Court rules Bush does not have authority to detain Padilla

From Yahoo/AP

Oh no! Now the Administration will actually have to *shudder* charge him with a crime!

Oh no! Now the Administration will actually have to *shudder* charge him with a crime!

Or the administration can tell the court to shove it and appeal to the Supremes, or they can get Congressional approval for this detention, or they can designate him a material witness... Plenty of good options.

Sorry, Rat, it may be a while before we just turn another terrorist out on the streets. I know you must be disappointed...

"ralcydan" wrote:
Oh no! Now the Administration will actually have to *shudder* charge him with a crime!

Or the administration can tell the court to shove it and appeal to the Supremes, or they can get Congressional approval for this detention, or they can designate him a material witness... Plenty of good options.

Sorry, Rat, it may be a while before we just turn another terrorist out on the streets. I know you must be disappointed...

Yeah, f*ck Habeus Corpus, and while you''re at it, f*ck the Geneva Convention. We''re America goddamit. We don''t need to comply with those outmoded ideas. And this is George W. Bush we''re talking about. Remember, the George ""You''re either with us or you''re against us"" Bush? Don''t go and do something crazy like, say, criticize the president. That''s really un-American. You must love the terrorists you f*cking commie.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

Yeah, f*ck Habeus Corpus, and while you''re at it, f*ck the Geneva Convention. We''re America goddamit. We don''t need to comply with those outmoded ideas. And this is George W. Bush we''re talking about. Remember, the George ""You''re either with us or you''re against us"" Bush? Don''t go and do something crazy like, say, criticize the president. That''s really un-American. You must love the terrorists you f*cking commie.

Well said.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Sorry, Rat, it may be a while before we just turn another terrorist out on the streets. I know you must be disappointed...

On a more subdued note:

Ral, just becuase some people feel that a US citizen accused of a crime (hoever awful it may be, like planning to plant a bomb) deserves due process, doesn''t mean they think the accused should just be set free.

It just means that since the guys a US citizen, you have to afford him the same rights as you would any other US citizen.

It just means that since the guys a US citizen, you have to afford him the same rights as you would any other US citizen.

The President could still declare him an Enemy Combatant, but he has to get Congressional approval first.

But apparently some people want an Emperor for Christmas.

Ral, just becuase some people feel that a US citizen accused of a crime (hoever awful it may be, like planning to plant a bomb) deserves due process, doesn''t mean they think the accused should just be set free.

Actually Belt, Rat has said before ""charge them or let them go"". I''m just glad that he wasn''t around during WWII to tell us that we had to let captured Nazis go beforethatwar was over.

"belt500" wrote:

Ral, just becuase some people feel that a US citizen accused of a crime (hoever awful it may be, like planning to plant a bomb) deserves due process, doesn''t mean they think the accused should just be set free.

I did say charge him or let him go. You either charge someone you arrest with a crime or you let them go; that''s how it works. Seeing how the PATRIOT Act has been touted as providing new legal tools to use against terrorists, perhaps the Administration should actually try using it against an alleged terrorist.

I''m just glad that he wasn''t around during WWII to tell us that we had to let captured Nazis go before that war was over.

So holding American citizens arrested on American soil is equivalent to holding foreign nationals from a country we were at war with at the time?

So holding American citizens arrested on American soil is equivalent to holding foreign nationals from a country we were at war with at the time?

Yes - if they are agents of the enemy we are at war with. The Supreme Court upheld this during WWII- the only question is whether the president as the authority to do so when we are not explicitly at war, even though a state of war exists in all respects except explicit declaration. I would argue he does. I guess we''ll find out what the Supreme Court and Congress think as a result of this ruling.

I would argue that he doesn''t, given that the ""war on terrorism"" is foreign policy, and not a ""war"" that has a conceivable ending. Which doesn''t mean I disagree with said foreign policy (go get ''em!) but does mean that presidents cannot invoke ""time of war"" abilities for the next 50 years by calling eliminating individual threats to the U.S. a ""war.""

U.S. citizens should always get a lawyer and a trial. That kid who joined the Taliban got a trial. Mind you I think this guy should get a lawyer, a trial, and a death sentence if he did indeed plan on setting off a ""dirty bomb"" but do I want to live in a country that indefinitely imprisons people without accusing them of a crime? Isn''t that what China, North Korea, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the former Soviet Union, did?

Yikes. Being the good guys is hard, especially when we have the means to use any means necessary. But we don''t torture people. We don''t search without warrants and probable causes. We don''t lock up political dissidents for disagreeing with the government. And we don''t indefinitely lock up people without accusing them of a crime or giving them access to a lawyer and a trial.

