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

[Flyover Country]

Arizona needs to find someone and do a write-in campaign agaist McCain. If he gets in for another 6 years, he will think he is bullet proof. Get some cojones Arizona!

[Who is George Salt?]

Kindly explain to me what good it does when we're dead.

Ah, how the wheels of history turn.

Back in the 50s and 60s, this was the Better Red Than Dead mantra of the unilateral disarmament crowd. Just like you, they presented us with a false dilemna - We'd better (fill in the blank) or else we're all dead!

Their tactic - the very same one you are employing now - was to use fear to advance their political agenda. Remember the mid-80s TV miniseries The Day After? Fear-mongering was an intellectually dishonest tactic then, and it still is.

At least the lefties could point to a credible threat - the Soviet Union had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, and they had the means to deliver them. As for the current threat, well, let's look at the words of Paul Wolfowitz:

"He (Padilla) researched nuclear weapons and received training in wiring explosives while in Pakistan"

Hmm! A street thug and likely high school dropout became a nuclear weapons researcher for Al Qaeda? Wow! Now I'm really scared! What a bunch of hogwash!

Al Qaeda is a dangerous, international criminal entity. The current, ongoing, police action (it isn't a war) is completely justified. Nevertheless, the idea that Al Qaeda presents a greater threat than the Soviet Union is laughable. And guess what - despite the predictions of doom, we didn't all die. There was no reason to become Red in order to avoid becoming Dead. History has proven that it was a false dilemna. History will regard your fear-mongering in the same way.

[Don Corleone]

These treasonous scum should be shot, but only after due process

"Due Process" is to shoot them!

[Who is George Salt?]

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

Good point. If indeed this is a fight for our very survival, why haven't we reinstated the draft? One would think that in a time a national peril, we would want every able-bodied person in uniform.

What sacrifices has the government asked of us? Why, we're all supposed to shop till we drop for democracy! And pay no attention to the disintegrating stock market, the falling dollar, and the return of deficit spending - why that would be unpatriotic, don't you know?

You are exactly right - the only thing the government has asked us to sacrifice is our liberty.

[Iwo Jima]

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

I distrust the government, and so did our founding fathers, which is why they gave us the Constitution.to protect us from and to restict government. Distrust of government is a natural and positive thing. You should distrust the government. Why don't you? It's downright unAmerican not to distrust government.

[callisto]

The entity "government" is nothing without the people who comprise it. What damage can it do? Why should I fear an abstract entity when the actions of the people are what cause my consternation. It's their actions that should be feared, without them there would be no reason to fear the entity.

[Who is George Salt?]

"Why should I fear an abstract entity when the actions of the people are what cause my consternation."

Because power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we have a government of laws, not a government of personality.

[Iwo Jima]

I guess we just see this thing differently. I think that you are having a hysterical overreaction to the facts. There is no way under even a worst case scenario that this is a "fight for survival." There is no possible way that they could "wipe us all out." That's just hysteria. They may want to destroy us all, but if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

I think that the terrorists shot their wad on 9/11. I doubt that we will ever suffer losses like that again. We will suffer more attacks in the future, I am sure, but unless they get a nuclear bomb it's not going to be as big a kill rate as 9/11. Because now we know. They sucker punched us once, but they won't have that going for them next time. We're waiting for them, and they'll get their head handed to them next time. Bring it on, Baby, I'm ready to rumble.

Excuse the blunt talk, no offense intended, but whiny hand-ringing ("We're doomed!!! We're all going to DIEEE!!!") is counter productive and irritating. Buck up! We can take these guys! They're not so big or so good. This "dirty bomb" threat is NOTHING that we need to worry about.

But if they do get a nuke and kill what, 3,000,000 people, do we then trash our Constitution? NO!!! Sorry, about that, you 3,000,000 dead people, but if you're true Americans, then you would want it this way, and if you're not true Americans, then why do I care about you? You're dead. Good.

There is nothing that we gain by holding this guy instead of prosecuting him. Nothing about our security is enhanced by ignoring the Constitution. He can be be tried, convicted, put away, executed, never to be heard from again, all consistent with the Constitution and without jeopardizing any valuable "sources or methods." So what's is your problem????

[callisto]

People corrupt their use of power. How can something so abstract as "government" be corrupted by power. It has no feelings or desire for power, only the people within it. The actions of the people that compromise the government is what should be feared.

[Dane]

Do we go as far as ignoring the Constitution and quietly accepting tyranny? If so, why bother?

Looks like you will "quietly" accept coddling terrorism and terrorists.

Your coddling of these people may not be tyrannical, but it certainly is sucidal.

[Roscoe]

SCOTUS ruled in Ex Parte Quirin in 1942 that the detaining of saboteurs, modern day terrorists, or what they called unlawful combatants is indeed constitutional.

Good catch.

By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.

It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War.

Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.

[Roscoe]

It amazes me how you self proclaimed uber patriots are cringing and sucking your thumbs in the corner worrying about a non-existant Hillary administartion while you go ape sh!t over Jose Jihad being held.

It doesn't surprise me.

[Chess]

He's retiring after this term, I believe. Someone correct me if i am wrong.

[Dane]

But if they do get a nuke and kill what, 3,000,000 people, do we then trash our Constitution? NO!!! Sorry, about that, you 3,000,000 dead people, but if you're true Americans, then you would want it this way, and if you're not true Americans, then why do I care about you? You're dead. Good.

Keep on posting there Iwo Jima, looks like whatever you are smoking has kicked in, and your deluded, crass, and arrogant rants are there for the world to see.

[Dane]

I find your disregard for the Constitution those who have died protecting it appalling. Have a nice day!

I find your disregard of the real world situation(i.e there are terrorists out there trying to kill us) and you appointing yourself as sole spokesman for all those who have died in service protecting out country just as appaling.

[Chess]

"Do we go as far as ignoring the Constitution and quietly accepting tyranny? If so, why bother?"

Your reply:

"Looks like you will "quietly" accept coddling terrorism and terrorists."

We can uphold the Constitution withour coddling this terrorist. In our court system, he could be tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. That is not coddling.

It hasn't been necessay to go outside our Constitution in handling Walker Linde and Moussari. Why is it necessary with Padillo?

[Iwo Jima]

Note to self: Disregard that known disruptor and government hack, Dane. He is not worth responding to.

[Who is George Salt?]

It amazes me how you self proclaimed uber patriots are cringing and sucking your thumbs in the corner worrying about a non-existant Hillary administartion while you go ape sh!t over Jose Jihad being held.

Let me connect the dots for you. The Hillary Administration, using the precedents set during the (ongoing) "war" on terror, declares the pro-life movement a "terrorist" organization. Everyone even remotely associated with the pro-life movement is arrested, thrown in solitary confinement, denied access to a lawyer, and is held without charges, indefinitely.

[bigdog]

As mentioned several posts ago, the administration is using U.S. Supreme Court EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), as justification for detaining this suspected terrorist. I know you don't like it, but EX PARTE QUIRIN is "the law of the land".

That said, the suspect is represented by counsel, and he(she) will soon file a writ of habeas corpus. Then some Federal judge will rule on the legality of the administration's actions.

Nothing unconstitutional here.

Flame Shields Up.

BD