaction, others asked my opinion and I responded. If my view "alienates" others, that's neither my concern nor problem. I believe myself to be right, and I'm not going to change my views simply to not "alienate" others. Honestly, I don't see what's so provocative.

And to me, libertarianism is just an euphamism for anarchy.

dksuddeth · 09-12-2005, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I've never been afraid of what people aren't allowed to do. But what they are allowed to do scares me greatly. Nothing in history has shown that people are ready for freedom. No right should be absolute.

are you sure you're living in the right country?

pig · 09-12-2005, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I have no problem if 125% of people who commit murder are procecuted, as long as that in that 125% the 100% who did commit the crime are caught.

Hmmm...alan I'm assuming you're being earnest in your position, and I suppose it can be interesting to discuss liberty vs. safety and whether there is a logical series of steps that point out one way or the other as being a more wise direction. Quick note and question:

1. Your math is theoretically impossible.

2. What is your position on the notion of "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely"?

3. From what you know, would you have liked to have lived under Stalin?

tecoyah · 09-12-2005, 06:15 AM

One also is forced to wonder how you would deal with your Mother in prison....unjustly, having fallen victim to the "other 25%".

I would be interested in your thoughts on this scenario Alan.

dksuddeth · 09-12-2005, 06:23 AM

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Alan is all for a governmental crackdown on society, so long as his rights and liberties are protected. How would he feel if the injustice was forced upon him though?

pig · 09-12-2005, 06:57 AM

Well, the thing that I keep thinking about is that these scenarios have been played out countless times throughout history, and every time a society gets all ape-shit totalitarian, corruption spreads like wild fire, the people get super pissed off, and they kick the shit out of the government.

So the real question I'm left with is whether alansmithee is serious in his positions, or whether he's trying to be incendiary?

Oh what the heck, one last question: If the government is justified in throwing people in prison if they think they're bad guys, or if they might be bad guys, etc...do you expect the people of accused of being bad guys to sit back and take it...or do you expect them to say "the heck with this crap, I think I'm going to get a little revolution going on?"

Let's say this

"More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world...If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17."

Then, if 25% of 5.6 million is 1.4 million (which it is)...then you're saying you're fine with about 1.4 million people being in prison incorrectly (assumiing that 5.6 million deserve to be there in the first place) and don't think that's going to cause any problems? I've detected that you have some issues with the partiality of the legal system towards convicted black people...you don't think that an incarceration rate of 25% more blacks in prison, fully in the knowledge that there's a ton of false convictions is going to cause massive problems?

Hmmm....

edit It might be interesting to juxtapose this position with the fact that (in my opinion) we're justifiably freaking out as a nation over somewhere from a hundred to a couple thousand potentially dead in New Orleans, and the potential "sluggishness" of our government to deal fairly and adequately with the people there. I think, and I could be wrong, but I *think* that people in the U.S. would get so crazy with the cheeze whiz it would make Detroit after a Red Wings Stanley Cup look like an upset child knocking over a house of cards.

double edit alan maybe you're trying to claim you're happy with the status quo, in that we assuredly have false convictions already?

StanT · 09-12-2005, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Personally, I'm more happy with innocent people in jail than I am with guilty people walking free. People need to know that there is concequences for their actions. I have no problem if 125% of people who commit murder are procecuted, as long as that in that 125% the 100% who did commit the crime are caught.

I suspect this is only true if you are not among the innocent people that are imprisoned unjustly.

In the Padilla case, I am uncomfortable knowing that the source of the "intelligence" that was used detain him is the same as that used to support WMD in Iraq.

Our system of justice has always had a requirement for due process with checks and balances. I don't see any good reason to abandon it now.

martinguerre · 09-12-2005, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Why do I need to convince other people? I posted an initial reaction, others asked my opinion and I responded. If my view "alienates" others, that's neither my concern nor problem. I believe myself to be right, and I'm not going to change my views simply to not "alienate" others. Honestly, I don't see what's so provocative.

And to me, libertarianism is just an euphamism for anarchy.

Never said you did. I was explaining to djtestudo why i beleived that there was very little reaction to your statements. I mean provocative only in relation to other view points here. Most liberals here don't like the idea of a police state, or trust the government that much right now. Your statements clearly conflict with that value set. Many of the conservatives here are liberatarian, which again clearly conflicts with your statements.

Openly declaring that you believe that less freedom is a good thing is clearly meant to garner a response. Do i really need to be saying any of this? It seems rather straightforward to me.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2005, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

I suspect this is only true if you are not among the innocent people that are imprisoned unjustly.

In the Padilla case, I am uncomfortable knowing that the source of the "intelligence" that was used detain him is the same as that used to support WMD in Iraq.

Our system of justice has always had a requirement for due process with checks and balances. I don't see any good reason to abandon it now.

On the subject of checks and balances is special powers granted to the executive branch and military in persecuting people that have been deemed spies/illegal combatants; like Guantanmo Bay and the appointment of tribunals. Not everyone is afforded the right to common criminal law judicial proceedings or protections.

alansmithee · 09-12-2005, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

Hmmm...alan I'm assuming you're being earnest in your position, and I suppose it can be interesting to discuss liberty vs. safety and whether there is a logical series of steps that point out one way or the other as being a more wise direction. Quick note and question:

1. Your math is theoretically impossible.

I know, but the point I was trying to make is clear. I will accept a certain number of people being arrested and convicted of crimes they didn't commit as long as all (or most) of those who do commit crimes are punished.

Quote:

2. What is your position on the notion of "absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely"?

In many instances it's true. But not in all instances.

Quote:

3. From what you know, would you have liked to have lived under Stalin?

Stalin, no. Hitler, maybe (if I were German/Aryan). Probably Mussolini. Napoleon, definately. As well as quite a few of the Roman dictators/emperors.

(edit-forgot about Mussolini)

alansmithee · 09-12-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

One also is forced to wonder how you would deal with your Mother in prison....unjustly, having fallen victim to the "other 25%".

I would be interested in your thoughts on this scenario Alan.

It would be no different. I would be disappointed and probably angry for awhile, but it wouldn't invalidate what I believe to be right. Just because it's someone related to me changes nothing. I'm not so conceited that I think it's fine for everyone else BUT me, I realize that I would be just as likely as the next person to suffer.

Also, the exact circumstances would matter in this case. There's a difference between just randomly charging/convicting people, and charging/convicting those who there is evidence in support of their wrongdoing, evidence which gives a false impression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Alan is all for a governmental crackdown on society, so long as his rights and liberties are protected. How would he feel if the injustice was forced upon him though?

I addressed this somewhat above. Although I would gladly forfeit certain rights of mine if it would lead toward more gov't power. There are many things that I am allowed to do that I think ideally people shouldnt' be allowed to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

Well, the thing that I keep thinking about is that these scenarios have been played out countless times throughout history, and every time a society gets all ape-shit totalitarian, corruption spreads like wild fire, the people get super pissed off, and they kick the shit out of the government.

So the real question I'm left with is whether alansmithee is serious in his positions, or whether he's trying to be incendiary?

Oh what the heck, one last question: If the government is justified in throwing people in prison if they think they're bad guys, or if they might be bad guys, etc...do you expect the people of accused of being bad guys to sit back and take it...or do you expect them to say "the heck with this crap, I think I'm going to get a little revolution going on?"

Let's say this

"More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world...If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17."

Then, if 25% of 5.6 million is 1.4 million (which it is)...then you're saying you're fine with about 1.4 million people being in prison incorrectly (assumiing that 5.6 million deserve to be there in the first place) and don't think that's going to cause any problems? I've detected that you have some issues with the partiality of the legal system towards convicted black people...you don't think that an incarceration rate of 25% more blacks in prison, fully in the knowledge that there's a ton of false convictions is going to cause massive problems?

Hmmm....

edit It might be interesting to juxtapose this position with the fact that (in my opinion) we're justifiably freaking out as a nation over somewhere from a hundred to a couple thousand potentially dead in New Orleans, and the potential "sluggishness" of our government to deal fairly and adequately with the people there. I think, and I could be wrong, but I *think* that people in the U.S. would get so crazy with the cheeze whiz it would make Detroit after a Red Wings Stanley Cup look like an upset child knocking over a house of cards.

double edit alan maybe you're trying to claim you're happy with the status quo, in that we assuredly have false convictions already?