That seems pretty clear. A terrorist is not a soldier. So no Geneva Convention for him. A U.S. citizen doesn''t forego the U.S. constitution by spying for a foreign power or planning terrorism. They get a lawyer, a trial, and a sentence if found guilty. That all seems like U.S. Government 101 to me.

"Roo" wrote:

I would argue that he doesn''t, given that the ""war on terrorism"" is foreign policy, and not a ""war"" that has a conceivable ending.

In 1941, for all we knew, WWII could have gone on for 20 years, or longer. Or Germany could have won in Europe, but with Britain and the US intact - a stalemate. The fact that no end is in sight, or that victory conditions may be vague, doesn''t mean you throw common sense out the window and just release the enemy.

presidents cannot invoke ""time of war"" abilities for the next 50 years by calling eliminating individual threats to the U.S. a ""war.""

Maybe not, but we are at war with Al Qaeda, as much as we were at war with Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq in either 1991 or 2003. Congress authorized the use of the military to defeat these enemies, and Congress has given legislative authority to make war on Al Qaeda and any nations complicit with Al Qaeda in 9/11.

U.S. citizens should always get a lawyer and a trial...we don''t indefinitely lock up people without accusing them of a crime or giving them access to a lawyer and a trial.

Unless they really are enemy combatants. An enemy combatant is just a POW without a sponsoring nation. We don''t charge these people, because they aren''t necesarily guilty of a crime, any more than surrendering Iraqis or Germans were guilty of violating some statute. We keep them captive to interrogate them to gain information about the enemy, and to keep them from rejoining the enemy.

Some of them might be guilty of crimes we could convict them of, but by treating them as enemy combatants, we are saying that getting information is more important than punishing them - and by interrogating them outside of counsel, we are basically forfeiting any chance of successful prosecution in civilian courts.

Look, I''m not keen on people being detained indefinitely either, but contrary to some rhetoric here, these detentions aren''t being done because of some power-mad ambition of George Bush or John Ashcroft. These are people who willingly consorted and plotted with a known enemy of the United States. It is important to get information from them, it is important to keep them from rejoining the enemy, and it is important to punish them for what they have done. Doing one of those things, may preclude the others, and the administration is acting wih the bigger picture in mind.

Personally, I would like to see Congress address this issue. The Congressional majority is friendly to the administration, and likely to grant these powers, and the Padilla ruling specifically states that this would alleviate many of the court''s concerns.

These are people who willingly consorted and plotted with a known enemy of the United States. It is important to get information from them, it is important to keep them from rejoining the enemy, and it is important to punish them for what they have done.

Umm... first of all, he is accused of these things. Declaring someone to be an Enemy Combatant doesn''t make them guilty, it''s the other way around.

Second, I quoted this part of your comments to ask a question of this quote: isn''t this what our judicial system is supposed to do?

Again, this all goes back to due process. He''s a citizen. He is allegedly guilty. He should be put on trial to determine that guilt and then have the appropriate sentence applied.

So if we claim he''s part of ""the enemy,"" a trial should be held to prove this, then he can be held as one.

Comparing Europe in 1941 to Al Qaeda, in terms of both being possibly indefinite conflicts is...a big stretch. Countries at war, versus dozens of small groups of terrorists spread throughout the world. I''m sure someone can some up with an elegant analogy as to why that''s not a valid comparison.

I''m sleepy. And damnit I guess I have to go do work now. Would rather be playing video games, is all i gots to say.

Give me 30 minutes alone in a room with him.

Confession or not, it''ll be a moot point afterward.

Well, nice to know that the better society is winning the culture war.

There are a lot of issues at work here....

1. What rights does a citizen declared as an enemy combatant have if caught on American soil (Court says due process applies)

2. A citizen caught on foreign soil (Court says due process does not apply).

3. A foreign person on American soil. (9th district says due process applies)

4. A foreign person on foreign soil (No due process).

It''ll be up to the Supreme Court to decide.

I believe if you are a citizen and are caught in America, you should have due process.

The rest of the time, lock em up and throw away the key.

Knowing this Supreme Court we''ll set them loose in Cuba.

Only one I feel I can actually comment on is this one:

1. What rights does a citizen declared as an enemy combatant have if caught on American soil (Court says due process applies)

For any crime in America, you can be arrested by the police, then held with or without bail, but you aren''t proven guilty of the charges until you''ve had your day in court.

With this whole ""Enemy Combatant"" thing, it''s basically just like the police arresting you. You''re being accused of something.

If we say that being called an ""Enemy Combatant"" is enough grounds to hold you indefinitely without having due process, then we''re saying that the accusation itself takes precedence over the proof.

And that is a very frightening thought which completely throws the basis of our entire legal system out the window. It goes from ""innocent until proven guilty"" to ""guilty until we decide to let you try to prove your innocence.""