|
|
|
|
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.
"al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom?
The DoD.
So then we will have a military dictatorship --- they don't like you,
declare you al Qaida and you "disappear" -- Just like Chili a few years
ago -- as I recall the CIA was advising them at the time under Bush the
first. Argentina had a similar process under Perone (or was that
before your time?)
I don't have to worry. You, Gould, DSK, and Harry should be afraid. Be
very, very afraid.
Frankly, if we go down that road, then the sitting US government should
tossed out.
We either have a viable Constitution here and the rule of law, with the
same laws for everyone, or we don't have anything at all.
I lost two uncles in WW II who fought to defend the United States against
the kind of thinking you are espousing.
There are 3000 families who lost a relative on 9/11 because of the
thinking you are espousing.
Suppose Padilla is released and decides to settle in your neighborhood.
Would you be OK with that?
If the man is released, it means there is no credible evidence to bring
before a a grand jury.
That's not necessarily true. Criminals get off on technicalities all of the
time.
I don't whether Padilla is guilty of anything. He is entitled to confront
his accusers, to be charged, to have a bail hearing, to have counsel and
to have a speedy public trial. If our government cannot do this, it must
release him.
We're not talking about sex offender here.
What he does after that is his business.
You're really, truly, advocating a "system of law" that more closely
resemles that of Naxi Germany, the Stalin Soviet era, or the mess that was
Chile.
No. I'm advocating a system of law resembling that laid out by the Canadian
"Emergencies Act".
|