Skip to comments.
Appeals Court Orders Jose Padilla released in 30 Days!
FOXCNN
Posted on 12/18/2003 8:10:02 AM PST by Dog
Breaking...
TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: abdullahalmuhajir; enemycombatant; josepadilla
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 381-397 next last
To: Dog
Makes my job protecting law abiding citizens a lot tougher. This just encourages terrorism.
81
posted on
12/18/2003 9:36:18 AM PST
by
Kirkwood
To: B Knotts
Well, it shows me that if we would just go back to the old-fashioned idea of specifically declaring war when we want to go to war, and victory when we win, this stuff would be taken care of.Could you point me to the method of declaring war in the Constitution?
82
posted on
12/18/2003 9:36:49 AM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: ImphClinton
You renounce your citizenship when you take up arms against soldiers from your own country. Wrong. Such an action is by definition treason, and is explicitly covered under our Constitution:
Article III, Section. 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Note:
1. Treason is by constitutinal definition "levying War against (the United States)".
2. "conviction of Treason" is included. One must have a trial to be convicted.
3. If treason were grounds for forfeiting citizenship, the Constitution would have enumerated the power for the government to do so. It mentions no such power. Since our governmnet enjoys only enumerated rights, the omission of stripping citienship from allegedly treasonous Americans means that power does not exist.
The proper and constitutional solution to the Padilla case is to try him for treason, then hang him when he is convicted.
83
posted on
12/18/2003 9:36:57 AM PST
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: NativeNewYorker
Rosemary Pooler got her start in politics in the town I grew up in, Dewitt, NY. She came up during the early '70's. Her steppingstone to power was a "Consumer Protection" position (I can't remember whether it was elected or appointed), which position she was the first to hold (back in, like, 1971).
She is associated with NOW. She is hard-left "progressive." Her daughter was one of my sister's childhood friends.
She used to get her face in the media all the time, until she was appointed to the federal bench. Now she is invisible, except for her decisions.
(steely)
To: jwalsh07
jwalsh - if we could set aside our little gentlemen's agreement for a second, I have a serious question about your posts here - what part of the Joint Resolution provides for suspension of the Bill of Rights?
85
posted on
12/18/2003 9:38:27 AM PST
by
lugsoul
(And I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
To: jwalsh07
they have no authority to tell Congress how to declare war.They have the only Constitutional authority that exists to decide whether or not Congress has declared war. No one else has the final say in this. Judicial Review is a long settled issue.
86
posted on
12/18/2003 9:40:28 AM PST
by
sourcery
(This is your country. This is your country under socialism. Any questions? Just say no to Socialism!)
To: lugsoul
jwalsh - if we could set aside our little gentlemen's agreementIf we did that we would not have honored the agreement. Can't go there.
87
posted on
12/18/2003 9:42:08 AM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: sourcery
They have the only Constitutional authority that exists to decide whether or not Congress has declared war. They have no such authority, none, nada, zippo. The constitution is quite explicit about that, the power to declare war resdies in the Congress. How they declare war also resides in the Congress. The judiciary has squat to say about it.
88
posted on
12/18/2003 9:44:05 AM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Dog
But they didn't say where they had to release him. I suggest perhaps either Antarctica, or far up a hillside in Borneo.
Comment #90 Removed by Moderator
To: visualops
Agreed. What is the point of requiring Congress to declare War in order to detain people as enemy combatants? This guy is a US citizen. Congress will never declare war against the US.
All seems rather silly to me.
To: Steely Tom
Perfect Democrat.
To: B Knotts
Well good question (probably because Dems - majority in Senate at the time - would not go for it without UN permission). But this guy is not part of that "war" per se, dirty bombers are part of the global war on terror and that war has no official sponsor. (But Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan have a lot to come clean about)
To: jimbo123
Keep in mind, the fact that the second judge, Barrington Parker, was nominated by President George W. Bush is technically true but very misleading; In fact, Parker was a CLINTON appointee to the U.S. District Court, and he (along with Roger Gregory I believe) was one of the two CLINTON nominees that President George W. Bush re-nominated in an attempt to try and create "good will" with Senate Democrats.
In reality, this decision was two Clinton Appointees v. one true Bush appointee, and guaranteed this decision will be appealed by the government to the full Circuit Court and then likely to the U.S. Supreme Court.
94
posted on
12/18/2003 9:54:56 AM PST
by
larlaw
To: Kryptonite
We hung the rosenbergs for giving the enemy weapon plans during the undeclared "cold" war. And in WW2 any american born sympathizers worked on an attack plan with Nazi counterparts would have been shot.
To: thinden
In case you haven't seen this...
(File under, "What're they, nuts?")
96
posted on
12/18/2003 9:59:30 AM PST
by
MizSterious
(First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
To: blastdad51
Our appeals court can always be counted on to help keep us safe......heavy on the sarcasm!!!! You think it's safe to establish a precedent for holding an American citizen without charges?
97
posted on
12/18/2003 10:00:13 AM PST
by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: jwalsh07
But
if they declare war, but don't
say that they declared war, things like this end up in the courts, which is my point.
I honestly don't see what the problem is with just declaring war, especially in the case of Iraq.
98
posted on
12/18/2003 10:00:14 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
To: epluribus_2
Exactly. Who is Congress going to declare war on in order to enable the President to detain dirty bombers? It's an absurd ruling. I'd like to see War declared on Al Davis and da Raiders, but while they suck, they aren't sponsoring terror as far as I know, and it wouldn't take a state sponsor to enable a dirty bomber to threaten the lives of millions of Americans.
Stupid with a capital S.
To: Kryptonite
Congress will never declare war against the US. If Cynthia McKinney were Speaker of the House, it might.
100
posted on
12/18/2003 10:01:47 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 381-397 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson