Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Good article.
1 posted on 06/16/2002 2:11:43 AM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: billybudd
I'm glad to see that a few other people are as troubled by this as I am.

There's no provision anywhere in the laws of the United States for holding a man because he's a slimeball, or because he has creepy associates. If we're going to use the rationales of warfare to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant, they have to be tied to something objective and meaningful, such as capture on a field of battle or in the process of committing an act of espionage or sabotage. Finally, there's no provision for suspending the writ of habeas corpus except uniformly, i.e., for all of us, such that its protections no longer bind the government in any way. Quite obviously, to say that only certain persons should no longer have habeas corpus protection is to license selective persecution.

I have yet to hear anyone allege secret evidence that would make it possible to indict Padilla on a recognized charge. I suppose that if they're going to classify him as a captured enemy soldier, that problem is of little import. But it's vital that we have some rules and some consistency about this, extraordinary times or not. Martin Niemoller's Lament applies!

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

2 posted on 06/16/2002 3:15:06 AM PDT by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billybudd; fporretto
May I remind you this fellow is not being detained for singing too loudly in the choir. He is an enemy combatant. Why is it a violation of sacred rights to restrain an enemy combatant? Did we apply habeas corpus to enemy combatants captured in the past?
4 posted on 06/16/2002 4:31:54 AM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billybudd
I find myself compelled to ask a nasty question. Despite the constitutional niceties, what does one do about a potential terrorist?

Since so-called dirty nuclear bombs are all the rage these days, suppose that we believe that a person has the ability and inclination to perform this act?

Even if we were perfectly certain that we could capture the perp after the act, we know that punishment of any sort is unlikely to deter. The terrorists have shown that they are willing - nay, eager! - to die for their cause. Historically, our concept of law has been to let the crime happen, and then to prosecute; but can this model work against a class of criminal who kills many people - literally thousands at a time - and arranges to die in the process?

If we don't preempt terrorists, then we increase the liklihood of their success. Are we willing to pay the price in American blood?

More pointedly, would any of us be willing to stand up in front of children, spouses, and parents of burned, blasted, and terminally radiated victims and take responsibility for not detaining a potential mass murderer?

As for me, I continue to support the President and Attorney General Ashcroft.

8 posted on 06/16/2002 5:20:39 AM PDT by neutrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billybudd
ping
16 posted on 06/16/2002 7:04:54 AM PDT by flanew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: billybudd
Ah, those pesky defense attorneys..like the ones who helped oj get away with murder? Now they want to help muslims take over the country? Pesky is not what I would call them, but maybe enemy combatant fits.
17 posted on 06/16/2002 7:11:21 AM PDT by RWG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson