Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1.    #1  
    Padilla has been mentioned in just three other threads, but I thought this Appeals Court decision is incredibly poor.

    RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - In a victory for the Bush administration, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that the government can continue to hold indefinitely an American accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive ``dirty bomb.''

    A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to reverse a judge's order that the government either charge or free Jose Padilla, who has been in custody for more than three years.

    ``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-Qaida, an entity with which the United States is at war,'' Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote. ``We conclude that the President does possess such authority.''
    I think the implications from this decision (assuming that it does not get overturned on appeal to the US S.Ct.) are incredibly dangerous.

    Thoughts?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Padilla has been mentioned in just three other threads, but I thought this Appeals Court decision is incredibly poor.


    I think the implications from this decision (assuming that it does not get overturned on appeal to the US S.Ct.) are incredibly dangerous.

    Thoughts?
    So much for the Bill of Rights. We apparently now have only the rights the President says we have. (I wonder if this judge ever heard of habeus corpus?) We fought a war because the British locked us up without charges (among other reasons), and now our government is doing the same thing.


    Now I'm sure the right-wingers will say this is different, because Padilla and terrorism are real threats to America, or something along those lines. But remember, once the President is granted this sort of authority, drawing the line becomes very difficult. Today it's ALLEGED terrorists (and "material witnesses"). What is it tomorrow? Alleged Muslims? Abortion doctors? People who try to exercise their first amendment rights to criticize the president? Suppose we end up in a war with the Phillipines, or Argentina? Maybe we should lock up anyone who speaks Tagalog or Spanish and speaks out against the war?


    The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the rights of those with unpopular viewpoints and those who commit unpopular actions, including those suspected of criminal activity. It doesn't say "except during war," or "except when the president says otherwise." Conservatives get all uptight about "activist judges," and wish for judges who will interpret the Constitution as the founders intended. Well, the founders' intent for the Bill of Rights couldn't be more clear, and this judge has thrown that intent out the window. But conservatives will cheer his brand of "activism".
    Last edited by meyerweb; 09/09/2005 at 08:32 PM.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb

    The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the rights of those with unpopular viewpoints and those who commit unpopular actions, including those suspected of criminal activity. It doesn't say "except during war," or "except when the president says otherwise." Conservatives get all uptight about "activist judges," and wish for judges who will interpret the Constitution as the founders intended. Well, the founders' intent for the Bill of Rights couldn't be more clear, and this judge has thrown that intent out the window. But conservatives will cheer his brand of "activism".
    I'm not sure where I fall on this issue but this is not the first time it's happened.

    Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus as is permitted in our Constitution. Here's a good summary for you: http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm
    The Padilla case is not about "unpopular viewpoints" but the Lincoln case was.
    Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

    "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "
    Our founders wrote this, too. They must have intended it to be in there.

    My only point here is that our appointed judges are rarely political stooges. They're some pretty smart dudes and dudettes who know our country's history.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  4. #4  
    Yes I agree, I feel a terrorist should have more rights than Americans.
  5. #5  
    For further reading, check out: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Merryman/
    Ex parte MERRYMAN
    Circuit Court, D. Maryland.
    April Term, 1861.

    This case argues that the suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus should be in the power of the legislature and not the executive.

    Just more food for thought.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  6.    #6  
    "Advance The Man: Yes I agree, I feel a terrorist should have more rights than Americans."

    Advance...Im assuming you're being sarcastic. The point of what you are saying though is a huge assumption...Padilla is an ALLEGED terrorist. He is an American first. If he is sooooo guilty as the government claims...then why haven't they tried him and thrown away the key? If there is a need for security reasons...then why not quickly try him, find him guilty (it sounds like they have all the evidence) and then incarcerate him for life?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus as is permitted in our Constitution. Here's a good summary for you: http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm
    The Padilla case is not about "unpopular viewpoints" but the Lincoln case was.
    Such suspension of fundamental rights makes sense in the case of a well-defined wars with clear beginning and ends.

    The "war" on terrorism (a technique to achieve a political/religious end) will never end.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Such suspension of fundamental rights makes sense in the case of a well-defined wars with clear beginning and ends.

    The "war" on terrorism (a technique to achieve a political/religious end) will never end.
    I understand your feelings on this but that's not what the Constitution says.

    "Rebellion and Invasion" are the words our Founders used.

    Rebellion is NEVER a well-defined war (you could make an argument about our own Revolution).
    Invasion may be the beginning of a war.

    Believe me, I'm still debating whether the suspension makes sense but we are a country of laws, not feelings.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  9. #9  
    We've not been invaded. And a rebellion is an internal insurection, not a war against an internal power. So neither applies.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  10. #10  
    9/11 was an invasion. Pearl Harbor was an invasion.

    This doesn't reflect my feelings but a strict interpretation of the military term.

    A case CAN be made for this without engaging in your slippery slope of arresting people because they don't agree with you.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  11. #11  
    Wow, I have not been too active recently, but the statement we have not been invaded? That is a statement of one who is exceedlingly blind to reality. We were invaded on 9-11, our soil and people attacked, and we are still being invaded via our open borders. If that does not scare you, then you really are simply too trusting. American citizens can be terrorists and if there is a possibility of a known American citizen being a terrorist, then the safety of the public far exceeds the right of the individual.

    Incidentally, did you loose someone during the attack?

    Ben
  12.    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    9/11 was an invasion. Pearl Harbor was an invasion.

    This doesn't reflect my feelings but a strict interpretation of the military term.

    A case CAN be made for this without engaging in your slippery slope of arresting people because they don't agree with you.
    Alaskan: can you make the case? I mean, why not have charged Padilla anyway...why hold him indefinitely? You either have the evidence or you don't. Can anyone think of a reason why (if you have the evidence) that you wouldn't want to charge him?

    I understand your point about a case being made that it doesn't have to be a slippery slope...but put yourself in Padilla's shoes...he may never see his day in court. So much for being an American. (You know...in some ways, it might not be that different than a POW who is held indefinitely.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Posting Permissions