But of course! The President of the United States would never lie to us!
Posted on 06/16/2002 2:11:43 AM PDT by billybudd
Precisely. The rules can and should be somewhat different for these cases (given the legitimate need to keep certain secrets), but they can't be thrown out completely.
That Constitutional provision is, of course, available to President Bush at any time that he feels capable of accepting the personal responsibility of invoking it.
I'd insist that the police go arrest him (death threats are against the law) and provide what evidence I could to aid in convicting him. Next silly straw man?
But of course! The President of the United States would never lie to us!
Naaaah... You pretty much covered it! Thanks. (:>)
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
The congress authorized the president to use the law of war against this guy.
He has the habeous corpus right to have this reviewed by a court.
I can see no other way than to have the miitary determine who is a combatant- subject, for US citizens, to a review by the courts.
Instead of concern over the use of military power on American soil against americans ( which has been constitutionally authorized and is patently unavoidable in this situation), it seems to me that your worry is more over "bills of attainder" by the legislature against US citizens. That is what this matter could be classed as, IMHO, if Padilla was tried by tribunal.
That's not easy. One must "make the opportunity to commit the crime" available, but not entrap. So if the bad guys contact a UC officer or informant, and they ask to buy a nuke (or automatic weapons, or lots of other things), then one can, as you suggest, prosecute.
However, if the terrorists are a closed cell, the process doesn't work. Unfortunately, they frequently know each other quite well...
To do the job, one would need to recruit covert informants who would then become devout moslems. They would attend the mosques, befriend the members, and get in the loop that way. But keep in mind, you're looking for a very special kind of CI....one who is willing and able to function undercover for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. One willing to avoid all family contacts, or willing to put their family on the line...because you can expect that the bad guys will want to meet the new convert in his home before they really start talking about criminal acts.
It's one thing to let a few dopers get away. But quite another to let a terrorist hurt and kill a great many innocent people. And for that reason, I do believe that some of the constitutional guarantees we have enjoyed will need to be set aside for the duration. And no, I don't like it any better than you do.
John Gotti was a slimeball and then some. He was free until the day of his conviction by a court.
In 1946, Nazi enemy combatants were detained, tried by tribunal and executed. The category of enemy combatant is quite bright. Perhaps we should just execute today's enemy combatants rather than the more (apparently) humane action of detention.
If these people operated in Afghanistan we would attack them. Just because the enemy soldier has made it to our shore, are we supposed to give him complete freedom until he irradiates a city?
This has no comparison with the Department of Precrime.
Unless I'm mistaken, I observed a battlefield in NYC. The battlefield is here.
He is detained because he is an enemy soldier who is functioning as a sabotuer during a time of armed conflict.
What is the problem with attacking the enemy? Or does he enemy obtain 'safe harbor' should he reach our border?
Just because these people do not wear uniforms like in the civil war, or take orders from a gov't like in WWII does not make it any less of a war. It is not a war in a common conception, but it is a real war.
...
One day they came and they took the terrorists,
And I said nothing because I was not a terrorist?
This not-a-state just took out a third of Manhattan at the start of this not-a-war. For the past 10 months we have not been fighting this 'underworld organization,' not-at-war-with the US using Special Forces, B-52s and aircraft carriers.
You are so caught up in your Aristotilian categorizations and old conceptions of what a war is 'supposed' to be that you have missed the plain fact that war has begun whether you agree to it or not.
That has nothing to do with it. Rather, we as a society need to decide whether we are going to protect ourselves...or not.
Suppose, for a moment, that YOU are President. There's a chance...not a big chance, but a chance nonetheless...that a terrorist will will hundreds and make a radiological mess of a square mile in a major American city.
Will you act to save the people? Or not? And what about when the press asks what you knew, and when you knew it?
My choice is clear. I would stop the terrorists using any tool I could. I recognize that his is at variance with the ideals of others....
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.