|
|
Oh...I thought this was about Vincente Padilla... |
Posted on 10/27/2005 9:25:13 AM PDT by conserv13
WASHINGTON - "Dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla has asked the Supreme Court to limit the government's power to hold him and other U.S. terror suspects indefinitely and without charges.
The case of Padilla, who has been in custody more than three years, presents a major test of the Bush administration's wartime authority. The former gang member is accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive device.
Justices refused on a 5-4 vote last year to resolve Padilla's rights, ruling that he contested his detention in the wrong court. Donna Newman of New York, one of Padilla's attorneys, said the new case, which was being processed at the court Thursday, asks when and for how long the government can jail people in military prisons.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Padilla may be a scumbag, but the fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments apply to him as they do to all of us.
The appeals court ruled that the laws of war apply to him and other enemy combatants.
Exactly...it should make everyone nervous to think that the feds can detain an American citizen indefinitely without charging him with anything and only on the basis that he is deemed an enemy combatant by 1 branch of the federal government
I truly hope there is some horrible secret that Padilla keeps, some terrible act that his incarceration is preventing. Otherwise, the way this case has gutted the Constitution is the horror.
And if the secret is that he is John Doe No. 2 and Bush is holding Padilla to keep from exposing the prematurely halted investigation and rush to execution in the Murrah bombing, that ain't good enough.
Thanks to both of you for bringing a well-needed dose of sanity - and actual conservatism - to the discussion of this issue.
I disagree with the appeals court then. The Constitution is pretty clear on this.
|
|
Oh...I thought this was about Vincente Padilla... |
I believe we certainly have the evidence necessary to hold him. If, for some reason, we don't, we shouldn't be holding him.
Some how we have to get this AH dead.
My concern with Janice Rogers Brown is that she would be sympathetic to Padilla's request. Someone reassure me she is not that far gone as a "civil libertarian," but that's what I've heard.
The Appeals Court said that Congress gave authority to the Commander In Chief to conduct a war.
The constitution vests in the Commander In Chief the powers that congress has provided through the Laws of War.
The Bill of Rights do not apply to the Laws of War.
Congress can recind the authority any time just as they did in the Vietnam war.
I too agree with you. He may be a despicable dirtbag, but he is a US citizen and has rights. To throw away our long held rights because it is convenient in prosecuting a dirtbag is assinine.
I would hope she would be sympathetic to his request, if she is Conservative. "Civil Liberties" is what the Bill of Rights is all about.
If the Constitution does not apply to Padilla in a 'time of war', then it applies to none of us right now, either?
And if they can do this to Padilla, who is to say that an Administration led by the likes of Hitlery won't do it -- wholesale -- to our side? After all, it is the President's sole authority to declare an "enemy combatant."
How Soivet!
It does make me nervous to see a so-called American in prison with no trial and no sentence. HOWEVER I get even more nervous when this Piece of slime is going around putting together a bomb that may kill me or contaminate me with radiation, When he acts with terrorists.Keep the sonofabitch right where he is.
I agree with Justice Scalia on this one. Absent a congressional suspension of habeas corpus, the goverment has 2 choices - charge him or release him. If he's such a bad guy and they are so sure, why can't they press charges, try him, and lock him up?
The thing that bothers me about his detention is not that he is a US citizen, but that he was arrested on US soil! If the government had arrested him on foreign soil as an enemy combatant I would have little to no problem with his detention without charges. But a US citizen, arrested on US soil should be charged with a crime or released. Period.
Being an enemy combatant is not a crime covered by U. S. Law.
Enemy Combatants are held to prevent them from returning to the battlefield as some of those released from Gitmo have done.
It used to apply only to enemy aliens, but was ammended to include U.S. Citizens after the War of 1812.
This is not a new thing.
Surely the administration must have evidence to support their claims against him and in sufficient amount to charge and try him. If not, let him go.
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.