No, the people shouldn't revolt because it's in their own best interest. Sure, some bear the brunt of being "wronged", but this happenes in society everyday, it's nnothing new.

And you are right I do have issues with how Blacks are treated in the justice system. But what I'd like to see isn't a lessening of that (mainly because I think it is near impossible) but other races treated more like blacks. Again, it might cause problems having a great deal of false convictions, but I don't think much more than what you see now. And being falsely convicted doesn't mean that you can't be freed at a later date (much like what happens now).

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Never said you did. I was explaining to djtestudo why i beleived that there was very little reaction to your statements. I mean provocative only in relation to other view points here. Most liberals here don't like the idea of a police state, or trust the government that much right now. Your statements clearly conflict with that value set. Many of the conservatives here are liberatarian, which again clearly conflicts with your statements.

Openly declaring that you believe that less freedom is a good thing is clearly meant to garner a response. Do i really need to be saying any of this? It seems rather straightforward to me.

Umm, if I understand it, the second part of dj testudo's comments were about Bush and not me. AFAIK, nobody's given me the power to jail suspected terrorists (although I'd greatly appreciate it if I were given those powers).

Because I think my statements have gotten quite a bit of reaction (deserved or not)

pig · 09-12-2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

On the subject of checks and balances is special powers granted to the executive branch and military in persecuting people that have been deemed spies/illegal combatants

But that's not really the case here, is it? I mean "deeming" someone to be a terrorist, and proving it are pretty different, no? I thought that's what the laws for treason were for...

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2005, 09:11 AM

Deeming someone to be an illegal combatant isn't a blank check for detention. There are still provisions in place, most noteably is that people accused of being an illegal combatant can challenge the status. Treason could be applicable in the case of Padilla because he is a citizen (again I know that people have been stripped of their status as citizens in the past, don't know how due process has factored in, or what even constitutes 'due process' in such an instance), but the issue really only comes up in the case of foreign nationals.

Yakk · 09-12-2005, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Personally, I'm more happy with innocent people in jail than I am with guilty people walking free. People need to know that there is concequences for their actions. I have no problem if 125% of people who commit murder are procecuted, as long as that in that 125% the 100% who did commit the crime are caught.

Alan, who said anything about arresting the guilty?

If they can arrest whoever they want and throw away the key, they don't have to aim at the guilty. One person gets put away per murder -- if 25% of the people put away for murder are innocent, then 25% of murders walk away scot free.

Djte,

Quote:

I think alansmithee is right when he said, "Anything that reduces the rights of people leads towards safety for all." That can be considered an accurate statement.

No. No it is not.

The government is far far more dangerous than a petty murder. Because the government deals out harm wholesale.

Alan doesn't seem to understand what kinds of evil an unchecked government can entail. Stalin, Hitler, Mao -- government without strict, strong and constant checks of it's power is more dangerous, deadly and evil than anything.

Everyone else, be aware that there are people who will sell you down the river. They will salute anyone who will lie to them and tell them they will be safe. They will kill you at the whim of their authority figures. These people exist, they are your neighbours, and you must not let them take control of government. These people exist, they are your police officers, and you must not let them go unchecked. These people exist, they are your military brass, and you must not trust them. These people exist, they are your politicians, and you must not let apathy unshackle them.

When you hear your politicians say things that lean towards Alan's viewpoints, realize they are not just "pandering to their base" or "using rheotric to sound strong". They will do these things. Freedom will be thrown away by people like Alan. They are the domestic enemies of freedom.

dksuddeth · 09-12-2005, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Deeming someone to be an illegal combatant isn't a blank check for detention. There are still provisions in place, most noteably is that people accused of being an illegal combatant can challenge the status. Treason could be applicable in the case of Padilla because he is a citizen (again I know that people have been stripped of their status as citizens in the past, don't know how due process has factored in, or what even constitutes 'due process' in such an instance), but the issue really only comes up in the case of foreign nationals.

