[freethinkingman]

I want the terrorists dead! That said I would overlook occassional infractions of civil rights.

That may sound bad to some of you but I don't care, what we have is right now, and the future. I am sure history will look upon this period as a blemish on our republic.

Again I don't care, I am sure the Union will weather it. If you look upon the infractions by the Lincoln Administration on civil rights or even FDR's you might wonder how the hell we survived, but we did. Was Lincolns' war on civil rights ( and specifically habeus corpus )justified to keep the Union together? Maybe?

Did FDR's internment camps benefit Naional Security? (in this case probably not) but he is still looked upon (especially by the left) as one of this Nations greatest Presidents.

I do think there are times when a volation of rights is justified. Just like the example of not waiting for a warrant to search for the "ticking bomb".

I believe they had this Padilla guy and did not want anyone to know untill they could nab some of his buddies in Pak. That explains the timing.

In the mean time through interogation they are probably so convinced of his guilt, and seeing how the Moussoui circus is going, thought it was time to tackle this one a little differently.

[billybudd]

I would overlook occassional infractions of civil rights.

On how many occasions would you overlook violations of individual rights? And which? I simply can't believe that anyone who values individual liberty can say something like that. Perhaps the American spirit has been so worn down by an unconstitutional system that most of us accept violations as legitimate when we think its suits our needs.
Your historical analysis is wrong. The nation hasn't survived the historical crises that you cite (of course, it depends what you mean by "survive"). Lincoln gave us a centralized federal monopoly and the end of states' balance of power. FDR gave us Social Security and the New Deal, which are still with us today. These things have added up and now we are saddled with their burdens. Sure, we are a rich empire, but does that mean we're free?
You believe the government has the authority to treat some cases "differently" if they so choose, without legal basis or judicial check. You seem to accept the premise that the Executive should have sole authority to determine how a US citizen is tried in this country. Should we spare ourselves the suspense and abolish the Judiciary now? Think about this for a moment: how do we know the guy is a terrorist until we've had a trial to determine it? And think: what if Bush (or in the future, Hillary) dislikes you for some reason and labels you a "terrorist" and throws you in military detention, without civil trial? (Your response will be: "Yeah, but come on, we just know the guy's a terrorist!" Yeah, and everyone will know you're a terrorist if that's what the media reports. Think ahead.)