Padilla & the Supreme court

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

In the future it is prudent to beat the information out of him and then put a cap in his head and move on.

That way we can continue our peaceful lives, and not have to hear from those wishing to give confort to those whom wish to kill us.

Jose Padilla is intitled to nothing more than a quick trial than a firing squad.

Yeah, ya know, too bad we've got this goddam ball-n-chain around our legs called the United States Constitution. It's really most inconvenient.

Oh, by the way, next time your kid uses self-defense in a bar fight he didn't start and winds up getting prosecuted for assault because the drunk moron who punched him first is the football coach's son, we'll just skip all that candy-assed "habeas corpus, formal arraignment, bail hearing, probable cause hearing and trial by jury" crap - because after all, we already KNOW he's guilty, because the newspapers told us so, and so he's "intitled" to nothing more than....

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

In the future it is prudent to beat the information out of him and then put a cap in his head and move on.

That way we can continue our peaceful lives, and not have to hear from those wishing to give confort to those whom wish to kill us.

Jose Padilla is intitled to nothing more than a quick trial than a firing squad.

Yeah, ya know, too bad we've got this goddam ball-n-chain around our legs called the United States Constitution. It's really most inconvenient.

Oh, by the way, next time your kid uses self-defense in a bar fight he didn't start and winds up getting prosecuted for assault because the drunk moron who punched him first is the football coach's son, we'll just skip all that candy-assed "habeas corpus, formal arraignment, bail hearing, probable cause hearing and trial by jury" crap - because after all, we already KNOW he's guilty, because the newspapers told us so, and so he's "intitled" to nothing more than....

but but, giving someone proper treatment under the law is "comfort"!!!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Yeah, ya know, too bad we've got this goddam ball-n-chain around our legs called the United States Constitution. It's really most inconvenient.

....

Apparently it's not at all inconvenient. The Administration simply ignores it at will.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tbrown 26]

Quote

Quote

And it doesn't change the fact that he's still an American citizen with rights that even assholes like W can't take away.

You mean rights like those once believed held by Mr. Korematsu? Americans seldom bother to examine the true extent to which their fundamental rights can be circumscribed given relatively minor pretexts. This Administration has been pushing the envelope but the smart money is betting they prevail. Not that I’m claiming W isn’t an “asshole” in your parlance, but I do have reason to believe W is advised by competent counsel.

Every time Bush's "competent counsel" gets called in front of a Senate committee, they spend entire days backpedaling and "explaining" their outrageous reasoning.

Not sure who Mr. Korematsu is/was, but I'm guessing he might have been interned in a camp like Manzanar during WWII ? Not the proudest thing this country's ever done. Nor was the legal right of white people to own, buy & sell black human beings. Nor was the systematic extermination with lead, whiskey, starvation, and smallpox of Native Americans. The bad shit that's happened is done, but it's no reason we have to go on repeating ourselves, when we can at least take it as a warning of how easy it can be to do the wrong thing.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[lawrocket 3]

First, allow me to state my personal "feelings" on what is going on. I tend to value due process and the protections that it affords. My personal belief is that due process is the key to protection of liberties and freedom. Without due process, you can have no free society. I believe that Padilla should receive his day in court, and soon.

Still, this is my value system. With the American society there is a contant tension between three core values: freedom, equality and order. I personally value them in that order. However, others may value in a different way. Our current administration is putting a greater value on order and security.

Constitutionally, there are grounds for what the administration is doing. As everyone knows, given the marvel of the American educational system, the Constitution is made up of a series of Articles. Among these is Article II, which governs the executive branch. Under Article II, the POTUS can persecute conflicts without the need for a congressional war declaration. In fact, the president probably doesn't need congressional approval to detain enemies during "wartime," which has a pretty vague definition.

Regardless of this, Congress did pass the Patriot Act. On top of that, Congress made a joint resolution in September, 2001 that authorized the POTUS to use all necessary and appripriate force against persons the POTUS determines has aided terrorist organizations.

Also note that there is a conflict with Article III of the Constitution, which is about the court system. Like it or not, Article II doesn't say anything about war, whereas the constitution was pretty careful about crafting war powers in Articles I and II (legislative and executive). Which means that there may be no constitutional authority for a federal court to even hear it.

A constitutional quandary, it is. I think it sucks, but I cannot say there is no Constitutional justification for what is happening to Padilla.

