Major, check out the first post at the top of this page. I want the constitution to be upheld, he should be tried. I just think that the facts are overwhelming, at least what has been presented so far is. I am jumping the gun on some of this I know, but what was he doing in the Middle East for 4yrs hanging out without Al-Qaida? http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1448100
Well the Supreme Court apparently disagreed with your #1. If we're not "legally at war", I don't know why. All of the actions taken to this point indicate that we are (including Bush's lingo like "war on terror", "axis of evil", etc.)....not sure why a formal declaration of war hasn't been made, or why it's necessary (the latter just an example of my lack of familiarity with the subject). Maybe you can agree that it's not clear that either side is correct here....I can see both points.
Well the Supreme Court apparently disagreed with your #1. The Supreme Court disagrees with me quite a bit. I'm still right If we're not "legally at war", I don't know why. All of the actions taken to this point indicate that we are (including Bush's lingo like "war on terror", "axis of evil", etc.)....not sure why a formal declaration of war hasn't been made, or why it's necessary (the latter just an example of my lack of familiarity with the subject). I'm not sure either. I'm under the impression that if we declare war, then we have to call them POWs, which we don't want to do (why, I don't know). Instead, we prefer to call them detainees, presumably because different rules apply in each circumstance. One of those rules should be, in my opinion, that if you can't call them POWs, then you can't treat them as POWs. Maybe you can agree that it's not clear that either side is correct here....I can see both points. Maybe, maybe no.
What happened to "this is a country run by the rule of law" crapola we heard over and over and over again from conservatives when Clinton was being impeached? Is this or is this NOT a country governed by the rule of law? Because, if it is, you cannot simply eliminate the constitutional rights of an American citizen unless you declare war on SOMEBODY and no one has declared war on ANYBODY legally. Here's the thing, though. It's kinda like when Republicans passed a law preventing FDR from running for another term but then wanted it repealed when Reagan was in his last term in office. Remember that the law can be manipulated from both sides. What may seem like a good idea today can come back and bite you on the ass tomorrow.
I think obviously it's not as cut and dried as this or else there wouldn't be knowledgeable people (not saying this is me) having a disagreement over it. There seems to be uncertainty over whether war must be officially declared or not...is it written somewhere that this is the case? Can you post it? Obviously we are in a war right now. And what country would we declare war on? Al-Quaeda is not a country....can you declare war on an organization? Just asking, I don't know the rules.
I don't think you can play this new game with old rules. I don't know how proud civil libertarians will be when a terrorist is freed on a technicality and ends up blowing up a city. It's all fun to talk a big game about civil liberties but practicality must rear it's head at some point. The polls show that most Americans understand that and the dangers of the new era that we've just entered.
Please I respect the arguement and I very much value the documents which this country was founded but they don't apply to this situation. The point is being missed here. And the US has declared War on Terrorism and they ARE "acting under the laws of war clear Supreme Court precedent. The military may detain a United States citizen who has joined the enemy and has entered our country to carry out hostile acts." There is "very significant information' about Padilla's involvement with al-Qaida in very serious terrorist plots.'' Anyone who doesn't believe so is a conspiracy theorist and doesn't realize nor understand the very real threat this country faces now. And for the record I didn't say I believe people are "guilty until proven innocent". I do not have any compassion for one who acts as a spy in the time of a War and plots to attack a government and its people. This may look like a very right wing view from a liberal but since 9-11 alot of things have changed. My first comments were in reference to that Zakarius Mussoui who seems to be making a mockery the judicial system. People who try and make a case for this instance fail to realize that Mussoui is getting a fair trial but everyone seems to come to the conclusion the government is working against them.
And civil liberties AREN'T practical? They are the very basis of our country's government. So, in your mind, it's okay to be a free country until things start getting difficult and then we should revert to some sort of authoritarian regime? I am absolutely shocked at how willing people are to give away our Constitutional freedoms when the political landscape changes. No one is advocating freeing convicted terrorists. But no one has even been tried for the crime yet. Give these people fair trials and, if convicted, give them the maximum punishment allowable. But, at this point, your dealing with hearsay and conjecture. Not exactly the basis of a fair imprisonment. The McCarthy hearings and the internment of Japanese Americans SEEMED like a good idea to most Americans at one time as well. We look back on them now with shame. Fear can blind people to otherwise obvious realities.
