[Recovering_Democrat]

Heh. Whatever. Look, the fact of the matter is, despite your contentions of malfeasance upon the current administration and the law, the WoT is going on successfully. This is a temporary setback that will not stop Law Enforcement. How sad you're experiencing an apparent priapism because two jackass judges in New York have ruled against the Department of Defense.

I'll be happy to settle with whatever the administration decides to do in this case, because I trust their judgement over yours in this War On Terror.

Tell you what, though: since you're as unbending in your opinion as I am, I'm going to cut off discussion with you on this thread. But since you seem to have a penchant for retort, I'll let you salve your desire to look like a big-shot "thinker". Go ahead and flame me back, and I promise I won't respond. Then you can sit back satisfactorily and pretend like you won the argument. You seem to need that in your life.

G'nite.

[Protagoras]

Heh. Whatever. Look, the fact of the matter is, despite your contentions of malfeasance upon the current administration and the law, the WoT is going on successfully.

I never said any of these things, that is why I reply. Straw men are a poor way to debate.

This is a temporary setback that will not stop Law Enforcement.

It will not stop it, that is the point, and it's not a setback.

How sad you're experiencing an apparent priapism because two jackass judges in New York have ruled against the Department of Defense.

How sad you have to say these silly things.

I'll be happy to settle with whatever the administration decides to do in this case, because I trust their judgement over yours in this War On Terror.

Edited for clarity.

Tell you what, though: since you're as unbending in your opinion as I am, I'm going to cut off discussion with you on this thread.

That works for both of us. You get to exit without further embarrassment and I get to correct the intentional streaming.

Go ahead and flame me back, and I promise I won't respond.

I didn't flame you at all. And we'll see about that I guess.

[Kahonek]

"I'll be happy to settle with whatever the administration decides to do in this case, because I trust their judgement over yours in this War On Terror."

I don't think Padilla should be let off the hook, and I don't think he will be. I think the problem a lot of people have is the PRECEDENT that would be set if he, as an American citizen, apprehended by law enforcement officers (not military) while on U.S. soil without a weapon, were allowed to be held indefinitely by the Defense Department as an "enemy combatant" without charges.

The point is that administrations change. If we give this power to the current administration, what's to stop it from being used by a future administration in a truly evil manner? It's all well and good until YOU'RE the one being defined as an "enemy combatant" by an administration you don't like (perhaps because you vehemently criticized the President, or own a weapon that the President sees as a threat).

Sure, you can say that would never happen. It wouldn't, with the present administration. However, once it does, you've completely lost your ability to defend yourself. You can't even get your side of the story out to the world, much less talk to a lawyer. That's an awfully scary situation for a U.S. citizen being held by his own government. It's plain WRONG!