What provisions are in place? The detained can challenge the accusation but has no access to evidence because of classification status. The Government does not have to provide any evidence to show their reasoning for the detention because of classification status. If Treason charges could be applicable then there should be evidence and witnessess enough for a trial.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2005, 12:39 PM

I couldn't tell you all the provisions in place specifically, but the fact that 40 have been cleared and nearly 200 have been either released or transferred certainly lends creedence to the idea that not everyone is rotting in Gitmo as a result of the all evil/all encompassiong "illegal combatant" detentions and semantics.

dksuddeth · 09-12-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I couldn't tell you all the provisions in place specifically, but the fact that 40 have been cleared and nearly 200 have been either released or transferred certainly lends creedence to the idea that not everyone is rotting in Gitmo as a result of the all evil/all encompassiong "illegal combatant" detentions and semantics.

we're still talking apples and oranges. the people in gitmo are not us citizens and they were picked up either on the battlefield or in areas near military operations. Padilla is a US citizen that was picked up exiting a plane in O'hare airport. To date, that I'm aware of, the government has not shown one bit of evidence to substantiate the claims of his intent nor has he been charged with a crime. He's been given a label so that the justice system, a system designed to protect us and our rights, is removed from his existence.

Again, If detaining someone with no evidence and no charge on the word of the CinC, whats to stop the same from happening to anyone else with and for less?

vautrain · 09-12-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Personally, I'm more happy with innocent people in jail than I am with guilty people walking free. People need to know that there is concequences for their actions. I have no problem if 125% of people who commit murder are procecuted, as long as that in that 125% the 100% who did commit the crime are caught.

Dang, that view is dangerously naive. Dangerously naive.

Every innocent person convicted of murder almost always represents a guilty person who has escaped justice.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-12-2005, 04:37 PM

DK you are completely over simplying what has happened with Padilla. Here is a link, it's a Writ of Certiorari, it was filed for a stay against Padilla once the second circuit ruled that Shrub was without authority to detain, it explains shit better then I can; sadly I cannot directly quote it because it is in pdf, I got it off Findlaw though.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/p...11604usmot.pdf

dksuddeth · 09-13-2005, 08:30 AM

Mojo, I read this and the only thing this states and refers to is the expedition of an appeal to overturn the second courts ruling. Did I miss something?

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-13-2005, 08:43 AM

It was somewhere in the first appendage I believe. Probably didn't miss much I was just attempting to point out Padilla did more then merely exit a plane and got picked up without charge.

dksuddeth · 09-13-2005, 09:15 AM

Ok, I see what you are referring to and I did over simplify it but the fact still remains that we have an alleged connection and until evidence can be shown all we have is the report of a plot to detonate dirty bombs or blow up apartment buildings. In america we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

dlish · 09-13-2005, 11:13 PM

i was under the impression that padilla was arrested after getting off a plane.

maybe he was part of al qaeda, maybe he wasnt..so charging him and taking him to trial is only fair..but he wasnt captured on the battlefield. even john walker lindh who was caught on the battlefield was given a trial.

i dont see why the bush adminstration is differentiating between them??..anyone have any ideas?

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-14-2005, 07:08 PM

I thought Padilla was apprehended by the FBI, Bush and the DoD asked for a transfer of jurisdiction to the military because of Padilla's alleged connections to Al Qaeda, a group the United States is at war with. The illegal Combatant/terrorist status is very similiar to that of being a spy, as such the military is within it's jurisdiction to act. That's what I gather.

Also Lindh was affiliated with the Taliban correct? Not Al Qaeda, that in my mind could make a big difference. If he had no intelligence value he would be no real use to the CIA/DoD/NSA, maybe that's why they would leave him within civil jurisdiction.

rat · 10-05-2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I trust the gov't to make a proper decision far more than just a random person.

This along with your little statement regarding safety makes me absolutely sick to the stomach to think about.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin

That quote just seems to jump to mind. Safety as a whole, is a completely arbitrary and frankly idiotic concept. It is neither tangible nor measurable, let alone real. It is an illusory concept that allows the human mind to work within a specific set of parameters so that it can adequately address the world around itself. A sense of safety is no more than the comfort one receives from his environment and the factors within it. As the people of New Orleans found out, at any time, given any set of circumstances, your whole world can come crashing down around you.

