Replies

So far, precedents are a bitch. You lose your rights and they are tough to get back. You might be next. I'm sure if I was next, it would be just ducky for you.

So far precedent has not been followed as far as this majority opinion is concerned. Ex-Parte Quirin is the precedent for citizens who are enemy combatants.

Next to become a jihadist and conspire to kill my fellow citizens? You're dreaming.

If you become a jihadist and conspire to kill your fellow citizens then it would be find with me if you were a duck on the range. Otherwise, you would be incorrect.

Padilla has an attorney, he will get his trial and Habeas has not been suspended so in point of fact, everything you said was factually incorrect.

Blindly supporting lunatic activist decisions like this one because it accords with some ideology is nothing to be admired.

Padilla was not charged with any criminal offense. He was simply being held as an enemy combatant aka POW, albeit an unlawful combatant. He has no more rights than a Confederate POW, or filibusterer coming over from Canada, had during the Civil War.

Vermont was "outside a zone of actual combat" in 1864 when the St. Albans raiders came over from Canada. The federal government then could not have held those guys under military jurisdiction under the 2nd Circuit decision had it caught them crossing the border before they acquired weapons in Vermont to attack the town with. See this URL:

http://www.vermontcivilwar.org/staraid/index.shtml

The 2nd Circuit's ruling ignores 9/11. References to "a zone of actual combat" are inane in this conflict. This seems to be a paradigm shift issue - those on the wrong side will never understand.