|
|
|
|
OT--If you're a liberal, be careful what you ask for
On 19 Dec 2003 23:32:19 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
Well, could you please give us the
title, sub-title, and section number of that portion of the bill which
provides
for: "Merely by uttering the word, "Terrorist" or "Enemy Combatant", under
the
Patriot Act, the Executive bran
Como se dice, "Jose Padilla"?
We can parse the language around for years. Fact is, under the "Patriot Act", a
US Citizen *was* arrested on US soil, labeled by the Executive branch as an
enemy combatant, and confined without charges or benefit of counsel.
Exactly what you claim the Patriot Act does not permit!
Actions speak louder than rhetoric.
Jose Padilla may well be the scum of the earth. If so, charge his sorry butt
with whatever crime the evidence supports and put him in front of a jury of his
peers.
I have made no claims whatsoever about the Patriot Act.
The rationale behind the Court of Appeals ruling regarding Jose Padilla was
that, "The president's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the
detention as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express
congressional authorization." (Washington Post, December 19)
Jose Padilla was not placed in detention under the authority of the Patriot Act.
To say so would be to say that Congress did expressly authorize the detention of
an American citizen as an enemy combatant.
Perhaps we're reading different sources. Where did you see that Padilla was
placed in detention under the Patriot Act?
John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
|