As to your second comment, regarding the government and the blind trust you place in it, I'm rather disheartened, as this seems to be a growing trend for the younger generation. You want to go down the slippery slope argument of safety, I'll take you down one that takes your argument a bit further.

1) Rights reduction occurs by the government in the guise of "safety."
2) Citizens eventually forfeit every right that could potentially cause harm or infringe the "safety" of others.
3) The government makes all decisions for people, without checks and balances to their power.
4) Rights of citizens completely disappear.
5) Without the obligations to the citizens (as the citizens have forfeitted their rights, and thus there are no government obligations to the citizenry), the government has carte blanche as not even the citizens have the right to stop it.
6) With obligations voided, the government acts in its own self-interest, as any reasonably aware entity will fundamentally do, regardless of the effects on its people.
7) The government's self-interest lies in fundamental conflict with that of the citizenry, by definition.
8) The government fulfills only the needs necessary for itself, and the citizenry falls into disrepair, poverty and despair.

The only difference between my slippery slope and yours is that mine is proven both by history and logic whereas yours lies firmly on a foundation of sand, piss and vinegar, holding no merit even to the most cursory of logical examinations.

host · 10-05-2005, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat

This along with your little statement regarding safety makes me absolutely sick to the stomach to think about.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin...........

......The only difference between my slippery slope and yours is that mine is proven both by history and logic whereas yours lies firmly on a foundation of sand, piss and vinegar, holding no merit even to the most cursory of logical examinations.

Very articulate argument. How do you cope with the comparatively repressive Texas governance and political climate?

09-11-2005, 12:32 PM	#46 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Does anyone know the legal description on an "enemy combatent"? Is there an official descrpition, or is it a blanket term that can be applied to a host of people and situations? Edit: are we talking the GCIII description? Is there a description in US law? Last edited by Willravel; 09-11-2005 at 12:34 PM..

09-11-2005, 12:38 PM	#47 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	will I think I can give a little information on that one - looks pretty blanket to me. A combatant (also referred to as an enemy combatant) is a soldier or guerrilla member who is waging war. Under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict 2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces - that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; - that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; that of carrying arms openly; - that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. - or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. ******************* /off to see what I can find about this articles of war / being at war business __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

09-11-2005, 08:22 PM	#53 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I think alansmithee is right when he said, "Anything that reduces the rights of people leads towards safety for all." That can be considered an accurate statement. However, I don't agree with the idea; that overall safety is more important then individual rights. About the topic of the thread: were these judges actually appointed by Bush? There seems to be a few people complaining about him in regards to this, and I'm not sure how he fits in, other then it could increase his power to incarcirate US citizens suspected of terrorist activities (which isn't something I'm arguing here). __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

09-12-2005, 06:23 AM	#59 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Alan is all for a governmental crackdown on society, so long as his rights and liberties are protected. How would he feel if the injustice was forced upon him though? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

09-12-2005, 06:57 AM	#60 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Well, the thing that I keep thinking about is that these scenarios have been played out countless times throughout history, and every time a society gets all ape-shit totalitarian, corruption spreads like wild fire, the people get super pissed off, and they kick the shit out of the government. So the real question I'm left with is whether alansmithee is serious in his positions, or whether he's trying to be incendiary? Oh what the heck, one last question: If the government is justified in throwing people in prison if they think they're bad guys, or if they might be bad guys, etc...do you expect the people of accused of being bad guys to sit back and take it...or do you expect them to say "the heck with this crap, I think I'm going to get a little revolution going on?" Let's say this "More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world...If current trends continue, it means that a black male in the United States would have about a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during his lifetime. For a Hispanic male, it's 1 in 6; for a white male, 1 in 17." Then, if 25% of 5.6 million is 1.4 million (which it is)...then you're saying you're fine with about 1.4 million people being in prison incorrectly (assumiing that 5.6 million deserve to be there in the first place) and don't think that's going to cause any problems? I've detected that you have some issues with the partiality of the legal system towards convicted black people...you don't think that an incarceration rate of 25% more blacks in prison, fully in the knowledge that there's a ton of false convictions is going to cause massive problems? Hmmm.... edit It might be interesting to juxtapose this position with the fact that (in my opinion) we're justifiably freaking out as a nation over somewhere from a hundred to a couple thousand potentially dead in New Orleans, and the potential "sluggishness" of our government to deal fairly and adequately with the people there. I think, and I could be wrong, but I think that people in the U.S. would get so crazy with the cheeze whiz it would make Detroit after a Red Wings Stanley Cup look like an upset child knocking over a house of cards. double edit alan maybe you're trying to claim you're happy with the status quo, in that we assuredly have false convictions already? __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style Last edited by pig; 09-12-2005 at 07:07 AM..

09-11-2005, 12:15 PM	#45 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I'll join you in the not being sure ignorance. I don't believe Korea or Vietnam were ever formerly declared wars.

09-11-2005, 04:54 PM	#49 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	I've never been afraid of what people aren't allowed to do. But what they are allowed to do scares me greatly. Nothing in history has shown that people are ready for freedom. No right should be absolute.

09-11-2005, 08:11 PM	#52 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	Personally, I'm more happy with innocent people in jail than I am with guilty people walking free. People need to know that there is concequences for their actions. I have no problem if 125% of people who commit murder are procecuted, as long as that in that 125% the 100% who did commit the crime are caught.

09-12-2005, 06:15 AM	#58 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	One also is forced to wonder how you would deal with your Mother in prison....unjustly, having fallen victim to the "other 25%". I would be interested in your thoughts on this scenario Alan.

09-12-2005, 09:11 AM	#67 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Deeming someone to be an illegal combatant isn't a blank check for detention. There are still provisions in place, most noteably is that people accused of being an illegal combatant can challenge the status. Treason could be applicable in the case of Padilla because he is a citizen (again I know that people have been stripped of their status as citizens in the past, don't know how due process has factored in, or what even constitutes 'due process' in such an instance), but the issue really only comes up in the case of foreign nationals. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-12-2005, 12:39 PM	#70 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I couldn't tell you all the provisions in place specifically, but the fact that 40 have been cleared and nearly 200 have been either released or transferred certainly lends creedence to the idea that not everyone is rotting in Gitmo as a result of the all evil/all encompassiong "illegal combatant" detentions and semantics. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-12-2005, 04:37 PM	#73 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	DK you are completely over simplying what has happened with Padilla. Here is a link, it's a Writ of Certiorari, it was filed for a stay against Padilla once the second circuit ruled that Shrub was without authority to detain, it explains shit better then I can; sadly I cannot directly quote it because it is in pdf, I got it off Findlaw though. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/p...11604usmot.pdf __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-13-2005, 08:30 AM	#74 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Mojo, I read this and the only thing this states and refers to is the expedition of an appeal to overturn the second courts ruling. Did I miss something? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

09-13-2005, 08:43 AM	#75 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	It was somewhere in the first appendage I believe. Probably didn't miss much I was just attempting to point out Padilla did more then merely exit a plane and got picked up without charge. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-13-2005, 09:15 AM	#76 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	Ok, I see what you are referring to and I did over simplify it but the fact still remains that we have an alleged connection and until evidence can be shown all we have is the report of a plot to detonate dirty bombs or blow up apartment buildings. In america we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

09-13-2005, 11:13 PM	#77 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	i was under the impression that padilla was arrested after getting off a plane. maybe he was part of al qaeda, maybe he wasnt..so charging him and taking him to trial is only fair..but he wasnt captured on the battlefield. even john walker lindh who was caught on the battlefield was given a trial. i dont see why the bush adminstration is differentiating between them??..anyone have any ideas? __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

09-14-2005, 07:08 PM	#78 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I thought Padilla was apprehended by the FBI, Bush and the DoD asked for a transfer of jurisdiction to the military because of Padilla's alleged connections to Al Qaeda, a group the United States is at war with. The illegal Combatant/terrorist status is very similiar to that of being a spy, as such the military is within it's jurisdiction to act. That's what I gather. Also Lindh was affiliated with the Taliban correct? Not Al Qaeda, that in my mind could make a big difference. If he had no intelligence value he would be no real use to the CIA/DoD/NSA, maybe that's why they would leave him within civil jurisdiction. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.