Replies

"There's just too much ignorance- or is it hatred?- of the Constitution in your posts."

Reality Check.

Who is it who pushed the Anti-4th Amendment, (ANTI)Patriot Act through Congress so fast that not a single Congressman had a chance to read the final version before it was brought to a vote? Dubya, you or me?

Who is it who has flagrantly ignored the 6th Amendment rights of a US citizen and has further flaunted his utter contempt for a court order, demanding that the US citizen be allowed access to a lawyer? Dubya, you or me?

Who is it who has called upon Congress to ratify the European Cybercrime Treaty, that includes some very severe Anti-1st Amendment language, to restrict what speech can be posted to the Internet or sent by email. Dubya, you or me?

Who is it who has been decrying those and other lesser assaults on the Constitution? Dubya, you or me?

It should be quite clear that if anyone in this debate hates the restraints of the Constitution, it is Dubya.

On the other hand, if anyone in this debate cherishes and wants to protect the Constitution, it is me.

Since I have no evidence that you either attempted to subvert the Constitution, as has Dubya, nor attempted to expose those attempts, as have I, one can only assume that you either must not care about the Constitution or you have been thoroughly duped by Dubya's propaganda folks.

"The Founders had good reason to limit the Sixth Amendment to criminal cases."

Duh!

So are you suggesting that Dubya is holding an American Citizen in prison, without access to any type of legal recourse, on CIVIL grounds? Give me a break! I've heard some really stupid things from some of the liberals who occasionally post to FR over the years. But, that suggestion ranks right up there with the craziest of them. Even if it were a CIVIL case, it would only make things even worse for Dubya.

If you disagree, then try to amend the Constitution.

That's what you should be proclaiming to Dubya. Since he obviously has no use for the Constitution in its current form, rather than just ignoring or subverting the sections that he doesn't like, the proper action would be to try to amend the Constitution to fit his big-government agenda. But, he knows that, although he could never get such an amendment past the people, he can have essentially the same effect, by just ignoring the Constitution and daring the court to take any independent action against him. In fact, Dubya has taken steps to preclude that scenario, by claiming that the court has no oversight into his actions. What arrogance! What unmitigated gall!

If the administration loses it's appeal, Padilla will be the first combatant given access to a lawyer to challenge his detention.

That was a court order. If a judge issues a restraining order against you and you appeal it, you are still subject to that court order until such time as a higher court overrules the lower court. But, King George I seems to think that he is immune to the law and can just ignore that court order.

The point that is important here is not Dubya's many individual infractions against the Constitution, but rather the "pattern of behavior", which demonstrates that he has no respect at all for the Constitution, when it is in the way of his acquiring more power. When klinton was in office, many people who now excuse Dubya's many assaults on the Constitution, as unimportant and unrelated, were then loudly proclaiming klinton's "pattern of behavior" as evidence against him. I was one of those who denounced klinton for his appalling "pattern of behavior". It is because I don't have the double standard that many Republicans appear to have, that I now denounce Dubya for his appalling "pattern of behavior."

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The 6th Amendment is about much more than just the right to council. The tenor of the whole thing is about making certain that EVERY US citizen (not just those that you and I like - EVERY citizen) is assured that a compulsory and speedy process for redress exists, should he feel that his arrest is not justified. According to what Ashcroft has told us, Padilla is probably guilty and should be held under high security. But then, you have to consider the source of that information. There are only two other people in the United States who are more untrustworthy than Ashcroft and that's bill and hillary. I would feel much better about the Padilla case if they were to let him have an attorney (even a retired JAG officer whose clearance is still active) and let him present his side to the judge (even in a closed court). The fact that Dubya and Ashcroft have now held Padilla for well over a year and seem to be afraid to let him present his case in court, even to this day, leads me to believe that they are seriously afraid that they just may not have the case that they claim to have and are in cover-up mode.