Replies

Your comment:"Hamdi was gathered up in Afghanistan with his fellow Al Qaeda pals. Padilla was picked up at Chicago's O'Hare airport after lying about the 10K in cash he came back from Pakistan with. When he left he had only his hands in his pockets, he lied about the amount of cash and he attended some "Al Qaeda" seminars while on holiday. 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."

My comment: "Battlefield conditions? Am I missing something?"

Your comment: "Clearly."

Fine, Padilla was detained in Chicago. Chicago is not generally known as a battlefield, even in this war. But if it is to be now represented as such, it certainly extends the definition in a way that I am not comfortable with. Battlefield, by this definition, seems to be a euphemism for "wherever the heck we find you," including the town you and I are living in.

Furthermore, you argue the evidence, and if the evidence is that strong, why isn't the government arguing the evidence? There is a dramatic disconnect here. On the one hand, the evidence is so bloody obvious that Padilla ought to be put out to pasture without further consideration. On the the other hand, the government is arguing that there is no need to present evidence of any kind, because ... well, because we're the executive branch and the rest of the pesky branches can go to hell. If the SOB is that obviously guilty, try him and execute him. It's not that hard. Please explain to me why we need to set a remarkably dangerous precedent to deal with this guy.

Battlefield, by this definition, seems to be a euphemism for "wherever the heck we find you," including the town you and I are living in.

Now you're getting it. Your town, my town, any town USA is the battlefield. 9/11 proves it and so does the anthrax incidents.

Furthermore, you argue the evidence, and if the evidence is that strong, why isn't the government arguing the evidence?

I don't know how strong the evidence is. What I know is that Hamdi was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Padilla was arrested at O'Hare for lying to customs and carrying in more cash than is allowed by law. The Justice Department states in their filings that PAdilla met with Al Qaeda.

For me, this is enought evidence to decalre these guys enemy comabatants and for me to call them traitors,taht is if their allegiance was ever to America and in Hamdi's case I suspect that isn't true.

If the SOB is that obviously guilty, try him and execute him. It's not that hard. Please explain to me why we need to set a remarkably dangerous precedent to deal with this guy.

Perhaps the only law that Padilla has broken is one that would put him on the street forthwith. The JD's view is that he is an enemy combatant. I agree. Now you ask why not try him and be done with it?

My answer is this. When the One Eyed Sheik was tried in NY for the first WTC bombing, bin Laden found out that intelligence knew his cell phone number. He threw the cell phone away. There was also volumes of evidence regarding the structure of the WTC and this found its way into the public domain. The rest is history.

Padilla and Hamdi have not had Habeus Corpus suspended, their cases are being litigated. Generous enough if you ask me.