But what happened to taking the high road?

edited to add: I still feel the same as in this post (post 3 on the thread) about the tactics and arguments of the administration in dealing with the Padillas of the world.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1109842

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

But what happened to taking the high road?

Didn't you hear? Walking a tight rope of legality is the new black. As long as it is legal, morality is inconsequential.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[lawrocket 3]

Look, the administration did what it did. I don't think Congress is blameless, either.

But, there IS some constitutional justification for the actions beyond the standard long walk down a short legal pier. Ultimately, it may be up to the courts to decide what's going on here, if they have the power to do so.

Will the Bush administration ultimately prevail? Despite my personal feelings, I'd say "flip a coin." There's a LOT more technicality going on here than the vast majority of people can comprehend, including me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Look, the administration did what it did. I don't think Congress is blameless, either.

But, there IS some constitutional justification for the actions beyond the standard long walk down a short legal pier. Ultimately, it may be up to the courts to decide what's going on here, if they have the power to do so.

Will the Bush administration ultimately prevail? Despite my personal feelings, I'd say "flip a coin." There's a LOT more technicality going on here than the vast majority of people can comprehend, including me.

Did I ever say anything about just the administration? Nope.

All I said was that just because you can find a way to have an action be legal does not make it right.

I think we agree on that point.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Look, the administration did what it did. I don't think Congress is blameless, either.

But, there IS some constitutional justification for the actions beyond the standard long walk down a short legal pier. Ultimately, it may be up to the courts to decide what's going on here, if they have the power to do so.

Will the Bush administration ultimately prevail? Despite my personal feelings, I'd say "flip a coin." There's a LOT more technicality going on here than the vast majority of people can comprehend, including me.

Did I ever say anything about just the administration? Nope.

All I said was that just because you can find a way to have an action be legal does not make it right.

I think we agree on that point.

Querry,
If someone disagrees with you as to what is "right", are they by default "wrong" because you have become the final authority?

There are perceptions other than yours me thinks.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

Holding someone without trial is right? Doing things we chastise the "other" side for is right?

If that is true, then I will gladly be wrong.

If the guy is guilty, try him and convict him.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 18]

Didn't answer the question, did you.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Dam nice post!

Thank you.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Didn't answer the question, did you.

Of course you would see it that way. I answered it just fine. If doing exactly what I said is right, then I WANT to be wrong.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 18]

You miss the point.

There is no way we know, or will we ever know all the details around this guy. There are and always will be times when people such as him can not be allowed in open court because of what they may know or say.

I, like you want due process to be used but, I do not spend my time shooting down what I can not possibly have all the details for.

What distgusts me the most is that when something like this comes up Bush is to blame But, when other leaders (recently) have done simular "abuses" or worse it is no big deal. Outrage over topics like this are only selective if politcally motivated and are not a moral issues.
This is what causes my BULLSHIT meter to go crazy.

So, what is being done here is not, I repeat, not illegal. Is is right? That is what the debate should be over. Personnaly I think this guy made his own bed and now he has to lay in it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

If doing exactly what I said is right, then I WANT to be wrong.

(hijack)

You just plagiarized a Motown song from the 60's. Or maybe the 70's. (/hijack)

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

You miss the point.

There is no way we know, or will we ever know all the details around this guy. There are and always will be times when people such as him can not be allowed in open court because of what they may know or say.

I, like you want due process to be used but, I do not spend my time shooting down what I can not possibly have all the details for.

What distgusts me the most is that when something like this comes up Bush is to blame But, when other leaders (recently) have done simular "abuses" or worse it is no big deal. Outrage over topics like this are only selective if politcally motivated and are not a moral issues.
This is what causes my BULLSHIT meter to go crazy.

So, what is being done here is not, I repeat, not illegal. Is is right? That is what the debate should be over. Personnaly I think this guy made his own bed and now he has to lay in it.

When did I (me personally) ever say this was about Bush? I also specifically said in an earlier post that I don't care WHO has done it in the past or the exact people doing it now. It does not make now a good thing or the the "moral high road" that the US likes to tout all over the world. If I had been more informed about politics when Clinton was in office and heard about something like this, I would say exactly the same thing.

The past does not excuse the present.

But I would be interested to hear ideas on what he may know or say in court that would be detrimental. Honestly, I am thinking about it and I really would like to know what possibilities exist in that realm.

