Sooner rather than later...

[spinningfetus]

So because Abdullah al-Mujahir was in a region of the world where there are terrorists he can be arrested? Not to sound like the bleeding heart I might be but I thought US citizens were protected by the US Constitution. By defining him as an enemy combatant he may now be tried under a system that admittedly offers MANY fewer protections to the accused than he is garanteed under said Constitution. So does that mean that anybody traveling in Montana may be defined as an enemy combatant? Or just anybody, cause hey you never know who that screen name belongs to. Shit, I might be conversing with terrorists right now. Oh SHIT! I heard sirens... [Door left swinging in the wind as I run for the woods...]

[Griff]

Now now we haven't had constitutional government for some time. Why worry now? ... think I'll rent Brazil again.

Oh yah, Padilla is a dirty bomb expert because he researched them on the net, draw your own conclusions.

I guess it really all depends on what you're willing to accept as evidence. Padilla is linked with al Qaeda because he... researched it on the net? No... I do that too, and I haven't been carted off yet. He's considered as having ties to al Qaeda because he... is a "follower" of Islam? No... there are millions of other Americans that haven't been carted off yet. Hmmmm. Maybe it's because he met with Zubaydah a while ago. And maybe they have other evidence as well. And maybe we should just sit back and see how it unravels. John Walker is going to get acquitted (or get a nonsense sentence), and that's probably correct. As more details about this case emerge, we'll be able to make more informed decisions. In the mean time, how about we stop jumping the gun and making arguments based solely around emotion. Hmmm?

[Griff]

On his guilt, I'm willing to withhold judgement but on the manner of finding his guilt, we need to have a discussion.

Such a discussion is pointless. Neither side is armed with the facts. Both you and I would be arguing out of relative ignorance.

[jaguar]

I'm with dham on this one. Never thought i'd say that.

[Griff]

(delete)
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
(delete)

We managed civilian jury trials through the Cold War, now its too dangerous.

[Tobiasly]

You can stop after "In all criminal prosecutions", because this ain't one.

[Griff]

Thats a good point, too bad we're not at war.

[Hubris Boy]

What I find most disturbing is that, as far as I know, he hasn't even been charged with anything yet.

Of course, I've been kinda distracted lately. Did they suspend habeas corpus while I wasn't watching?

Is it time to dig up my cache of firearms and krugerrands and flee to the countryside? (Hey, Griff... what are real estate prices like up there? )

[Griff]

I'm not saying that Padilla is a Boy Scout. If there is anything to these charges he should never breath free air again. I'm just concerned that we are as the WSW put it, ironically IMHO, Building the Scaffolding of the Police State.

[Griff]

I think we can work out a gold discount.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Griff
too bad we're not at war.

Wow. That is definitely an interesting opinion. I would disagree with you; I think the war started last September.

The definition of a war may be changing, but we are definitely at war. There are lots of people out there who would gladly kill every man, woman, and child in the U.S. if they could.

Just because the Taliban is out of power doesn't mean the war has ended; it's actually just begun.

[Nic Name]

If any other country in the world declared an American citizen to be a "bad guy" and locked him up, would his State Department be doing everything in its power to ensure that he had a right to counsel, was not being held without charges, not being held indefinitely, and not being administered cruel and unusual punishment?

Some Americans are at greater risk from their own government because they don't have any foreign government to fight for their rights as citizens of another nation. As Americans they only have the rights the administration is prepared to extend to them in the circumstances. They may or may not have constitutional rights, it depends on the government.

If Padilla's a "prisoner of war" is he being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention? Is he being tortured? Why not? Who decides which of his constitutional rights he's not entitled to because of what the government believes he has thought or what he has said. It seems obvious that there is no evidence that he has yet done anything illegal, or he'd still be detained in the justice system, as is Massoui and Reid.

I believe Padilla's a potentially dangerous person. Surely, there are many potentially dangerous Americans. Within the scope of the constitution, everything possible should be done to thwart any criminal intentions they might have.

Mobsters are bad guys and dangerous people. Hopefully, they too are under surveillance and will be brought to justice whenever they commit a crime, or prevented from committing crimes should they attempt a criminal act.

Surely, a lot of crime could be prevented if the FBI rounded up all the "known" mobsters and held them indefinitely. Bobby Kennedy probably would have liked to have ahd that power to break the mob, but not at the expense of abrogating the constitutional rights of American citizens. Even the bad guys. Even guys like Gotti have constitutional rights.

Maybe the government should use the miliary system to fight the War On Drugs. Noriega was picked up by the military and brought back to face American justice in Florida. Now, there's a "bad guy" for sure. He is not an American but he received American justice.

Soon, if not already, American Muslims will not be free to speak out against their government without risk of being added to a list of unpatriotic dissidents that represent a "threat" to America, or "picked up and detained indefitinely" so long as the war on terror continues.

Those of us who feel free to express any contrary views on the Internet do so with the comfort of knowing that if we are investigated by the FBI, they'll find that we're not even Muslims and therefore, presumed innocent white christians and jews who are protected by constitutional rights.

Obviously, there are many Americans who are so afraid in this war on terror that they are prepared to say that for the duration, the constitutional rights of the few can and should be abrogated for the greater security of the many. So, now we understand how it made sense at the time to "detain" innocent Japanese Americans during WWII.

There ought to be some things we aren't prepared to do to fight the war against terrorists. Because it would fundamentally change who we are as a free nation.

[Griff]

[i]Originally posted by Tobiasly
The definition of a war may be changing, but we are definitely at war.

I don't wish to be the nutty civil libertarian here, but since I've stumbled into the role.... Definitions mean a great deal. Congress has abrogated its responsibility by not declaring war on a specific group or country. Whether this is force of habit or so insurance companies can't hide behind war clauses, I don't know. What it does is leave us in a position where the President can choose our enemies without consulting Congress. So when we invade Iraq there will have been no real debate in the context of approving or rejecting the expansion of the conflict. (Griff vowing sunshine and lollipops for a while)