To: Dog
Good. Either charge him, call him a 'material witness', or release him.
The idea of holding an American citizen indefinetely without charges is horrifying to me.
L
18 posted on
12/18/2003 8:19:52 AM PST by
Lurker
(Don't p*** down my back and try to tell me it's raining.)
To: Lurker
Same here.
This whole Padilla thing was handled idiotically, and unconstitutionally, from the start. This guy is an American citizen. John Ashcroft can not just arbitrarily revoke those rights of citizenship.
From his history - he's a scumbag. But he's our scumbag - an American. You can't imprison Americans for months without charges. This was a power play move by Ashcroft, and he doesn't deserve to win it.
Of course, now he just has to charge him. Which is what he should have done day one.
25 posted on
12/18/2003 8:25:08 AM PST by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: Lurker
Agreed. But the govt doesn't really care about prosecution, the want intel. This is not an easy case.
If you but any of Laurie Mylroies thesis on the 93 WTC bombing, large amounts of intel were routinely ignored for the sake of a verdict.
The Patriot Act and other 'extra-constitutional' powers are in some way necessary for this new war and certainly are going to make US citizens somewhat vulnerable to police state type abuses. Unfortunately, we do have 'wolves in sheeps clothing' among us - no way to find them without roughing up at least a few sheep in the process.
63 posted on
12/18/2003 9:06:55 AM PST by
JmyBryan
To: Lurker
Ditto.
68 posted on
12/18/2003 9:14:32 AM PST by
B Knotts
(Go 'Nucks!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson