TallPine
Member
Isn't that what the civilian courts are supposed to determine ...?What we are talking about here is likely a very, very bad man.
Isn't that what the civilian courts are supposed to determine ...?What we are talking about here is likely a very, very bad man.
foob said:Er... Jose Padilla is a citizen. He also got indefinite detention until recently. The declaring of somebody as an enemy combatant has no restriction on nationality or location of arrest.
Indeed so.It is scary that our President thinks he can order the military to detain someone indefinitely.
I was saying a citizen can also be declared an enemy combatant and locked up without trial. You were saying that it can't happen to you because you are a citizen. Well it happened to Padilla.
He could have spent one day or one year or five years in the brig, doesn't negate the fact a citizen was arrested on US soil for indefinite detention without charges.
You do know Padilla was never freed and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld never applied to him. His appeal to the supreme court was dismissed based on a technicality.
He has always been detained indefinitely without charges, until january 3rd 2006 where he was transferred to be charged. So yes 2006 is recent, not 2003 as you incorrectly state.
Lawyers have been challenging the status of those held in Guantanamao too, doesn't mean they haven't been declared enemy combatants or are not in indefinite detention.
Yes Hamdi v. Rumsfeld has reversed it. That does not prevent the executive branch from indefinitely detaining a citizen enemy combatant.
If they were to do it again, the courts will hear it again and declare it illegal.
and throw them in jail without so much as a "by your leave" and they would never be heard of again.
Really? Because if Padilla never got a trial, it is tough to explain how he was standing before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals about 18 months after he was arrested (which isn't an unusual length of time for a criminal appeal) or how he was standing before the Supreme Court in less than two years.
On November 22, 2005, CNN's front page broke the news that Padilla had finally been indicted on charges he "conspired to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas.
Wow a lower court refusing to follow a precedent set by the U.S. supreme court.On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig.
On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, with three justices dissenting from denial of certiorari, to hear Padilla's appeal from the 4th Circuit Court's decision that the President had the power to designate him and detain him as an "enemy combatant" without charges and with disregard to habeas corpus.
There is a big difference between labeled an enemy combatant and arrested and held without charges with the intention for it to be forever, versus "never be heard of again".
His lawyers appealed his detention, that is not a trial. A trial requires charges, he was never charged. He never stood before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals AFAIK, he never appeared in court.
foob said:If you support the indefinite detention of a US resident just because the President labels him an "enemy combatant", just remember one day when they come for your firearms they can use the same excuse.
The courts were determining whether Habeas Corpus can be denied to him, not actual Habeas Corpus action.
Originally posted by Barth:
He was charged, even your earlier posts acknowledged that. What was I saying about hyperbole earlier? Second, the point is that he got access to the justice system. The executive tried to detain him without charges and the judiciary said "No, you can't do that." Now let's compare that result with your initial claim:
Originally posted by Barth:
Does that claim stand up based on past court rulings? No.
Originally posted by Barth:
And what did they determine and how did that affect the initial claim you are disputing?
On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig.
Er.. he was charged in 2005 and stood trial in 2007. Your claim was he stood trial and was charged in 2003, one year after his arrest. You said that was not recent. You were mistaken. I have explained the difference in the earlier post
Er... in 2005, 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the President has the authority to detain Padilla without charges. Hamdi v Rumsfeld was in 2004. So how do you explain this?
Read the 9th Amendment to the COTUS.foob said:...which ban is within the enumerated powers...how?She has voted down the partial birth ban in VA...
Why? It is not unheard of for the military or other parmilitary agenices such as the CIA to do so. FDR did it, and so has every president since, and probably before that. You just hear about it now becasue there are so many Bush bashers out there these days leaking every secret they can.It is scary that our President thinks he can order the military to detain someone indefinitely.
I agree that Bush hardly invented this. Lincoln long beat him to it, for example--and should have been impeached and then executed for his crimes. Perhaps, if that had been done, then FDR and every president since would have been afraid to follow his evil example. Nevertheless, it's not too late! Bush, and several previous presidents, are still alive. Each and every one who has done this should be tried and, if found guilty, executed. That won't undo the wrong done by Bush and his predecessors, but perhaps it will serve as a warning to their successors.Why? It is not unheard of for the military or other parmilitary agenices such as the CIA to do so. FDR did it, and so has every president since, and probably before that. You just hear about it now becasue there are so many Bush bashers out there these days leaking every secret they can.
I have no doubt that the man held is a terrorist. However, you still have the right to fair trial, even if you are evil. This is a big win for the Sixth Amendment.
Are you saying that God whispers in your ear who is or isn't a terrorist? NO? Then how do you know whose due process rights to take away, before they've been duly convicted of a crime?And this is why we are going to lose. Giving terrorists access to our courts would give them a victory larger than any bomb or military win.
And this is why we are going to lose. Giving terrorists access to our courts would give them a victory larger than any bomb or military win.
There is no evidence that repealing the patriot act would make us safer, or that its been abused.
Are you saying that God whispers in your ear who is or isn't a terrorist? NO? Then how do you know whose due process rights to take away, before they've been duly convicted of a crime?
Denying rights to "terrorists" really means denying rights to accused terrorists, including the innocent who are falsely accused. Once your rights can be taken away on the basis of an accusation, without trial, our republic is not only dead but mouldered into dust.
Stage2 - You know full well the PA has been abused and there are mountains of evidence of it including numerous admissions by the DoJ and the FBI. Some of which I have even started threads in this forum on.
You haven't done very much research.
Patriot Act Abuses
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
There is no evidence that repealing the patriot act would make us safer, or that its been abused.
As yes, wikipedia, my favorite source.
Right, there's no evidence at all. Certainly nothing like the FBI underreporting use of National Security Letters by an order of magnitude (source: Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General). Nor The FBI engaging in blanket requests for more than one million visitors to Vegas, nor use of the (ostensibly anti-terrorism) USA PATRIOT Act to investigate political corruption. Or maybe the FBI giving seminars on "how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases."There is no evidence that repealing the patriot act would make us safer, or that its been abused.