Well, you all will be happy to know that the Justice Department and Defense Departments have no interest in trying this guy. They don't want to punish him for his actions -- instead, they simply want information. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/11/dirty.bomb.suspect/index.html Excerpt: The man who allegedly planned to explode a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States may not face trial, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday. "Our interest is not in trying him and punishing him," Rumsfeld said of Jose Padilla. "Our interest is in finding out what he knows." And in a moment of astounding wisdom, Bush said: "This guy, Padilla, is a bad guy," Bush said as he met with lawmakers at the White House to discuss his proposal for a Department of Homeland Security.
No one is promoting a Totalitarian Rule nor McCarthyism. I believe the issue is getting lost here. It went from trying Padilla who is an American citizen in the court of law to trying detainees who for the most part are not American citizens. Are these people supposed to be protected under our constitution as well? I think all this raises another issue. If we capture UBL what do we do with him? Some here it seems would try him in the court of law with the protection of the constitution or should he be placed in a military tribunal? I myself like the latter.
Oh, I get it. So anyone who disagrees with you and our all-knowing government is obviously naive. Glad we cleared that up. Let's just try and deal with the "obvious realities." Are these the same realities we faced the first time the WTC was bombed...when the OKC federal building was bombed? Are these the same realities we face EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES when we are at risk of being shot, robbed, killed in a car wreck, etc? There were four terrorism experts on the news today. All of them said that we are facing the same terrorist risk today that we faced 30 years ago. How exactly have those realities changed? You mean a bunch of guys with box cutters represent a greater threat today than they did back in the late 70's when there were several hijackings every year? Remember the hostages in Iran? How about the hostages in Egypt in the 80's or in Libya or the Phillipines? The same reality that convinced us the Japanese were going to attack the west coast of America during World War II is the one we face today, right? Is this the same reality that had us hiding under our desks during the 60's? Is it the same reality that we faced in the 60's when one guy on a bicycle was the difference between nuclear war and standing down? The same reality that saw the flu and the plague kill off tens of thousands of people in literally months? Somehow, we have managed to make it through all these years and much, MUCH more difficult times (if you think the hundreds of thousands dying in WWI and WWII weren't worse, think again). We look back at the times when Japanese were imprisoned, blacks were persecuted and McCarthy blacklisted the communists and shake our heads wondering how we could have had such "knee jerk reactions." Our lives have hung in the balance over the course of many centuries. This is no more, no less. All we have is the knowledge that our system has managed to withstand the attacks from without and within. When you forget about all of this reality, it is easy to go ape **** over worries and fears. When you remember, it just sounds silly.
Originally posted by Jeff Oh, I get it. So anyone who disagrees with you and our all-knowing government is obviously naive. Glad we cleared that up. Is this you taking a flop? C'mon man... Let's just try and deal with the "obvious realities." Are these the same realities we faced the first time the WTC was bombed...when the OKC federal building was bombed? Are these the same realities we face EVERY SINGLE DAY OF OUR LIVES when we are at risk of being shot, robbed, killed in a car wreck, etc? I don't call radiological bombs that would kill thousands upon thousands and cause large parts of cities to be uninhabitable to be equitable with being shot, robbed, or killed in a car wreck. You should be able to see the very obvious differences in the scopes of those realities. There were four terrorism experts on the news today. All of them said that we are facing the same terrorist risk today that we faced 30 years ago. How exactly have those realities changed? We've had the WTC bombed twice in the last 10 years by foreign terrorists along with embassy bombings and a war ship being attacked. We have Anthrax being put into the mail and well funded terrorists trying to acquire WMD. Obviously that's quite the same thing that was going on 30 years ago. Or was it? I'm not quite that old to have remembered that I guess. Who were these four terrorism experts? The Monkees? You mean a bunch of guys with box cutters represent a greater threat today than they did back in the late 70's when there were several hijackings every year? Remember the hostages in Iran? How about the hostages in Egypt in the 80's or in Libya or the Phillipines? The same reality that convinced us the Japanese were going to attack the west coast of America during World War II is the one we face today, right? I'm definitely getting your vibe man. Who can forget the late 70's where fanatical hijackers bent on martyrdom flew airliners into buildings murdering thousands of innocent people. I remember back when Air Force bases were on constant alert for the possibility of having to shoot down an airliner full of Americans because some nut may try to destroy the Capitol. Those were the days... Is this the same reality that had us hiding under our desks during the 60's? Is it the same reality that we faced in the 60's when one guy on a bicycle was the difference between nuclear war and standing down? The same reality that saw the flu and the plague kill off tens of thousands of people in literally months? Right on the money man. I had much more fear of an established superpower launching it's missiles which would cause us to launch or own missiles rather than some rogue looney with no care for his own life walking a nuke into downtown New York. Somehow, we have managed to make it through all these years and much, MUCH more difficult times (if you think the hundreds of thousands dying in WWI and WWII weren't worse, think again). We look back at the times when Japanese were imprisoned, blacks were persecuted and McCarthy blacklisted the communists and shake our heads wondering how we could have had such "knee jerk reactions." You know this is the second time the JB family has mentioned Japanese internment and McCarthyism. You sound like every liberal that brings up Vietnam every time there's an armed encounter. Oh this is just another Vietnam! Or just perhaps this is quite different and perhaps like with every new threat that has appeared on our radar screen we must change some things to be successful.
No, knee jerk is calling foul when a violent ex-con who's been followed for 2 years by the FBI and has been named by a known Al-Qaida operative as planning a radiological bomb attack on the US is designated a combatant and held for questioning. Talking about the shredding of the Constitution and dishonesty in realizing the differences between burning flags and blowing up cities is knee jerk.
The Cuban Missle crises we were at war with a state. A clear adversary whom we ultimately were able to negotiate a truce. If you suspect diplomacy will be key in negotiating with terrorists who could sneak a radioactive bomb into a large American city which would kill+contaminate millions then I don't know what to tell you. Sounds to me like people think this will iron itself out. There was no warning. No watch. The American people were unaware of the vulnerabilities of our defense pre 9-11. Comparing 9-11 to the everyday crimes we face is trying to balance apples with oranges. These are domestic crimes against an individual. Of course not the same crime as the Oklahoma City tragedy but this was a domestic terrorist. He rightfully was tried under the constitution and was executed. But these terrorists are of organized combatants who's leadership is not based in America but over seas. They have many combatants(soldiers) overseas who are more than ready to sacrifice themselves if they could hijack a plane and drop on a nuclear power plant or smuggle in radioactive weaponry and contaminate our food, air, and water. I don't know if you are aware but the area surrounding Chernobyl is still a dead zone and people are still becoming very sick there because they are drinking radioactive milk, and eating the radioactive food. Thyroid cancer cases in this area is soaring. And no one will be able to take out a magic wand and clean this area up because the sad fact is this place could very well be this way for thousands of years. You think if a nuclear bomb was detonated in New York City the effects would be of minor damage? My god the economy not to mention the people there will suffer for many, many years to come. That city will become a No Mans Land. Nuclear weapons are a hell of a lot easier to get a hold of these days than they were back in the Cuban Missle Crises which some like to compare this with. I find this pacifistic attitude a bit careless. There is a very fine distinction between an act of war and an act of domestic violence. Okay Im not saying try domestic criminals in military tribunals. I'm saying try terrorists who are of secret knowledge and hold very sensitive information in the conspiracy to attack a state with the intent to destroy it and its civilians.
Good Point, that was some scary times during the "Red Scare". You know McCarthy was originally a Democrat, then switched to a Republican... just like Reagan. The imprisonment of Japanese people was unacceptable. The population has become so much more diverse now, this would be almost impossible now. This was all allowed because we were at war? Are presidential powers during times of war uncheckable? Did the president order these camps or someone else? Jeff/Mrs. JB - do yall realize you tag-team people on issues? I find it pretty funny actually, like the bully that would get his buddy to get on his knees behind you and then he would push you backwards over him.... No Offense though. I find it pretty amazing that a couple actually agree on so much, how do you do it???
Okay, you win but I just don't see a problem right now giving the government some extra room to operate when the potential consequences of failure could be so catastrophic. This isn't anything like what we've faced before and I don't believe it's prudent to pretend it is.
The headline of this story is a bit misleading. The guy didn't exactly have a uranium on him. There is a lot of "at-least-we're-making-some-progress" spin here, to me. As to the larger issue, I think it is important that people be vigilant about civil liberties, no matter what situation we find ourselves in as a nation. The point isn't whether treating Al-Queda with caution and severity has merit, but if that precedence of keeping an American citizen in custody without charge might lead to abuses in the future. I am not comparing Ashcroft to Hitler, but it is important to remember that a lot of dictators come to power using democratic methods, including Hitler. As Americans we should not be so willing to give up our concrete freedoms away in the name of fighting for freedom. Corny, I realize.
