Posted on 12/18/2003 8:10:02 AM PST by Dog
Breaking...
As I understand your point .. wouldn't him training with Al Qaeda terrorists to kill his fellow American's put him in a different category?
I can't help it if you don't understand the nomenclature.
My conservative leanings are documented on this board
Leanings. LOL.
defending Al Qaeda Terrorist who happen to live in Chicago. You can pick whatever side you want, thought it appears you already have.
Which side do you think that is? And why?
The Constitution refers to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, doesn't it?
Yes. Which has nothing to do with this case.
Your desire to die on a hill for Padilla would result in fewer Americans having that right--because they'd be busy dying from the Radiation Bombs Padilla and his ilk set off.
Nonsense. If any citizen does these things thay should be prosecuted, under the law. Not because of hysterical ravings.
Yup
Nobody said a damn thing about the Constitution being suspended. However, we are at war, and steps are needed to protect the American people. This is not unusual, and not a dangerous precedent. None other than Abraham Lincoln initiated similar measures during the civil war. World War I, and World War II saw the same types of measures.
The fact remains that Jose Padilla represents an immediate threat to the American people, and our government is taking extraordinary steps to keep him locked up for that reason! Let me remind you that Padilla was going to detonate a nuke on American soil!!
Exactly! Which is why this decision might finally force the Congress to clarify the 14th amendment as to who is a citizen, and stop the travesty of foreign nationals squatting out a kid on our soil and then asserting that he/she/it is an "American".
While I agree the courts very, very often overstep their legitimate powers (as do the other two branches of government), no court in this nation can initiate any action against a civilian.
That means that even if everyone on SCOTUS hated my guts and wanted me thrown under a jail for no reason whatsoever, they have no power to send people with guns to my house. The executive has to do that. Since this is such an awesome power and is prone to abuse, we have checks and balances, namely a trial.
But .. But .. This is America and a person is free to do what they please / sarcasm>
Padilla is an American citizen. I don't care which member of this administration claims to hold custody of him. If Padilla hasn't been charged, which he hasn't, his detention is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as well as unconstitutional.
I don't know. And it is irrelevant. If he is a traitor. He should be tried for treason, and if found guilty, hopefully shot.
If he committed other crimes, he should be prosecuted for those and receive the proper punishment.
The power to declare war is not the issue. The issue here is the power to decide what the law and the Constitution means, and to decide what laws have been passed by Congress. The Court in this case rightfully used its Constitutionally-granted authority to decide that the Constiutition requires an explicit statement by Congress authorizing the President to use his war powers to indefinitely detain enemy combatants.
How they declare war also resides in the Congress. The judiciary has squat to say about it.
But Congress has never passed any law that defines how war is to be declared. If Congress abdicates its authority to define how war is declared, the courts have no choice but to decide whether or not there is a war by some standard other than one defined by Congress (since Congress hasn't defined one.)
And the courts must determine whether or not a war exists, since by their own previous precedents, what is and is not legal depends upon whether or not there is Constitutionally a de jure war (note: not a de facto one.) The courts do not determine whether a war exists sua sponte (which only Congress can do,) but via the same procedure they determine what the law is (note: only Congress can determine what the law is sua sponte.)
You got it! Just like we did with Marin Johnny Jihad, RIP! We'd never put such vermin in prison so they can recruit more terrorists to their cause, would we?! Slap on the wrist? Maybe in some country with one million lawyers and the populace idiotized by television, repeating mindlessly some nonsense about Miranda's rights and innocence until proven guilty, but never here!
Nope, the proper and constituional thing to do is exactly what was done. Squeeze every bit of information out of him regarding his fellow travelers and then try and hang him.
Of course treating him as a criminal rather than as a combatant would necessarily hamper that squeezing.
And taken to its logical conclusion for those that support treating him as a common criminal, he should have simply been released or at worst be released on bail.
Would you support that?
Why don't you answer a simple question, now - other than terrorism, what other circumstances justify the Federal government disregarding the Constitutional restrictions on its power? If the answer is none, point to the provisions of the Constitution that allow it in cases of terror.
Yes, that of a treasonous citizen. Subject to the death penalty.
It should be pointed out that he was even being treated differently that other Americans who did the same. The seven up northeast and that goofy kid who was with the enemy in Afganistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.