Reply
Tue 13 Sep, 2005 12:03 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5267266,00.html
This seems to have gotten lost under all the Katrina coverage, but I think it's a really big deal. Earlier this year the Supreme Court let us all down by allowing the government to seize personal property for economic gain. Now it seems that the rights to due process are in jeopardy. I'm having an animal farm moment.
Quote:A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to reverse a judge's order that the government either charge or free Jose Padilla, who has been in custody for more than three years.
``The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al-Qaida, an entity with which the United States is at war,'' Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote. ``We conclude that the President does possess such authority.''
A federal judge in South Carolina ruled in February that the government cannot hold Padilla indefinitely as an ``enemy combatant,'' a designation President Bush gave him in 2002. The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement he was pleased with the ruling.
``As the court noted today, the authority to detain enemy combatants like Jose Padilla plays an important role in protecting American citizens from the very kind of savage attack that took place almost four years ago to the day,'' Gonzales said.
Padilla's attorney said his client would probably appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that the appeals court decision could have grave implications for all Americans.
``It's a matter of how paranoid you are,'' Andrew Patel said. ``What it could mean is that the president conceivably could sign a piece of paper when he has hearsay information that somebody has done something he doesn't like and send them to jail - without a hearing (or) a trial.''
But he's a terrorist! I'm scared of terrorists! Lock everyone up so that I'll be safe! EEEEEEEEEK!
I think it's a big deal too.
Me too. I was just presenting the nice, rational counterargument for keeping him locked up.
DrewDad wrote:Me too. I was just presenting the nice, rational counterargument for keeping him locked up.
I believe that was:
Quote:``The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al-Qaida, an entity with which the United States is at war,'' Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote. ``We conclude that the President does possess such authority.''
Yours was just childish nonsense.
Quote:``The exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al-Qaida, an entity with which the United States is at war,'' Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote. ``We conclude that the President does possess such authority.''
Everything that comes after the bolded part is part of the accusation against him which thus far he has not had the opportunity to confront. That's the point to due process.
Change "closely" to "suspected of" and you have the real outcome.
Actually, I have a suspicion that they want this to get to the Supreme Court. Then it applies in all jurisdictions.
I want it to get to the Supreme Court too, but hopefully before O'Connor leaves for good.
You all know which animal farm scene I'm thinking of, don't you?
How long do you think he should remain in custody, without charge or trial, McG? Five years? Ten? Life?
Well, Lord E, I'm sure you'd agree that if we are going to keep him for life we ought just to save the taxpayers some money and kill him now.
Yessirreee, it's time fer a lynchin'.
He might well deserve 5, 10, or life in prison. We don't know that, do we?
The intelligence on Padilla has to be at least as good as that which led us to invade Iraq.
He may very well be a dirty bastard, but there will always be doubt until he's tried.
FreeDuck wrote:He may very well be a dirty bastard, but there will always be doubt until he's tried.
You make it sound as if the government actually has some interest in trying him.
No, the government has no interest in trying him. The people have an interest in a trial so that we can know that our rights to due process have not been obliterated.
Four legs good, two legs bad. Strike that. Four legs good, two legs better.
no single person should have that kind of power in america. unless we want to change "president" to "king"... or "fuhrer".
the government has had enough time to dig up evidence. charge him, try him and get on with it ....
Er, is there actually no intention to try?
Why?
Even the people in Gitmo are going to get some form of kangaroo court at some point. If they haven't died of old age first. Or been released.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace