DescentBB

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinio ... 1701.story

my question is simple, he is not being charged with anything he was held with, and he's an american citizen, held without charge or due process, what do you make of this?

My opinion? Padilla is not an angel, but he is still an American. Hell, Jeffrey Dahlmer got more rights than this man, and he ate people for a living. This stuff just scares me...

Zuruck wrote:This stuff just scares me...

The idea that a US president should be able to declare an American citizen to be an "enemy combatant", with no review other than a secret executive court, and at that point the person loses all constitutional rights...
It's terrifying. And has the potential to do much more damage to this country than the terrorist do.

What I find really bizarre is that the Republicans are willing to support this. What are they thinking? Even if they trust George W. Bush to "do the right thing", are they living under the illusion that the Republicans will stay in power forever? At some point they are going to have to hand over the presidency, with an executive whos powers to monitor and track american citizens, to spy on them, and even abduct them without trial and hold them indefinitly. All of those powers will have to be handed over to a new Democrat president. I think they will suddenly feel uncomfortable with them then, but it will be too late.

Kilarin

Problem is, evidence may put sensitive operators at risk or reveal classifed equipment.

I've been following this since last year.

no connections.

no evidence.

no nothing.

just an arbitrary judgement.


What happened to 'habaeus corpus'?

woodchip wrote:evidence may put sensitive operators at risk or reveal classifed equipment.

This is true. But it's equally true for normal police operations. There are times when actually prosecuting a dangerous criminal may put undercover police operators, or an entire investigation at risk.

AND YET, the framers of the US constitution decided that protecting the basic rights of the citizens took precidence over this. Those who wrote that constitution had experienced what happens when the government feels that it's rights to prosecute trump the citizens right to a trial, and they did NOT want to be under that kind of a system again. So they made it absolutely clear in the constitution that the rights of the citizen to a trial is more important than any prosecution or investigation. Once you give up that right, your government WILL abuse it.
And, here is the important point, you see, the government is more dangerous than any criminal or terrorist. No, I'm not being paranoid, the point is that criminals and terrorist have to work against the system to get anything done. BUT, you have given the government power over you, and once that power gets out of hand, it is unbelievably hard to stop it. We HAVE to have a government, but it should be strictly limited and bounded in it's powers. That's what the constitution is for. The Constitution that is being trampled on by cases like this.

Kilarin

Anyone know why he was just now charged? The Supreme Court was about to hear his detention case and the White House didn't want to have a showdown over how long you can unjustly hold an American citizen without due process, so they brought up charges that had nothing to due with the original idea. He was supposed to be the murderer of thousands, hell, he was arrested here in Chicago, yet they got him with some consipiring charges. Like Ferno said, they had nothing, and they knew it.

Kilarin hit it right on the head, the Constitution protects against EXACTLY this sort of senario. The govt would not be able to arbitrarily throw you off the face of the earth without due process. If they had evidence on him, they could try him in court and close off the hearings for classified info. It's been done before, they know how to do it, but they didn't have anything.

Kilarin wrote:

Zuruck wrote:This stuff just scares me...

The idea that a US president should be able to declare an American citizen to be an "enemy combatant", with no review other than a secret executive court, and at that point the person loses all constitutional rights...
It's terrifying. And has the potential to do much more damage to this country than the terrorist do.

What I find really bizarre is that the Republicans are willing to support this....

I'd leave partisan politics out of this because it was a democrat president who imprisoned anyone who even looked japanese and took their land away from them during WWII just on the chance they might be inclined to support the enemy...

Keep it in the realm of freedom and civil rights regardless of the political affiliation of the current administration if you want to pursue objective discourse on the subject.

Personally I'm OK with this guy initially being held with no rights until they could determine if the damage allowing him access to our court system would allow was a problem we could live with. He did a little more than just look like an al Queda member....

First off I agree with Kilarin's broad pen stroke regarding the potential misuse of federal powers. OTOH what we have is a arrest originally under the War Powers Act. Remember we are not talking about someone exposing themselves on a street corner, rather a person who alledgidly stands accused of terror acts against our country. Now before, Zuruck, before you get all concerned about a conservative govt. acting as though it's hobnailed booted thugs are next aiming to rip average joe blow citizen of the streets, let me remind you of a few things.
WW2 American citizens of Japanese origins were locked away in internment camps and had no rights before the courts for 4 long years. What political party was in charge?
In Waco TX, when federal officers decided to storm a certain religious group precipitating the deaths of every innocent man, women and child, what political party was in charge?
In the scope of the trampling of individual right condoned in the past, Padilla's case is not one I am overly concerned about.

Will Robinson wrote:I'd leave partisan politics out of this

Actually, I wasn't being partisan. At least, not in the way I think you mean. I'm a Libertarian. I'm equally offended by BOTH of the mainstream parties.

My point wasn't "Republicans aren't trustworthy".
Well, actually, they aren't, but that wasn't my point. My point was that NEITHER Democrats OR Republicans are trustworthy, (or any OTHER persuasion of Politician for that matter).

It seems extremely short sighted and niave to me for either party to attempt to expand the powers of the president this way. Sooner or later they will be handing that office, and those powers, over to the other side, who WILL abuse them, and probably worse than the ones who created the powers in the first place.

woodchip wrote:Remember we are not talking about someone exposing themselves on a street corner, rather a person who alledgidly stands accused of terror acts against our country.

In the first place, they didn't actually bother to accuse him of ANYTHING. In the second, no matter how terrible of a crime he is accused of, he has the constitutional right to a day in court. Give the man a CHANCE to defend himself. If he is determined to be guilty, THEN you lock him away in a dark hole somewhere. (Or just FRY him)
Just because G. W. SAYS the man is guilty doesn't MAKE him guilty. Well, at least it didn't USED to.

woodchip wrote:In the scope of the trampling of individual right condoned in the past, Padilla's case is not one I am overly concerned about.

When they locked up the Japanese Americans in WWII, I HOPE I would have been among the few protesting the crime. Padilla's case should concern us because it's one we have a chance to DO something about, it's the one that is happening now. It's the one that is setting precedent and law TODAY.

woodchip wrote:before you get all concerned about a conservative govt. acting as though it's hobnailed booted thugs are next aiming to rip average joe blow citizen of the streets

The only thing that frightens me as much as the thought of those hobnailed booted conservative thugs is the thought of what the rather more fashionably booted LIBERAL thugs will do with these laws once THEY get back in power.

Kilarin

Kilarin wrote:Sooner or later they will be handing that office, and those powers, over to the other side, who WILL abuse them

this particular power has existed for many, many years. In wartime, American citizens picked up trying to wage war against America can be detained until the end of the war without charges being brought against them.

IMO, that's entirely necessary for the security of the country... as long as there are still battles being fought that depend on information that might be used in the trial (either by the defense or prosecution), you can't have a good trial. You're at risk of of:
- a circus of a trial, with one side having to respond "classified" when asked for information
- a trial that gives away classified or sensitive information and endangers troops
- a trial where the best you can do is nail the guy for parking tickets or tax evasion

At present, from what I understand, the law requires a judge or panel of judges to verify that there's sufficient reason to hold the person until the end of the war. They essentially hold the pre-trial hearings where the prosecutor says "yep, we do in fact have enough evidence" and the judge says "yep, this should go to trial". The only difference here is that the trial date is set for "after the war".

Lothar wrote: - a trial where the best you can do is nail the guy for parking tickets or tax evasion

Remember Al Capone?

Lothar wrote:this particular power has existed for many, many years. In wartime, American citizens picked up trying to wage war against America can be detained until the end of the war without charges being brought against them.

In former times, wars seemed to have had quite distinct begginings and ends.
But how's the end of the war defined today? Especially if its something fuzzy and perhaps eternal as "The war on terror"? Or what war are we talking about?

woodchip wrote:this particular power has existed for many, many years. In wartime, American citizens picked up trying to wage war against America can be detained until the end of the war without charges being brought against them.

Pandora beat me to the punch. This "war" is VERY different from any previous war. And how do you tell who is on which side?

Remember that the official position of the white house (as stated by justice department lawyer Brian Boyle) is that if a little old lady in Switzerland writes a check to an orphanage in Afghanistan, and the CIA later determines that the orphanage is really a front for funding al Qaeda, she can be declared an enemy combatant and locked away indefinitely. Now that WAS talking about non-U.S citizens (gotta make us real popular with the world, that position), but the presidents current position is that he can declare any U.S. citizen to be an enemy combatant and "dissapear" them like we lived in some third world totalitarian state. So we have to assume that the same rules apply to us.

Ever give money to your church, or your favorite charity? Do they do work over in the middle east? While I admit it's not LIKELY to happen, the presidents position is that you could simply dissapear into a military prison overnight and who knows if anyone will ever find out what happened to you. Of course, depending on the presidents morals, this might be a lot MORE likely to happen to people who are opposing his policies.

yeah, I sound like a paranoid, but even if this president doesnt choose to abuse his power that way, (and I'm not convinced he won't or doesn't), what is the next one going to be like? This "war" on terrorism could still be going on when your grandchildren are voting. The enemy isn't another nation, it's a poorly defined grouping of angry stupid people. And many of them live among us. We are ALL living behind enemy lines and the soldiers have no way to tell which side we are on.

Osama's goal was to change America. We are giving him a big victory.

Kilarin

Decent article Lothar, until it turned into a liberal bashing. I have no problem with the government arresting US citizens and charging them with whatever. What I don't like is them arresting a US citizen, and NOT doing anything. The founding fathers thought of just that, unfortunately, 9/11 clouded the view of many people. Congress gave Bush free reign to do whatever he pleases with no reckoning, Americans lost a lot of personal freedoms, it's saddening.

And yes woodchip and Will, the internment was just as bad done by a Democratic govt. Nobody is better, but at the current moment in time, Bush's administration is line to get slapped for stepping on Padilla. I don't know/like/care for the guy, but he's still an American. We don't get to pick and choose who gets to be an American, it's unalienable.

Kilarin wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I'd leave partisan politics out of this

Actually, I wasn't being partisan. At least, not in the way I think you mean. I'm a Libertarian. I'm equally offended by BOTH of the mainstream parties. ...

Sorry, I'm a relatively recently reformed republican turned libertarian, and my old rightwing knee just jerked out of habit...
I do understand your point although I think there should be some mechanism to do just what they did...go before a judge or panel of judges perhaps instead of just declaring an executive edict or changing the law to always allow it might be a better solution than the methods used in this case. The bottom line is that this guy would have compromised our security if he had access to the criminal justice system to examine the evidence against him etc. so drastic measures were called for...at least that's what they tell me.

Will Robinson wrote:I'm a relatively recently reformed republican turned libertarian

Welcome to the libertarian club!

Now you too can curse that the only reason you support your party is that, even though they are completely loony nuts, they aren't quite as loony as the two mainstream parties.

Will Robinson wrote:so drastic measures were called for...at least that's what they tell me.

Aye, there's the rub. And they may be right on this one, but we don't know. We have to trust them. Not only on this one, but the next, and the next and the next. And quite frankly, I don't think they are trustworthy. At least not with the power to dissapear anyone they want on the say so of only the president and a small handful of judges he has hand picked.

Kilarin

Padilla has not exactly "disappeared" now has he. From what I hear, he even has an atty. representing him. The thing I would most seriously debate is wheather or not he is being given a fair and "speedy" trial.

Woodchip, he has been given a lawyer now because he has been charged. They gave him nothing for three years, no arraignment, no hearings, nothing. Not a zip. Obviously, he wasn't quite the threat to national security because he isn't being tried for anything even related to what they booked him on. They arrested him, cooked up a big story to keep everyone scared, threw away the key, and now have nothing to show for it, other than he was a bad guy. Don't believe it? Think of a better reason to do what they did. He is the reason for gas masks, all those computer simulations of New York being trumped by a "dirty" bomb.

I think there are two different types of posts any of us would make on this thread.

1. The ones we make looking at this from the vantage point of our own homes and talking about some other guy in some other place.

versus

2. The ones we would make if the police came and grabbed *us*, then held *us* in a legal no-man's land for an indefinite period of time.

I'm generally a conservative Republican type, but frankly, the accelerated erosion of personal rights and freedoms in the name of "safety" is freaking me out.

Because I'm afraid that when you begin to tolerate/approve of even just ONE exception to a fundamental, bedrock principle of personal liberty, even for just one "really bad guy", then you've already lost it. Because who then is to say how bad is "bad enough" to become the next exception. And so it goes on from there.

If history proves anything, it's that governments are only good governments when they are accountable to the people governed. If Americans can be convinced that the denial of Constitutional rights to an American citizen is acceptable **whenever the government decides to do so**, then there are no longer any Rights.

At that point, those "rights" have just become *privileges*, granted by the government, at it's sole discretion. Not a good idea.

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

Kilarin wrote:"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

Please define "Essential"

The mere thought of you asking that question chills me to the bone Woodchip.

