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

raveneye · 09-09-2005, 08:21 AM

Two comments I want to make on this story. First, the judge, Michael Luttig, is a candidate for Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement on the Supreme Court, and this decision certainly puts him in a very good light within the Administration.

And second, the decision is chilling: the President has the power to detain a U.S. citizen indefinitely, without charging him, if the President decides that that person is an "enemy combatant".

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/09/padilla.ap/

Associated Press

The Associated Press State & Local Wire

September 9, 2005, Friday, BC cycle

11:14 AM Eastern Time

SECTION: State and Regional

HEADLINE: Appeals court reverses lower court, says 'dirty bomb' suspect can be held without charges

BYLINE: By KRISTEN GELINEAU, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: RICHMOND, Va.

BODY:
A federal appeals court Friday sided with the Bush administration and reversed a judge's order that the government either charge or free "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla.

The three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the president has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen closely associated with al Qaida.

"The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war," Judge Michael Luttig wrote. "We conclude that the President does possess such authority."

A federal judge in South Carolina had ruled in March that the government cannot hold Padilla indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," a designation President Bush gave him in 2002. The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States.

The administration has said Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, sought to blow up hotels and apartment buildings in the United States and planned an attack with a "dirty bomb" radiological device.

Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002 after returning from Pakistan. The federal government has said he was trained in weapons and explosives by members of al-Qaida.

Padilla, a New York-born convert to Islam, is one of only two U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants. The second, Louisiana native Yaser Hamdi, was released last October after the Justice Department said he no longer posed a threat to the United States and no longer had any intelligence value.

Hamdi, who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2001, gave up his American citizenship and returned to his family in Saudi Arabia as a condition of his release.

LOAD-DATE: September 9, 2005

pig · 09-09-2005, 09:10 AM

The first thing I thought when I heard about this, given the fact that the next appeal is to the US Supremes, was that if the case comes up after Roberts is (more than likely) put in as head Justice, what is the chance that the case will be reversed? Admittedly I don't have the full background on the case, but I fail to understand how they are getting around habeas corpus...is the problem with bringing a charge against Padilla that afterwards, they will naturally have to actually try him?

edit The second thing I thought was: I don't want to hear the Bush Administration describe itself as "Constructionalist" or "Originalist" or any of that crap any more.

raveneye · 09-09-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

what is the chance that the case will be reversed?

If O'Connor's still on the court, I think the chances are better than even that it will be reversed, even with Roberts. If she's not on the court, then I'd say unfortunately it won't be reversed.

pig · 09-09-2005, 09:16 AM

Has she decided yet? Is it fully her decision, or can the Administration force her to stick with her resignation?

raveneye · 09-09-2005, 09:22 AM

I think it's her decision, but she said she'd stay on only until a replacement is sworn in. It might be moot anyway, given the low percentage of appeals that the SCOTUS actually chooses to hear. This one is clearly a fundamental case though, so they damn well should take it.

dksuddeth · 09-09-2005, 10:13 AM

We shouldn't be too surprised by this. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war and detained people, even a US supreme court justice, for speaking out against him. Unfortunately we let our congress and senate representatives authorize the president to do this with the declaration of near unlimited powers over a vaguely defined conflict.

martinguerre · 09-09-2005, 10:13 AM

ouch. i just don't know why people are so ready to abandon one of the greatest legal systems in the history of the world. i'm such a stauch beleiver in the rule of law that this just seems anathema.

raveneye · 09-09-2005, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

We shouldn't be too surprised by this. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war and detained people, even a US supreme court justice, for speaking out against him.

But his doing that was ruled unconstitutional, shortly after the Civil War.

dksuddeth · 09-09-2005, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

But his doing that was ruled unconstitutional, shortly after the Civil War.

and maybe sometime in the future this will be as well, until then we'll have to deal with the hand we dealt ourselves.

Ustwo · 09-09-2005, 10:58 AM

A German soldier captured in WWII was detained until after the war. He may have never fired a gun, or done anything anti-American, he might even be pro-US, but he still stays in a POW camp.

