On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:02:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .


The administration's rational for Padilla, to the best I can understand,
was
that the terrorist acts of 9/11 were conducted on American soil, Congress
authorized the war on terror (but not with the Patriot Act), the US is a
'combat
zone', and therefore a citizen can be detained as a combatant.

Do I agree with the idea of the USA being a combat zone? I don't know for
sure,
but I lean against it. I don't like the idea that the President, by virtue
of
the USA being a combat zone, could perhaps declare martial law and do
anything
he desires. (I don't know that combat zone and martial law go together so
easily, but you get my drift.)

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

If I recall, the cops can hold you for 48 hours without charging you with a
crime. While I'm sure they may stretch this occasionally, Padilla was held
for what...months? Wake up, John. That's illegal, unless the Patriot Act or
some other legislation makes it otherwise.

I did not address the legality of what transpired with Padilla. Several comments
tied Padilla's predicament to a loss of rights allegedly occurring with the
Patriot Act. The fact is that Padilla's detention, whether legal or not, was not
predicated on the Patriot Act.

Please read the relevant posts before telling someone else to "wake up."

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD