You know, I'm all for returning our government to the government dreamed of by the Founding Fathers and to a place where the Constitution is the fixed (and simple) rule of the day, but you will never hear me betray my country by comparing it to the terrorists. Ever.
You say Osama wasn't here then when that happened? Well, neither was GW Bush. He is the current leader who is in the unfortunate position of having to deal with these terrorists and I will do everything in my power to support his efforts to that end.
To quote a favorite President of mine:
"Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."
Saying that our government is to be feared more than the terrorists speaks very plainly to where loyalties lie.
You say Osama wasn't here then when that happened? Well, neither was GW Bush. He is the current leader who is in the unfortunate position of having to deal with these terrorists and I will do everything in my power to support his efforts to that end.
Fine. Dandy. However, I would like some process in place to deal with people in Padilla's situation. He has been accused of being a traitor by the government, however, nothing backing this assertion has been presented to Padilla's attorneys, or Padilla himself. Additionally, the government intends to hold him indefinitely without charging him. This man is an American-born citizen.
There needs to be SOME sort of process in place for an innocent man in this situation to challenge the government assertions. Habeas Corpus requires that the government charge him or release him, but the government says Habeas Corpus no longer applies. While the Constitution allows the President to suspend Habeas Corpus, it does not allow him to do so on a case-by-case basis, and I am not aware that he suspended it.
Do I give a crap about Padilla? No. What I am trying to get across is that if it can happen to him, it can happen to you and me. If you allow the government to hold people indefinitely without a charge, then we have become the Soviet Union. We cannot allow the government to hold people without some sort of checks and balances to allow innocent people to counter the charges. The present system worked for years, if we need a new system, fine. The Wall Street Journal had an excellent set of suggestions that would be acceptable to most anyone on Friday.
To quote a favorite President of mine: "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."
This is an inaccurate quote. He stated that "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror.". There is a distinction between being for terrorists versus a nation or person who may not be joining the fight against terror.
But that is besides the point: I think this is overly simplistic. One can be against terrorism and still question the manner in which American citizens are being treated during this war.
THERE IS NO COMPARING GOING ON! Why the HELL do so many of you have trouble understanding this? Bin Laden and the other terrorists do NOT have the ability to write US law,nor can they vote on bills in the US congress and Senate. They are not going to write and pass gun laws. They are not going to raise your taxes.They are not going to make Islam the official religion of the US. They are not going to sign things like the Koyoto treaty in our name. ALL they can do is attack us,and they can be killed on sight. Try this with a congressman or Senator,and you are in BIG-TIME trouble!