Padilla is an non-uniformed soldier of a terrorist organization. In WWII he would have simply been shot as a spy. He is lucky its not WWII and is only being detained.

pig · 09-09-2005, 11:03 AM

Ustwo

I was under the impression that the current Administration was working very hard to avoid giving these detainees the designation of "soldier" and so forth in order to get around the Geneva Conventions, no? I may not care for the guy (in fact, I don't) but he's still as U.S. citizen. If he's a spy, charge him with treason / sedition / whatever. This is a very dangerous precedent.

dksuddeth · 09-09-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

A German soldier captured in WWII was detained until after the war. He may have never fired a gun, or done anything anti-American, he might even be pro-US, but he still stays in a POW camp.

Padilla is an non-uniformed soldier of a terrorist organization. In WWII he would have simply been shot as a spy. He is lucky its not WWII and is only being detained.

If Padilla were an afghanistan, iraqi, or any other foreign national (uniformed or not) then I would completely agree with you, however, Padilla is a US citizen who is being held without due process or charge in violation of the US constitution.

filtherton · 09-09-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

A German soldier captured in WWII was detained until after the war. He may have never fired a gun, or done anything anti-American, he might even be pro-US, but he still stays in a POW camp.

Padilla is an non-uniformed soldier of a terrorist organization. In WWII he would have simply been shot as a spy. He is lucky its not WWII and is only being detained.

Well, just hope that it is never politically expedient for the government to declare you an "enemy combatant". For someone who seems to believe wholeheartedly in the incompetence of the government, you seem pretty willing to give them carte blanche to lock up citizens indefinitely under the vague pretenses of being an enemy combatant.

vautrain · 09-09-2005, 01:20 PM

Even US citizens who are spies still need to be given a trial. This is a sad day for our Constitution... RIP.

kutulu · 09-10-2005, 10:13 AM

Would these be 'activist judges'? Of course not, they are supporting conservatives...

Before going to the SCOTUS can't they ask the entire 4th Circuit to review the case? There is a much better chance of that happening than hte SCOTUS taking it up.

This is the worst offense against the constitution spanning Bush's entire Presidency. More proof that he's the worst President ever.

Another thing, this is a much bigger issue than Katrina yet there are only 14 posts in this thread.

What rights given via the Constitution do we still have? I'm so sick of Bush wiping his ass with the Constitution.

pig · 09-10-2005, 10:56 AM

kutulu

As far as I can tell, there is no other news that is being well-reported right now in the U.S. Not to appear insensitive to the victims of the hurricane, but Katrina trumps a lost white girl any day in its ability to wipe out coverage of other news items, and to the extent that we should all be concerned and outraged (my opinion, obviously) over the crap in New Orleans, it would appear that it will be a while before we get back to anything happenen over there in I-RAQ or in other important domestic or foreign affairs...not a bad time to hold a hearing for a new Supreme Court Justice though, I'll tell you that much. Not that it's constructed this way, but the timing is sort of beautiful for conservatives on this one.

edit kutulu pointed out that i might have been unclear. italics = added text

kutulu · 09-10-2005, 11:11 AM

This thread isn't about some lost white chick. This is about the courts supporting Bush while he burns the Constitution. Habeas Corpus dates back to English Law in 1679 and it was important enough to be included in our constitution.

pig · 09-10-2005, 11:15 AM

hmmm...so i'm thinking you're not really doing the sarcasm thing today? i'm just going to have to go ahead and sort of agree with you right there, and i might mention that my earlier post sort of looks a lot like yours above.

edit i edited my previous post. yes, i'm feeling convoluted today.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-10-2005, 12:15 PM

This isn't a new precedent, it's been done before in WWII. The ruling doesn't give the administration a blank check either, they still have to make the case the person is an enemy combatant. As far as the cries "Padilla is a US citizen blah blah", that point might not be true; in the past US citizens have lost citizenship after certain actions, namely alligning themselves with enemies of the United States in a time of war.

Everything the President has done has been cleared by the constitution, on the account that the President and Congress are provided powers to act in common defence of the country and the constitution. On top of that Bush, or any President, is given war time powers. The President is charged with faithfully executing all laws passed by congress, in this case the articles of War that have been ratified by our congress, articles that I would bet Padilla is in gross violation of.

kutulu · 09-10-2005, 12:33 PM

Then charge him and be done with it.

pig · 09-10-2005, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Everything the President has done has been cleared by the constitution, on the account that the President and Congress are provided powers to act in common defence of the country and the constitution. On top of that Bush, or any President, is given war time powers. The President is charged with faithfully executing all laws passed by congress, in this case the articles of War that have been ratified by our congress, articles that I would bet Padilla is in gross violation of.

