[white trash redneck]

I've been troubled by the conflict between the rights of innocent suspects and the need to protect ourselves from terrorism, particularly with the memory of the last administration and its contempt for the Bill of Rights and its naked ambition for power. Amar is generally a good guy on constitutional issues (despite being a Yale Law professor, he's pro-2A), and I find his article interesting, though not necessarily satisfying.

[AppyPappy]

Screw the terrorist. This is war. It ain't like they locked up Grandma Moses.

[callisto]

Americans have had to temporarily relinquish civil and other liberties during previous times of war. We'll survive this also, but IMHO due diligence should be placed in the selection and election of candidates during times when our liberties are tightened. We all remember "the last 8 years" and don't need anyone in power who would abuse it to the extent that it was then.

[3AngelaD]

Oh, good. Now we have a towelhead from Yale explaining our Constitution and civil rights to us. I never thought I'd see the day when I would prefer Alan Dershowitz. As far as I'm concerned, Padilla's procedural rights are limited to the right to procede directly to Florida, and become intimately acquainted with with Ol' Sparky.

[Congressman Billybob]

The sad thing about this article is it is written by a professor of law at my alma mater, and is almost right but ultimately, hopelessly wrong. The good professor makes a passing reference to a "World War II case," but dismisses its relevance.

That case, as FReepers know from my posts and from my UPI article, is In Re Quirin, 1942. In it, the Court ruled unanimously (8-0) that even an American citizen, Bruno Haupt who was born in Chicago, became an "illegal combantant" when he entered the US from a German submarine along with seven others, with plans, cash and materials to bomb various facilities. Until the Court reverses the Quirin decision, the indefinite detention of Padilla is in accord with the Constitution, with the Military Code of the US, and with the international "law of war."

Padilla should count himself lucky that he has not yet been charged and tried for "acts of war" against the United States. The eight German saboteurs were so charged, so convicted, and six of them were executed.

The professor dismisses the controlling authority of Quirin by saying that "Congress has not declared war." He has not done his homework. Contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act passed on 18 September, 2001, was a Joint Resolution that began in the Senate. That Resolution authorized the President to "use all necessary measures" to respond to 9/11, and granted him that authority under the "War Powers Act." It was not as tidy as a stand-alone document with the title, "Declaration of War." (Congressman Barr and six colleagues introduced a clean Joint Resolution to do exactly that. Theirs was tabled in favor of the Senate version.) But legally and constitutionally, it accomplished the same result.

It is sad to see people who ought to know what they are talking about, putting out discussions for the public that are fatally defective. In light of other FReepers' comments about this gentleman, I will put his instance down to incompetence, rather than bias.

Congressman Billybob

Click for: "Speaking without Talking -- Hearing without Listening."