Man, talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater! So, from a wire service story, we have concluded that... 1. He is obviously guilty. 2. He is obviously a terrorist. 3. His constitutional rights as a US citizen do not apply because he is a terrorist. 4. We trust the government to do the right thing. Ok, so the next guy that bombs an abortion clinic should be tried in a military tribunal, right? How about the kid who put the bombs in the mailboxes throughout the midwest? What about the unibomber? How about the men who are sitting in prison cells being "detained" even though they aren't terrorists but have been considered "having possible terrorist ties?" Why don't we just shred the constitution while we're at it. Or, maybe we could burn it along with a flag! No, the flag part would probably land us in a tribunal.
Jeff, If your post is addressed to me..... I think I added that I am formulating an opinion providing the story is true. I also added that I am in agreement with playing by the rules, and if the rules ALLOW him to be tried in a military tribunal, then so be it. Initially I may have displayed a "who cares how he gets tried" attitude, but I am not in agreement with trying him that way if it means violating the law. Frankly, I don't know the ins and outs and/or loopholes of this military tribunal issue. If the guy can be tried that way without violating the law, then so be it.
I just searched <i>google</i> for more info on the plea bargaining and Abu Zubaydah that you mentioned and the links were scarce on that story. Do you have a good link to that topic? Mango
Mango, I used the term "plea bargin" because I assumed that Abu must be trading information for leniency. I should not have posted my assumption as if it were a fact. ASS-__-ME (I will leave U out of this equation this time)
This is just my opinion, not an actual fact. Why does everyone think that if we treat a terrorist like the piece of sh*t he is then we are going to become 1984? I am all for a trial and facts and upholding the constitution, just pisses me off the way people attack the US and then wants to hide behind its foundation.
I don't think we are shredding the constitution. The document itself is deigned to be flexible in times such as these. It continues to grow as we do. Evolve as we do. The law is very much the same way. Both are there to protect human decency. At a time like this, the law must grow, it must adapt so that human deceny can once again prevail. Failing to secure a potential terrorist and treat him as such would be failure of the law. It would be a failure in our constitution.
I'm going to bounce this one back to the top because I think everyone has missed/ignored a very important point. He was sent to do reconnasience (sp). He was looking for a city, and an appropriate location to detonate the dirty bomb. See my point? You don't send out a valuable operative (they sent him because he was an american citizen with an american passport and they thought he could travel freely) unless you've already GOT the bomb or procured the means for making it AND delivering it. This ain't over. And anyone hear McCain today? "We've had more successes I can't speak about for reasons of national security." How much you want to bet all that national security evaporates when election year comes around?
This is disturbing on a number of fronts, including the basic plot. Still, I'm amazed at how this story came out: Ashcroft mentions it in Russia, wire services pick it up, stock market dives, and then we find out the guy was captured last month and the plan was not close to fruition. Something's not quite right here. I wonder if we will hear similar stuff until the reorg bill passes or the congressional elections are over or both. I bet we don't get the full and complete stories until at least 12/02. I keep asking myself am I such a cynic that I really believe these guys would take advantage of our current national plight for partisan political gains and power grabs? "Who's being naive Kate?"
Does anyone else find it strange that they have had this guy in custody for a month yet announced only yesterday that his arrest has foiled a dirty-bomb plot?
You're not being a cynic. You're being a realist, because that's exactly what they are doing. And they are doing the same thing the Democrats would be doing had Al Gore been President and 9/11 happened on his watch. They are milking it to their utmost benefit. It is very healthy to be distrustful of all politicians these days. The only way an American citizen has a chance of discovering the truth is to not believe a single word that any politician of any idelogy says, because they are all liars.
Interesting piece from the Chronicle, seems that the courts think that if he is fighting against the US then he does lose his rights. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory2/1448113
I heard on TV this morning that Bush does not intend to try the suspect in military court. So unless I heard wrongly, it's a moot point now.
The guy is a member of an organization that is at war with the US. You don't see a difference between that and the unibomber?
The problem here is that the precedents cited took place during a declared war. Bush earlier said we were NOT at war, therefore we don't need to assign POW status to the men being held without trial in the Guantanamo facility. He now wishes to reverse that and try Padilla in a military tribunal, because he was working with the enemy at wartime. We can't be both at war and NOT at war simultaneously.
Why does everyone think that if we treat a terrorist like the piece of sh*t he is then we are going to become 1984? I am all for a trial and facts and upholding the constitution, just pisses me off the way people attack the US and then wants to hide behind its foundation. The problem here is that you've already decided he's a terrorist. The whole point of the court room trial is to prove that. What if he's innocent? Then you're suggesting that an innocent man be deprived of his rights for what? For convenience? If we have the proof, what's so wrong with a normal trial? If the government can accuse people of terrorism, then revoke their rights to try them, that basically gives them the ability to do arrest anyone they want for any reason. Just blame it on terrorism. Not to say that they would, but there's a reason that we have all these protections in place......
I guess there's war and then there's War! All I know is that we have soldiers overseas who are killing the enemy who has attacked our homeland. Some of these soldiers are even dying for the cause. Sounds like War to me....
Well, if Bush says it's not a war so he can do somethings, then says it is a war to do others, I have a problem with that (even though I'm not saying he is doing that). Save the drama.
So are you saying there should never be a military tribunal then? Are you saying every prisoner of war must be awarded a trial? Does he have to be wearing the Al-Quaeda uniform to warrant a tribunal? Is it not possible to be a combatant on US soil? Or do you have to be wearing a uniform with a helmet and machine gun?
So are you saying there should never be a military tribunal then? Are you saying every prisoner of war must be awarded a trial? Does he have to be wearing the Al-Quaeda uniform to warrant a tribunal? Is it not possible to be a combatant on US soil? Or do you have to be wearing a uniform with a helmet and machine gun? At a minimum, there should be two things: (1) The guy should not be a U.S. citizen (or, at least his citizenship should be legally revoked). As a US citizen, he should have the basic rights awarded to him by the Consitution. (2) We should be legally at war. You can't have a prisoner of war without a war. Neither of those is the case right now.