The argument that they would tell him info about their intelligence operation sounds far fetched to me. And if that is true, why not just come out with a press release that explains that? A nice, "Hey, to get the information from him, we had to reveal classified secrets to him so we cannot have him speaking publicly at this time." In anycase, press release or none, it still looks bad so why not run with it?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

If doing exactly what I said is right, then I WANT to be wrong.

(hijack)

You just plagiarized a Motown song from the 60's. Or maybe the 70's. (/hijack)

Plagarism would have to be exact or deal with the same idea.

I believe the sentiment in the song was "If this love is wrong, I don't want to be right." Iwasn't talking about love.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

You miss the point.

There is no way we know, or will we ever know all the details around this guy. There are and always will be times when people such as him can not be allowed in open court because of what they may know or say.

I, like you want due process to be used but, I do not spend my time shooting down what I can not possibly have all the details for.

What distgusts me the most is that when something like this comes up Bush is to blame But, when other leaders (recently) have done simular "abuses" or worse it is no big deal. Outrage over topics like this are only selective if politcally motivated and are not a moral issues.
This is what causes my BULLSHIT meter to go crazy.

So, what is being done here is not, I repeat, not illegal. Is is right? That is what the debate should be over. Personnaly I think this guy made his own bed and now he has to lay in it.

When did I (me personally) ever say this was about Bush? I specifically said in an earlier post that I don't care WHO has done it in the past. It does not make now a good thing or the the "moral high road" that the US likes to tout all over the world. If I had been more informed about politics when Clinton was in office and heard about something like this, I would say exactly the same thing.

The past does not excuse the present.

But I would be interested to hear exactly what he may know or say in court that would be detrimental. Honestly, I am thinking about it and I really would like to know what possibilities exist in that realm. The arguement that they would tell him info about their intelligence operation sounds far fetched to me. And if that is true, why not just come out with a press release that explains that?

I got to thinking after I posted this I should have sent it to someone other that you

As for an expample of why you might not want someone in open court. (far fetched? maybe)

Security circles think that if/when a nuclear device is ever brought into the country it may be brought in by serveral people (with no idea of the others plans).
They will have plans of meeting in country to assemble the device. If one is caught they would not want that person to be able to signal someone where thier part of the puzzle may be hidden.

Sorry, poorly explained but maybe it gives the idea....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I got to thinking after I posted this I should have sent it to someone other that you

As for an expample of why you might not want someone in open court. (far fetched? maybe)

Security circles think that if/when a nuclear device is ever brought into the country it may be brought in by serveral people (with no idea of the others plans).
They will have plans of meeting in country to assemble the device. If one is caught they would not want that person to be able to signal someone where thier part of the puzzle may be hidden.

Sorry, poorly explained but maybe it gives the idea....

That theory only really works if the courtroom is televised. How else would they pass signals to their cohorts?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 18]

It could be done though a lawyer, some one in the court room.

I guess one would have to think of all those new persons he would have access to outside the military.

Heck, it is speculated that some attacks are triggerd through some code (or something) via internet postings or speaches.

And I do not believe in silent black helicopters

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

It could be done though a lawyer, some one in the court room.

I guess one would have to think of all those new persons he would have access to outside the military.

Heck, it is speculated that some attacks are triggerd through some code (or something) via internet postings or speaches.

And I do not believe in silent black helicopters

Or it could be done through intricate origami that makes his lawyer (who has been programmed to respond to the shape) go out back and light a smoke signal which in turn makes the 7-11 manager put on two more hot dogs. This then signals to the guy standing by the slurpee machine that the item in question is at 436 Percy St.

And now you see why I wear the foil hat.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

It could be done though a lawyer, some one in the court room.

I guess one would have to think of all those new persons he would have access to outside the military.

Heck, it is speculated that some attacks are triggerd through some code (or something) via internet postings or speaches.

And I do not believe in silent black helicopters

Or it could be done through intricate origami that makes his lawyer (who has been programmed to respond to the shape) go out back and light a smoke signal which in turn makes the 7-11 manager put on two more hot dogs. This then signals to the guy standing by the slurpee machine that the item in question is at 436 Percy St.

And now you see why I wear the foil hat.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You miss the point.

No we don't. You and we disagree over what the point is.

