|
|
|
|
"Jim," wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html
"If the law in its current state is found by the president to be
insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as
the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress
to remedy the problem," he wrote.
Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States
citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional
authorization."
This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into
enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary
powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US
Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day
anytime soon.
Hahahahohohohehehe.
Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt
about that.
I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers
in the area under discussion.
I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a
Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige.
Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights:
That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own
rule of law.
The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set
him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy
trial, represented by counsel. Period.
Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than
anything Padilla did or could do.
I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not
there yet.
You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The
Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it
resulted in the 2001 attack.
So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of
Rights?
I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida
terrorists.
|