Look, I don't give a damn if he's the damn devil himself. He IS an american citizen, and he DOES have rights. Until such time that he is deported, under the constitution, he has basic human inalienable rights. That is what was supposed to make us "different" than where our fore-fathers came from. Or has that changed?

Like it or not, what happened by legal, moral, and technical definition was kidnapping. Last I checked, thats against the ★■◆●ing law.

Woodchip wrote:Please define "Essential"

That would be whichever liberty the government is attempting to take away at this particular moment.

I would definitly say it covers the right to due process.

Kilarin

MD, you hit it, it has changed. No longer can we expect anything from the govt in terms of privacy. They can look in anything, search anything at any time with or without your knowledge, hold you indefinitely without a smidgen of proof.

I really wish for one second they would arrest and hold woodchip for two weeks with nothing and see what he says and why in the world he defends it.

I think a lot of you misunderstand the process.

It's not as if Bush could wake up one morning and say "I think Joe Schmoe from Kansas City is an enemy combatant" and have him jailed indefinitely without charges.

In order for someone to be held without charges until the end of the war, a judge (or perhaps a panel of judges) has to verify that there is probable cause to hold them, and also that there's good reason why at least some part of the prosecution's case shouldn't be made public until the end of the war.

The little old lady giving to an Afghan charity that turned out to be a front group for terrorists doesn't have to worry about this... there's no sensitive information in saying "she gave money to group X, and group X is a terrorist group." She'd be brought to trial immediately, and quite likely released.

Some of you are arguing that the problem here is we have to trust the government to do the right thing. How does that make this different from anything else? I mean... if the government is just trying to jack Padilla for no good reason, they could fabricate evidence, give him a crappy or paid-off lawyer, and convict him anyway. They don't need the power to hold people indefinitely without charges to be corrupt; if they want to whack somebody for the heck of it they'll find a way to do it regardless of what powers they're granted. The fact that they're holding him without charges instead of just convicting him on false charges or having him die in a random gang fight in prison tells me they're not interested in that, though.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument here, either. If anything, we're moving toward the direction of making it harder and harder for the government to hold ANYBODY for any reason. Witness the outcry over enemy combatants -- specifically, those caught with guns shooting at US soldiers -- being subjected to the "torture" of having to listen to Eminem at Gitmo.

The one valid argument people have brought up is the question of how long the "war" lasts. Fair enough. I don't know if the government requires a judge to review cases periodically. My hope is that they would, and that as evidence becomes less sensitive (due to changing security procedures at the target area, or any number of other things) the judge would then require the person to be brought to trial. Of course, the best I can do is hope -- but if the government is totally corrupt, that's the best I can do *anyway*.

Alright Lothar, you have to get your facts straight. Murder is not listening to Eminem, what the hell is the matter with you conservatives...it's not a slap in the face, it's murder at those places.

In fact, it's not even worth arguing with you or woodchip lothar. It's funny, you call the liberals unpatriotic or anti-american, but in the end, we are the ones sticking up for all americans. not stupid christians carrying NRA cards that have sex only for copulation with the lights off that don't drink alcohol and want god in every book and on every street corner. think about someone else for a change huh?

It's funny, you call the liberals unpatriotic or anti-american

Where's the quote?

in the end, we are the ones sticking up for all americans. not stupid christians carrying NRA cards that have sex only for copulation with the lights off that don't drink alcohol and want god in every book and on every street corner.

Wow, that's just... wow.

You've been reading (or pretending to read) my posts for how many years now? One would think you'd have at least a slightly better idea who you're arguing with after all this time.

Ferno wrote:The mere thought of you asking that question chills me to the bone Woodchip.

Well it shouldn't. In other words what are the key elements to liberty? I'd be interested in a wide range of opinions as I bet different people will have different ideas. Care to give me yours?

another essential right is not to be subjected to undue search and seizure.

read your constitution. it will explain your essential rights better than I can.

Ferno wrote:another essential right is not to be subjected to undue search and seizure.

read your constitution. it will explain your essential rights better than I can.

Kinda like Ruby Ridge? Where Federal agents acted as judge jury and executioner. Lets face it, there is always going to be extreme acts by the govt. that tread on someones rights. The court system will address the issue at some time and penalise the guilty. To the other extreme is the granting of certain of our essential rights to people who sneak into this country illegally.
Lets look at one little right a federal officer has that abridges undo search and seizure. Did you know a fish and game officer has the right to come onto your property and search a vehicle without a warrant? Ask any farmer if he knows anyone or has been subject to a search of his tractor while he is harvesting crops? While there is a law that a farmer in his tractor may not shoot deer while operating it, it seems to me a bit extreme that a federal agent has a right to come on ones property just to see if you might have a rifle in the cab of your tractor. Interesting eh?
Point here is I suspect there all kinds of little laws that abridge you essential rights that we doint even know about. I'm certainly not going to get worked up about a suspected terrorist when other more egregious tramplings of our rights has occured.

oopsy 2x post

It's still wrong, no matter how you slice it.

Lothar wrote:Some of you are arguing that the problem here is we have to trust the government to do the right thing. How does that make this different from anything else?...
I don't buy the slippery slope argument here, either.

The founding fathers didn't trust the government, that's why they put so many limits on it. And yes, weakening those limits will eventually lead to a government that the people can no longer control.

Zuruck wrote:It's funny, you call the liberals unpatriotic or anti-american, but in the end, we are the ones sticking up for all americans. not stupid christians carrying NRA cards that have sex only for copulation with the lights off that don't drink alcohol and want god in every book and on every street corner.

Not a good tack to take here. I THOUGHT we were arguing on the same side so far. And yet I'm a conservative Christian, I believe in the right to bear arms, I don't drink alcohol, and while I don't wish the government to ENFORCE it, I think we would be better off with God in every book and on every street corner.
I'm not certain what you mean by "sex only for copulation". Sex only BY copulation perhaps? But I do believe that sex should be practiced only within the bounds of Marriage, so I probably qualify for whatever you are trying to say here, although I don't place any limits on positions or the state of the lights, and I don't feel the government should enforce my beliefs on other consenting adults because I don't want them enforcing their beliefs upon me.

So, to sum up, I probably fit your "stupid christian" mold to a tee, but here I am arguing on the same side with you that the president shouldn't have the power to hold anyone without due process. Seems we agree, despite all of our disagreements. You'd be surprised how often that can happen!

Kilarin

yah Kilarin, that was more a post out of frustration over someone else's deliberate stupidity, in this case, i doubt lothar even has an nra card. i really don't think that lothar and woodchip disagree with us, i just think they can't admit that they believe the same thing that someone who has argued with them believes.

Oh well, hopefully Bush can't really screw things in the next two years so we can recover. Dem or Repub president, doesn't matter to me, anybody but Bush and his cronies.

Zuruck wrote:nOh well, hopefully Bush can't really screw things in the next two years so we can recover. Dem or Repub president, doesn't matter to me, anybody but Bush and his cronies.

Recover from what?
A war that was encouraged by Bush's predecessor's lack of backbone when it came to terrorism.
A economy that was going into recession prior to Bush's election?
A image of the presidency as a sleeze ball by the actions of WJC's affair with white house intern?
Yeah, Bush is someone we just have to be glad when he finally exits the whitehouse.

You are actually going to stand up for Bush's so-called "ethics"? It really is useless arguing with you because your answers are just as dumb as mine. 9/11 happened because of lack of respect to Al Qaeda from previous presidents sure, but Iraq is Bush and Bush alone. As we've seen from the results, this whole debacle has done nothing but create more tension everywhere else in the world. Osama Bin Laden is not in Iraq, nor is Al Qaeda, they are still off in the world doing their thing.

The sleazeball thing, I don't know. I'd rather have a womanizer than an idiot running the country. I don't care what they do in their own time, but damn, be smart when you're in front of the camera. Do you think Clinton was the first, and the last, to have a woman on the side? I sincerely doubt it...

woodchip wrote:Recover from what?
A war that was encouraged by Bush's predecessor's lack of backbone when it came to terrorism.
A economy that was going into recession prior to Bush's election?
A image of the presidency as a sleeze ball by the actions of WJC's affair with white house intern?
Yeah, Bush is someone we just have to be glad when he finally exits the whitehouse.

never heard such nonsense before...

This war is because of Bush Sr/Reagan, and the two or three presidential pairs before them. Why? Corporate criminals within our society, and the corporate presidents that ruled at that point in time that started shat in that area for corporate gain. We just weren't as blatant as Russia in the 80's.

Bush Sr. killed the economy with Reagan, the .com bubbles in teh 90's just hid it for a little bit. Both Bush's bending over for corporate gains at the expense of the private sector is the reason for 'anybody but Bush' sentiments. It should be 'anyone for corporations and against the people'. Bush just happens to be a face to which this can be attributed.