I'm not trying to be cute, and I'm really not interested in a big flame war etc - so I'm not trying to be incendiary. Potentially naive. I was under the impression that our Congress had granted Bush certain Executive privelages, but that we had not actually ratified official "Articles of War" with Iraq. I did a search for "Iraq War Articles of War" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom Articles of War" and came up blank. Are we officially "at War," or are we "at war" with Terror like we're "at war" with Drugs?

edit mental typo

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-10-2005, 01:34 PM

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.

irateplatypus · 09-10-2005, 05:17 PM

i think our treatment of enemy combatants captured on the afghani and iraqi battlefields is too lax. they have forfeited the traditional geneva convention status by nature of the way they carry out the war (no uniforms, mixing with civilian populace, firing from schools/mosques etc.)

but, when it comes to my countrymen... i don't want any concessions made. if padilla is a citizen, then he is entitled every ounce of due process.

it's hard not to chuckle at alarmists who act like Bush is draconian in any way (in light of the historical precedents), but Bush's relative restraint doesn't make this right.

raveneye · 09-10-2005, 05:35 PM

Well, I really don't see any historical precedent, myself. In Lincoln's case, there was a Civil War going on, and it was still ruled unconstitutional. In the few other cases, the concepts of enemy, battlefield, combat, and end-of-hostilities were all very clearly and concretely defined. In this case every one of these terms is nebulous and subjective, making the whole thing completely open-ended. I don't see how it's possible not to conclude that the power granted to the president in the current "war on terrorism" context is way beyond any historical precedent.

irateplatypus · 09-10-2005, 05:52 PM

the current war holds many unique characteristics (in our history anyway), but i think that it isn't without its own historic parallels.

for example: our war with japan caused FDR to send all japanese to internment camps. the enemy combatants in our current war share a remarkable number of similar characteristics (foreign born, middle eastern, male, fervently religious). many more shared traits than those interred in WWII... yet they aren't even (legally) subject to added suspician when going through an airport metal detector.

martinguerre · 09-10-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the current war holds many unique characteristics (in our history anyway), but i think that it isn't without its own historic parallels.

for example: our war with japan caused FDR to send all japanese to internment camps. the enemy combatants in our current war share a remarkable number of similar characteristics (foreign born, middle eastern, male, fervently religious). many more shared traits than those interred in WWII... yet they aren't even (legally) subject to added suspician when going through an airport metal detector.

an action which has been reviled by our government and history.

recent documents have proved that high up officials in the adminstration admitted *at the time* that national security did not provide a valid reason for the detentions, and that they were racist, not just.

this info is from http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/...ant_inter.html.

raveneye · 09-10-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

for example: our war with japan caused FDR to send all japanese to internment camps.

Well, draconian is draconian, whether it was done yesterday or 60 years ago.

irateplatypus · 09-10-2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Well, draconian is draconian, whether it was done yesterday or 60 years ago.

it sure is, but we're not talking about the same measures being taken are we?

i wasn't excusing internment camps, i was bringing up the similarities between our situation today and that of 65 years ago... the restraint demonstrated by Bush in similar circumstances dramatically exceeds that of FDR's. thus, the historical precedents back up my assertion that Bush's measures (while still wrong) are mild when given a wider perspective.

again, bush is tracking wrong... it's just irresponsible to label the policies as draconian.

raveneye · 09-10-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

it sure is, but we're not talking about the same measures being taken are we?

No, and that's exactly my point:

Quote:

I don't see how it's possible not to conclude that the power granted to the president in the current "war on terrorism" context is way beyond any historical precedent.

If a court had granted Roosevelt the power to intern the Japanese population, then yes, that would be far more chilling than the Padilla case. But that never happened. So indeed your example does nothing to refute my statement.

irateplatypus · 09-10-2005, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

If a court had granted Roosevelt the power to intern the Japanese population, then yes, that would be far more chilling than the Padilla case.

well, then get ready to be chilled my friend. I must refer you to Korematsu -vs- The United States. The Supreme Court did exactly that in 1944.

dksuddeth · 09-10-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

As far as the cries "Padilla is a US citizen blah blah", that point might not be true; in the past US citizens have lost citizenship after certain actions, namely alligning themselves with enemies of the United States in a time of war.

Never without due process though, which most certainly has not been done in this case.

alansmithee · 09-10-2005, 10:41 PM

Man, with all the hand-wringing and grandstanding here, you'd think that people were being locked up en masse. This is something I'm personally glad to see-the government taking steps to ensure the safety of the public. This decision should be celebrated.

Elphaba · 09-10-2005, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Man, with all the hand-wringing and grandstanding here, you'd think that people were being locked up en masse. This is something I'm personally glad to see-the government taking steps to ensure the safety of the public. This decision should be celebrated.

How, exactly, has this citizens loss of due process rights ensured the safety of the public? I am not being sarcastic; I truly want to understand your position.

alansmithee · 09-10-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

How, exactly, has this citizens loss of due process rights ensured the safety of the public? I am not being sarcastic; I truly want to understand your position.

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.

Paq · 09-11-2005, 12:50 AM

wow...

anythign that reduces the rights of people accused of crimes will lead to safety for all....

accused of crimes...

are you kidding me?

convicted, yes...accused...I don't think so. Anyone can be accused of anything, revoking rights bc of that accusation is just absurd.

sorry, but w/out due process, our whole system of government fails, period.

just wait till you're the one accused and yes, that day would come.

alansmithee · 09-11-2005, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

wow...

anythign that reduces the rights of people accused of crimes will lead to safety for all....

accused of crimes...

are you kidding me?

convicted, yes...accused...I don't think so. Anyone can be accused of anything, revoking rights bc of that accusation is just absurd.

sorry, but w/out due process, our whole system of government fails, period.

just wait till you're the one accused and yes, that day would come.

The odds are that if you are accused, you are guilty. And besides, most people here are acting as if there are SWAT vans circling cities now rounding up upstanding citizens taking them to detention camps. That's obviously not the case. And if American citizens feel the need to take part in foreign struggles against the US, I think they shouldn't use the same system they attempted to fight against to hide behind when they are caught. Just because people can be accused of things doesn't mean that they will be. I remember much the same handwringing about the Patriot act, yet nobody I know has had their life affected whatsoever by it.

dksuddeth · 09-11-2005, 04:16 AM

slippery slope.

raveneye · 09-11-2005, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

well, then get ready to be chilled my friend. I must refer you to Korematsu -vs- The United States. The Supreme Court did exactly that in 1944.

I'm afraid the SCOTUS did not do "exactly that" in that case, if by "exactly that" you mean what I meant, namely "internment of the Japanese population". All they did is rule that it is constitutional for Japanese Americans to be "excluded from certain areas on the West Coast" where military installations existed.

At no time in the history of this country has any court ruled that it was permissible for the president to set up a prison camp system for Japanese Americans not accused of a crime. On the contrary, the SCOTUS at about the same time as Korematsu ruled the camps unconstitutional in ex parte Endo.

And of course Korematsu is completely irrelevant to Padilla and was never even brought up by the prosecutor in his case.

It surprises me that anybody would use the Japanese internment camps as a reason not to get too concerned about Padilla. The logic here escapes me.

And again, my larger point is this: the power granted by Padilla to the president in the current "war on terror" context is way beyond any legal precedent. There is nothing in the Padilla case that ensures that Padilla will ever be released, since the "war on terror" has no definable end. And the same goes for any other "enemy combatant" which could be anybody, because "terror" is the enemy.

Quote:

KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES

No. 22

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

323 U.S. 214; 65 S. Ct. 193; 89 L. Ed. 194; 1944

The exclusion of citizens of Japanese extraction from certain areas on the West Coast at the beginning of the war with Japan, as authorized by congressional enactment (Act of March 21, 1942) and Executive Order (9066), was a valid exercise of the war power at the time these laws went into effect, even as applied to a citizen of Japanese extraction whose loyalty to the United States was unquestioned, where at that time invasion by Japan was threatened, every possible precaution against espionage and sabotage was necessary, and it was impossible, in the short time available, to separate the loyal from the disloyal Japanese.

Quote:

EX PARTE MITSUYE ENDO

No. 70

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

323 U.S. 283; 65 S. Ct. 208; 89 L. Ed. 243; 1944 U.S.

The War Relocation Authority is without power to detain in one of its relocation centers a Japanese citizen whose loyalty to the United States is unquestioned, or to condition the release of such citizen upon her compliance with regulations and restrictions regarding leave clearance and other conditions of resettlement, in the light of the statute (Act of March 21, 1942) and the Executive Orders (9066, 9102) forming the basis of the Japanese evacuation program, where at best the power of detention under these statutes and orders is granted only by implication, and their sole object and purpose is, not to combat community hostility to Japanese, but to protect the United States against espionage or sabotage in time of war.

tecoyah · 09-11-2005, 05:56 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.

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

irateplatypus · 09-11-2005, 05:57 AM

raveneye,

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.

sheesh... what does it take to get a friggin "point conceded" around here?

09-09-2005, 09:10 AM	#2 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	The first thing I thought when I heard about this, given the fact that the next appeal is to the US Supremes, was that if the case comes up after Roberts is (more than likely) put in as head Justice, what is the chance that the case will be reversed? Admittedly I don't have the full background on the case, but I fail to understand how they are getting around habeas corpus...is the problem with bringing a charge against Padilla that afterwards, they will naturally have to actually try him? edit The second thing I thought was: I don't want to hear the Bush Administration describe itself as "Constructionalist" or "Originalist" or any of that crap any more. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

09-09-2005, 09:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Has she decided yet? Is it fully her decision, or can the Administration force her to stick with her resignation? __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

09-09-2005, 10:13 AM	#6 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	We shouldn't be too surprised by this. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the civil war and detained people, even a US supreme court justice, for speaking out against him. Unfortunately we let our congress and senate representatives authorize the president to do this with the declaration of near unlimited powers over a vaguely defined conflict. __________________ "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."

09-09-2005, 10:13 AM	#7 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	ouch. i just don't know why people are so ready to abandon one of the greatest legal systems in the history of the world. i'm such a stauch beleiver in the rule of law that this just seems anathema. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

09-09-2005, 10:58 AM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	A German soldier captured in WWII was detained until after the war. He may have never fired a gun, or done anything anti-American, he might even be pro-US, but he still stays in a POW camp. Padilla is an non-uniformed soldier of a terrorist organization. In WWII he would have simply been shot as a spy. He is lucky its not WWII and is only being detained. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-09-2005, 09:22 AM	#5 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	I think it's her decision, but she said she'd stay on only until a replacement is sworn in. It might be moot anyway, given the low percentage of appeals that the SCOTUS actually chooses to hear. This one is clearly a fundamental case though, so they damn well should take it.

09-09-2005, 11:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Ustwo I was under the impression that the current Administration was working very hard to avoid giving these detainees the designation of "soldier" and so forth in order to get around the Geneva Conventions, no? I may not care for the guy (in fact, I don't) but he's still as U.S. citizen. If he's a spy, charge him with treason / sedition / whatever. This is a very dangerous precedent. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

09-09-2005, 01:20 PM	#14 (permalink)
vautrain Crazy	Even US citizens who are spies still need to be given a trial. This is a sad day for our Constitution... RIP.

09-10-2005, 10:13 AM	#15 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Would these be 'activist judges'? Of course not, they are supporting conservatives... Before going to the SCOTUS can't they ask the entire 4th Circuit to review the case? There is a much better chance of that happening than hte SCOTUS taking it up. This is the worst offense against the constitution spanning Bush's entire Presidency. More proof that he's the worst President ever. Another thing, this is a much bigger issue than Katrina yet there are only 14 posts in this thread. What rights given via the Constitution do we still have? I'm so sick of Bush wiping his ass with the Constitution.