Quote

There is no way we know, or will we ever know all the details around this guy.

We will, eventually, when the details become stale enough to be declassified. Or, when they are uncovered by the vigorous investigative journalism that is the hallmark of a democratic society.

Quote

There are and always will be times when people such as him can not be allowed in open court because of what they may know or say.

Nonsense. If that principle were upheld in practice, the concept of a society governed by the rule of law would be effectively nullified. The Constitution does not carve out an exception to the due process requirements in cases such as national security, espionage or the like. Nor can Congress do so, for no statute enacted by Congress can trump the ultimate authority of the Constitution.

Quote

I, like you want due process to be used but, I do not spend my time shooting down what I can not possibly have all the details for.

As for spending the time, is it not only the right, but the duty of citizens of democratic countries to hold their governments accountable. That means constant vigilance, scrutiny, praise where warranted, and criticism (and petition for redress) where warranted.

Quote

What distgusts me the most is that when something like this comes up Bush is to blame But, when other leaders (recently) have done simular "abuses" or worse it is no big deal. Outrage over topics like this are only selective if politcally motivated and are not a moral issues.
This is what causes my BULLSHIT meter to go crazy.

You and Kallend debate over "CDIF" all the time. Virtually every president has abused his powers. (OK, maybe Gerry Ford didn't, but hey, he was Gerry Ford.) I predict that 30 years from now, objective historians will say that the abuses of power of Nixon and GW Bush were far more perilous to the republic than those of Carter or Your Friend Bill (and we all know you secretly wish you were him).

Quote

So, what is being done here is not, I repeat, not illegal. Is is right? That is what the debate should be over.

In my opinion, it IS illegal, and unconstitutional. So the debate is not only over ethics and morality, as you say, but also over legality.

Quote

Personnaly I think this guy made his own bed and now he has to lay in it.

Maybe, maybe not. But what separates democratic nations like ours and our allies from all the others is THE RULE OF LAW. Did the guy make his own bed? That's what due process of law and a speedy trial by jury is designed to determine. Should he lay in it? Well, if he's duly convicted by a jury, due process affords him a sentencing hearing before the court in which each side will be permitted to present evidence and cross-examine each other's witnesses. And that's how it should be.

[rushmc 18]

I predict that 30 years from now, objective historians will say that the abuses of power of Nixon and GW Bush were far more perilous to the republic.........

Quote

Just like the left and the media trying to re-write history about Regean. No, making Bush out to be a monster is your wish. But you are right about one thing, history will bear that out.

As for your illegal comment? Read lawrockets post again. For what we know of nothing illlegal has been done despite the media, the left and your hightest hopes. Just as the debate rages over the Patriot Act, where no abuses have yet been brought to any court for anything part of it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I predict that 30 years from now, objective historians will say that the abuses of power of Nixon and GW Bush were far more perilous to the republic.........

Quote

Just like the left and the media trying to re-write history about Regean. No, making Bush out to be a monster is your wish. But you are right about one thing, history will bear that out.

As for your illegal comment? Read lawrockets post again. For what we know of nothing illlegal has been done despite the media, the left and your hightest hopes. Just as the debate rages over the Patriot Act, where no abuses have yet been brought to any court for anything part of it.

I haven't debated you before, but I have read you. You have this curious little habit of re-phrasing people, and informing them what their own state of mind is. That technique doesn't advance the discussion one bit. I never said Bush was a monster, and it's not my wish. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Revisonist history is done by the left, by the right, and by the center. Attacks on "the media" make me snore. The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Washington Times, U.S. News & World Report are all part of "the media", and they're all very conservative. All you're doing with your "Left!! Liberals!! Media!! Clinton!!" comments is sloganeering, and that's a weak substitute for thought and analysis.

I read Lawrocket's posts, in this and other threads. I read Blutarsky's posts, in this and other threads. Maybe they read mine. I agree with some of them, and disagree with others. They have their analysis and I have mine. I stand by my own analysis.

Have there been abuses under the Patriot Act? We don't know yet, because the statute is relatively young, and it often takes years for abuses of power to come to public light. Of course history teaches us that sometimes laws themselves are abusive; and I believe objective history will view the Patriot Act in that light some day. But in any event, why must we always wait until AFTER the abuse occurs to do something about it? If concerned citizens of a democracy can act pre-emptively, so much the better.

• Quote