Appeals Court Refuses to Transfer Padilla

Associated Press ^ | December 21, 2005 | Toni Locy

[oceanview]

indeed, look at the warrantless search of Aldrich Ames home conducted under Clinton. once the citizen has essentally become an agent of a foreign power, the game changes. I saw no uproar over Aldrich Ames rights being violated.

[ndt]

"Not to fight Oceanviews battles, but just exactly where the F fid he say that?"

Notice that I posed it as a question, not a statement.

I said "I'm not sure when following the Constitution and rule of law became a controversial position."

He replied "when two planes flew into the world trade center"

I'm not sure how to interpret that except that the Constitution and rule of law became controversial after 9/11.

That's why I was asking for clarification.

[clawrence3]

LOL - exactly - now multiply that by coordinated terrorists attacks and it quickly adds up (especially if YOU or family / loved ones are one of the unlucky ones).

[clawrence3]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact - if it becomes one, then YES ditch it!

[ndt]

"Whew, for a while there I tought we had something to be concerned about."

It is defiantly something to be worried about, but we are NOT talking about millions of lives as suggested by clawrence3.

It's big, it's horrible. but an order of magnitude off of what some think.

[ndt]

"Well, ndt, ONE such "detail" obviously includes allowing the NSA to find said terrorists and affiliates."

And where did I say NOT to?

[clawrence3]

O.K., what's your best estimate of casualties from 50 suitcase nukes timed simultaneously (or staggered if that causes the most panic) in the 50 cities I linked to above?

Mine is 2 million, so there.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

very likely illegal.

Where to you get that?

[ndt]

"we didn't "ditch" anything, we have exceptions when conditions warrant it under extraordinary circumstances."

There are no exceptions to the Constitution except those provided BY the Constitution.

"I see no evidence that the enemy combatant designation has been misused - hell, its hardly been used at all."

The last question was related to nuclear bombs, not this case. The nuclear threat will never go away, so anything we do to minimize the danger will always be with us.

[clawrence3]

Where did I say you DON'T want to allow whatever means the President and NSA deems appropriate - good to have you aboard though - maybe all that "ditching the Constitution" talk above was some big misunderstanding.

[ndt]

"I'd agree with that except that Taliban Johnny forfeited that protection "

I would agree with you in that case. He was caught on foreign soil with a foreign "military".

[xzins]

And Luttig is so much better than Harriette Myers. /sarcasm

Padilla's a flipping traitor, and his name when he fought against his own nation was Abdullah al-Muhajir.

Wonder why Luttig can't see through this Padilla crap?

[Sir_Humphrey]

It is defiantly something to be worried about, but we are NOT talking about millions of lives as suggested by clawrence3. It's big, it's horrible. but an order of magnitude off of what some think.

Well that gives us all cause to breathe easier. Of course it may be a coordinated attack on 6 or so major population centers but even so we still probably won't hit that magical one million mark that may make some really sit up and take notice of the threat.

[ndt]

"50 "small" suitcase bombs will kill millions: "

You are assuming the death of every person in the city from 10-20 tons of explosive force? It would level a building or two, not a city.

[oceanview]

nope, no difference according to your strict interpetation. a US citizens rights extends to anywhere he is. either Padilla and John Walker both were agents of a foreign power, or they were just regular "criminals". we can't be at war with these people everywhere in the world - except at OHare airport.

[clawrence3]

I'm NOT assuming that - YOU ARE - every person in said cities would be over 45 million dead, not 2 million. What's your worse case estimate?

[ndt]

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact - if it becomes one, then YES ditch it!"

And there we have it folks the first honest "Constitution, who needs it".

Needless to say I disagree, but I applaud you honesty.

[Agrarian]

Yup, this just solidifies my support for Luttig for the next SCOTUS seat.

In response to those who knee-jerk that Luttig is a bad guy because he ruled against Bush, I have two comments.

First, ruling against the President on a war-related issue would only help him in confirmation hearings.

It is also far from clear to me that Luttig was actually ruling against what the Bush administration wanted in this case -- smells like one of those "wheels within wheels" pieces of work. Sounds like he kept Bush from getting beat in the SCOTUS.

[XEHRpa]

If he will walk in a trial, he shouldn't be in jail for years. I'm amazed how many folks here feel differently, but we shouldn't be jailing people for what we think - but can't prove - they did, or for what we think they might do.

I think th eproblem isn't that we haven't the evidence... but that the evidence is highly classified (perhaps the methods involved in obtaining the evidence), and thus the govt. might prefer to let him walk rather than reveal their methods.

[clawrence3]

You're welcome - I shall not return the favor in some macabre admiration that less than 1 million will die.