09-10-2005, 10:56 AM	#16 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	kutulu As far as I can tell, there is no other news that is being well-reported right now in the U.S. Not to appear insensitive to the victims of the hurricane, but Katrina trumps a lost white girl any day in its ability to wipe out coverage of other news items, and to the extent that we should all be concerned and outraged (my opinion, obviously) over the crap in New Orleans, it would appear that it will be a while before we get back to anything happenen over there in I-RAQ or in other important domestic or foreign affairs...not a bad time to hold a hearing for a new Supreme Court Justice though, I'll tell you that much. Not that it's constructed this way, but the timing is sort of beautiful for conservatives on this one. edit kutulu pointed out that i might have been unclear. italics = added text __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style Last edited by pig; 09-10-2005 at 11:23 AM..

09-10-2005, 11:11 AM	#17 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	This thread isn't about some lost white chick. This is about the courts supporting Bush while he burns the Constitution. Habeas Corpus dates back to English Law in 1679 and it was important enough to be included in our constitution.

09-10-2005, 11:15 AM	#18 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	hmmm...so i'm thinking you're not really doing the sarcasm thing today? i'm just going to have to go ahead and sort of agree with you right there, and i might mention that my earlier post sort of looks a lot like yours above. edit i edited my previous post. yes, i'm feeling convoluted today. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style Last edited by pig; 09-10-2005 at 11:24 AM..

09-10-2005, 12:15 PM	#19 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	This isn't a new precedent, it's been done before in WWII. The ruling doesn't give the administration a blank check either, they still have to make the case the person is an enemy combatant. As far as the cries "Padilla is a US citizen blah blah", that point might not be true; in the past US citizens have lost citizenship after certain actions, namely alligning themselves with enemies of the United States in a time of war. Everything the President has done has been cleared by the constitution, on the account that the President and Congress are provided powers to act in common defence of the country and the constitution. On top of that Bush, or any President, is given war time powers. The President is charged with faithfully executing all laws passed by congress, in this case the articles of War that have been ratified by our congress, articles that I would bet Padilla is in gross violation of. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-10-2005, 12:33 PM	#20 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Then charge him and be done with it.

09-10-2005, 01:34 PM	#22 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	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. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-10-2005, 05:17 PM	#23 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i think our treatment of enemy combatants captured on the afghani and iraqi battlefields is too lax. they have forfeited the traditional geneva convention status by nature of the way they carry out the war (no uniforms, mixing with civilian populace, firing from schools/mosques etc.) but, when it comes to my countrymen... i don't want any concessions made. if padilla is a citizen, then he is entitled every ounce of due process. it's hard not to chuckle at alarmists who act like Bush is draconian in any way (in light of the historical precedents), but Bush's relative restraint doesn't make this right. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-10-2005, 05:35 PM	#24 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	Well, I really don't see any historical precedent, myself. In Lincoln's case, there was a Civil War going on, and it was still ruled unconstitutional. In the few other cases, the concepts of enemy, battlefield, combat, and end-of-hostilities were all very clearly and concretely defined. In this case every one of these terms is nebulous and subjective, making the whole thing completely open-ended. I don't see how it's possible not to conclude that the power granted to the president in the current "war on terrorism" context is way beyond any historical precedent.

09-10-2005, 05:52 PM	#25 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the current war holds many unique characteristics (in our history anyway), but i think that it isn't without its own historic parallels. for example: our war with japan caused FDR to send all japanese to internment camps. the enemy combatants in our current war share a remarkable number of similar characteristics (foreign born, middle eastern, male, fervently religious). many more shared traits than those interred in WWII... yet they aren't even (legally) subject to added suspician when going through an airport metal detector. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

09-10-2005, 10:41 PM	#32 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	Man, with all the hand-wringing and grandstanding here, you'd think that people were being locked up en masse. This is something I'm personally glad to see-the government taking steps to ensure the safety of the public. This decision should be celebrated.

09-11-2005, 12:50 AM	#35 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	wow... anythign that reduces the rights of people accused of crimes will lead to safety for all.... accused of crimes... are you kidding me? convicted, yes...accused...I don't think so. Anyone can be accused of anything, revoking rights bc of that accusation is just absurd. sorry, but w/out due process, our whole system of government fails, period. just wait till you're the one accused and yes, that day would come. __________________ Live. Chris

09-11-2005, 04:16 AM	#37 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	slippery slope. __________________ "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."

09-11-2005, 05:57 AM	#40 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	raveneye, 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. sheesh... what does it take to get a friggin "point conceded" around here? __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill