[fporretto]

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

[lentulusgracchus]

You may be aware that the Chief Justice just gave a talk in which he recited "inter arma, silent leges", IIRC, speaking to the leeway the Supreme Court is likely to give the USG in what it deems to be a public emergency.

[cb]

" 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"

El wrongo!! Constitution provides for the suspension of habeous corpus in the case of invasion or rebellion. History notes that this has been done more than once to invading espionage agents and to others during the War between the states. These actions were reviewed by the USSC and deemed constitutional.

This "war" with terrrorists or islamicists or leftists or whatever is going to get real messy if we allow them to use our own misguided courts to protect them from the righteous retribution of a pissed off government!

[Dialup Llama]

>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.

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.