Posted on 08/18/2002 12:31:24 PM PDT by BellStar
What you are forgeting is that we now have a dumbed down populace that looks to the Federal government as Big Daddy who knows all and provides all. That is the difference. If FDR had attempted to restrict anything more than the 'nasty' machine guns, there would have been hell to pay. Now, almost 70 years later, we have people who don't even understand the concept of gun ownership for self defense, let alone to keep the government in line.
donozark
i don't think that Ashcroft is some evil power grabbing would be tyrant. I think that he believes that what he is doing is right. Just as fervently, I believe he and Bush are wrong on their internal WoT.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery . . ." P. Henry March 23, 1775
10. 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. P. 35 .
How does the bolded part apply in this case? If not, how does Quirin supply the justification for designating Padilla as an unlawful combatant?
Looking forward to any/all responses.
(Note: This is in no way intended to support Padilla's actions or his character.)
However, there are some similarities. US citizen involved. He has been declared an "enemy combatant." SCOTUS previously confirmed Exec authority to do same. So on and so on. Naturally it is not a carbon copy. Few cases are.
Evidence? I have none. But as the professor stated above-enemy combatants have fewer legal rights than ordinary citizen defendants in criminal cases. This is (at least according to DOD/DOJ) a case involving enemy combatants.
We are a nation at war. In times of war, extreme measures are taken. We only recently (8-9 years) learned the specificites of Slapton Sands. Soldiers (read:survivors!) were sworn to secrecy. Ditto for Leopoldville-only not to extreme of Slapton Sands. I know much more about my unit's movements in Vietnam now, than I did when there. Why? Intel and supporting records were pretty much all declassified circa 1994-5. It's a government thing.
Seems to be a misunderstanding-I am not justifying anything. It would little matter anyway. What I am saying is, that it appears to me, under the law, that AG Ashcroft is acting legally. You may not like it. I may not like it. Padilla damned sure doesn't like it! But I do not believe it to be illegal. Time will tell...
Surreptitious? Abdullah Al Muhajir
Discarding uniforms? Terrs don't wear them. In the old days, if a soldier discarded his uniform in enemy territory, he could be shot as a spy. Many Germans were, in the Ardennes.
Unlawful combatants? If so declared enemy combatant, President or Congress has authority to try them via military commission.
Not exactly spelled out in great detail by SCOTUS in Ex Parte Quirin, for future generations. Or "different wars" as we are told this one is. But most cases/rulings don't give future parameters, precisely anyway.
Bulls#it.
We were attacked last year in the opening battle of the war, and took heavy civilan casualties.
By your, ahem, "logic", if we received a massive nuclear attack that hit all of our major cities, we should be prohibited from launching a return attack, because there was no "formal" declaration of war, and thus, we were not "in a state of war."
You nitpicking hair-splitting pharasees make me nauseous.
I'd be real interested in seeing you sell that to Hollywood to make a movie about how to enforce your ideals in battlefield conditions.
"Soldier! You may NOT shoot that enemy combattant! He hasn't even been charged, let alone convicted!"
It would have to be a comedy. A bad comedy.
Sometimes.
Are you always so thouroughly uninformed?
One of Hamdis Writs of Habeus Corpus
Judicial review which is ongoing.
The Fourth Circuit disagrees with you.
Whats significant about this is that AlQaeda declared war on the US in 1993 at the WTC. That fact has gone right over your head ever since.
What "Rule of War" has been violated by Presdient Bush?
Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
The Rules of War recognises common sense, you apparently don't.
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.