[callisto]

No truer words have been said than "Freedom isn't free." If you'll see my post in #102 you'll see where I stated that I've determined my felings for this case must be derived from my moral feelings of love for one's country and fellow men. I've been wrestling with this issue because under the Clinton Administration the "translation" of "our living"(sic) document the Constitution was a major problem for me, and since 9/11 we've watched many of our freedoms become, not necessarily lost but given wider openings to their destruction. I feel we must do what we need to do to protect our citizens, but with an eye towards the possiblility that these changes may be misused in the future by some who are not so morally clear.

[BikerNYC]

I feel we must do what we need to do to protect our citizens, but with an eye towards the possiblility that these changes may be misused in the future by some who are not so morally clear.

What do you mean? That you trust the powers-that-be to abuse their constitutional authority this time, but you worry about it on other occassions when you might disagree with the ends? Is this an ends justify the means test?

I don't trust any of them. No one should step beyond consitutitonal parameters. I don't know a single thing about whether or not what the government is telling us about this guy is true, and a jury has yet to pass on his guilt based upon evidence presented in court. Until that time, he has the right to be formally apprised of the charges against him in a timely manner as required by law. If the government cannot do that, the guy should be released.

It amazes me that so many people who distrust the government on so many issues are willing to simply accept whatever the government says when it comes to incarcerating its citizens before a jury (that is, the People) has determined guilt.