Posted on 06/24/2002 7:16:31 AM PDT by xsysmgr
BUMP
Walt
Yes, it's true: Rush is being legally held incognito as an illegal combatant and any 'Rush' you hear on the radio is just some ringer brought in by the EIB Network to keep the show from losing money.
Or if this isn't so, how would we know?
The court stated a lot of history in that decision. "Unlawful combatants" can also be spies. The guy came to do "recon". That is "spying".
Throughout history spies have been hung. Starting with the revoulutionary war, the war of 1812, the Civil War.
This is nothing new. No precident -- we've been there, done that.
They can take it, but they need to use due process. What if the person was inncocent or a case of mistaken identity? Are they not allowed to defend themselves in Court?
Is there something that Padilla knows that makes it imperative to keep him incommunicado? Aside from the legal and constitutional issues, this just doesn't make sense, when compared to the treatment of Reid, Moussaoui and Lindh.
Tell me KC, do you think the government should have to prove you have 'taken up arms' or is some beauracrat's assertion good enough for you? If a politician's word is good enough to convict a man without trial, then I think we've already lost the war.
Is Padilla scum? Probably. Should we send him to the firing squad without any legal procedings? Absolutely NOT! Try him, then fry him, if that is what the jury of citizens demands.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that suspected terrorists should be classified as common criminals...but there at least has to be some sort of formal process for judging whether or not someone is a terrorist...
Just how does the threat increase by allowing him before a judge and giving him due process? Heis still being held, he is not allowed to communicate without the government listening, even on atty client conversations, where does the additional danger you seem to fear come from? What makes him more dangerous when he is allowed to defend himself in court?
They explain that rules of war have been in the constitution from the beginning. They are based on common law rules of war and rules of war passed by congress. They were ammended after the war of 1812 to include U.S. Citizens.
They were used extensively in the Civil War.
There is nothing new in how they are to be used.
Again, you should download the decision and read it. It is 17 pages and very enlightening. The decision was 8 to 0.
It is constitutional. Law enforcement cannot deal with preventing spies and sabatours. That is why the rules of war were passed by congress. It is a war issue not a law enforcement issue.
The nut of the problem. If the administration would stop being so dang PC and modify the order, I would not have a problem. Though they would have to follow the UCMJ. What was in their minds when they allowed this guy to reenter the US?! Pass through the Custom Zone, then arrest him reading him his Maranda Rights. DUH!
And it says, revoked at will by any legal authority, right? NO! No Federal Agency can strip you of your Citizenship without due process. This is WHAT THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS ARE FOR!
Second, any citizen should be able to file a habeas corpus petition. If he can show he isn't an illegal combatant (that's the correct standard, no crime need have been committed other than taking arms against the U.S.), then the court can order his release.
"Congress must get involved, exercising its responsibility to enact a new legal regimen for citizen-detainees in time of national emergency." That'll be the day. With the Daschle Dims in charge of the Senate, we'd get Congressional action after some Al-Qaeda nut finally succeeds in nuking us. We're in a war now; I want the enemy soldiers locked up until it's over.
This is what the US Supreme Court upheld, if you can't see the difference in these cases, then I just don't know what to tell you.
"1)That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3)That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus.? The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied. The orders of the District Court are affirmed. The mandates are directed to issue forthwith.
Big difference here! What trial? What Lawful Military Tribunal?
That is why the Court denied the case filed by the California Lawyers in behalf of the guys in Cuba.
The Court ruled that it has no jurisdiction because it is coverd by the rules of war passed by congress as explained by the Supreme Court.
It is constitutional. Just don't spy for the enemy and you will not get caught up in it.
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.