Two senators questioning detention without charges [Bush-hater, John McCain, at it again]

Miami Herald Online ^ | Wednesday, June 12, 2002 | BY JAMES KUHNHENN AND CASSIO FURTADO

[gunshy]

Not all of the enemy are terrorists. Some are bleeding-heart leftists who object to the war on terrorism. by Dog Gone

The quote really should read:

Not all of the enemy are terrorists. Some are former conservatives, now republicans, who do not object when the Constitution is trampled and spat on.

[callisto]

"...Bush's Exec. Order establishing detention of unlawful combatants applies only to non-citizens...the President needs to amend his EO to include citizens, or else Padilla's lawyer will likely win on the writ"

Thank you for your reply. Both Lindh and Padilla are justification for such an amendment, IMHO, as we face the possibility of more American citizens aiding Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. On the other hand, another angle on their detention may be favored by the populace over further restrictions of civil rights. Times like these bring tough choices for our President. I pray he uses justice and love for our country and it's ideals as the basis for his decisions.

[Dane]

Dane is well known around here. I'll let you decide how to describe Dane. Dane is on many "not worth the effort for an intelligent conversation" lists. Easily slides into namecalling.

LOL! It is funny watching you all having snits.

[OldFriend]

Spin away, it doesn't change the fact that our President did NOT change the laws of the land so he could persecute poor misguided Mr. Padilla!

Delude yourself that you understand the laws so much better than those in the present administration.

Course they're all running on emotion and didn't bother to check out the legalities.....and they didn't get your input either...for shame!

[hchutch]

The problem is, Al-Qaida wants us all dead. Kindly explain to me what good it does when we're dead.

This is a war for survival, and we may have to fight dirty to survive. Do you want to be dead and innocent, or alive and able to feel guilty? I'll take the latter. We've recovered from worse crises than this, and this country has emerged stronger for it.

But I'm not going to send our guys fighting this war in with one hand behind their back. We made that mistake in Vietnam. We cannot make it again when this coutnry's survival is at stake.

[OldFriend]

LOLOL CNN the ultimate authority on the facts?????!!!!!!!LOL

[Iwo Jima]

Your childish taunt about the "Constitution not being a suicide pact" is insulting to those who value and the Constitution and especially those who fought and died to defend it, and non-sensical to boot. Please try to find a new mantra, as that one has fast become both limp as an old dishrag and insufferable.

[hchutch]

And if the trial compromises the intelligence methods? Several trials we had in the past eight years did precisely that - arguably aiding the planning of 9/11. We're not talking typical hoodlums here. We are talking people who will pull off mass murders if they get the chance.

A screw-up in the system here puts thousands of innocent people at risk, and they have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, too. One suspected terrorist's rights vs. thousands of decent people who may be in the wrong place at the wrong time when the terrorist plot occurs.

What's more important?

[gunshy]

This same government you speak of when you say they have proof, also had proof of the crimes being committed at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Wake up, the terrorists are the government.

[scalia_#1]

Both Lindh and Padilla are justification for such an amendment, IMHO, as we face the possibility of more American citizens aiding Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

I agree. Judge Bork made this point in an article in National Review when the tribunals were first announced. The biggest shortcoming of the EO was its failure to recognize that Al Qaeda has not limited its reach to non-citizens.

[Dane]

Here's one I've used: "I'm sorry, so sorry, about the deaths in WTC. But a helluva' lot more than three thousand gave their lives and worse to establish and defend the Constitution". "I'm not about to desecrate them because a bunch of big government pukes want to trash our hard-won freedoms".

JMO, but I think that those you call the "helluva' lot more than three thousand gave their lives and worse to establish and defend the Constitution", would have some consternation for you speaking for them, while the country fights a threat that wants the country destroyed.

Takes a lot of chutzpah to make a "statement" like that. Oh I forgot you think of yourself as a "know all, be all".

Nevermind.

[hchutch]

Insulting? Excuse me, the consequences of a screw-up aren't putting some two-bit hood back on the street. We're talking people who would wipe us out if they get the chance.

How far do we go? Even if we go by the book and get this guy, what intelligence methods and sources are compromised, thereby making it easier for future attacks? Do you know? Do you even care? The issue is, "How far do we go to end a threat from people who are determiend to wipe us out when they get the means to do so?"

I say we go as far as it takes to defeat a threat to this country's survival. We'll deal with the fallout from that when we get there, but if this country doesn't survive, the Constitution doesn't do us any good.

[callisto]

That you trust the powers-that-be to abuse their constitutional authority this time

No, I'm trusting them NOT to abuse their constitutional authority this time. I'm giving Pres. Bush the benefit of the doubt because I believe he has the moral clarity not to abuse his position of power. I hope I'm right, but I may be proved wrong. In the case of the latter I WILL be voting for a different candidiate next time. But these are not ordinary times. On Sept. 11, 2001 we woke to the fact that war was declared against our nation. We were attacked on our homeland by people who are using our laws and freedoms to play against us. During wartimes our nation has temporarily suspended certain liberties and laws previously and these were returned to us post-war. Why automatically assume that Pres. Bush would remove our rights permanently? Oddly enough I haven't seen to many people mention the angle that problems me with the removal of civil liberties, and that is the fact that this war has no foreseeable timetable.

And I don't distrust the government, it's the people that are in the government at various times that I distrust.

[gunshy]

What despicable and treasonous acts are you talkink about. Are you privvy to information that the rest of us mental flywieghts are not, or are you just willing to accept what the government says as the gospel not subject to review or verification. I'll bet you still believe that what the government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge was correct and proper.Kevin Curry, brownshirt extraordinaire.

[JohnMac]

Every report I read about the things McCain says, makes me want to change my screen name. Too bad my name is so similar to his.

[gunshy]

This is a war for survival, and we may have to fight dirty to survive. Do you want to be dead and innocent, or alive and able to feel guilty? I'll take the latter. We've recovered from worse crises than this, and this country has emerged stronger for it.

If this is a war for survival, why hasn't this wonderful administration taken any actions to protect the american people.

Little things like closing the border, restricting immigration, deporting illegals and undesirables, helping the citizens of this country by developing a civil defense plan.

Instead, this wonderful administration has done nothing but try to restrict the freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution, of american citizens.