17-08-2004 05:09									#31
	Support Apolyton

Update from the Cato Institute on the situation. Looks like the Bush administration is still pulling the same **** a year later:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html

	17-08-2004 05:35									#32
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Boshko Update from the Cato Institute on the situation. Looks like the Bush administration is still pulling the same **** a year later: http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html

Ok so maybe the judical branch is trying to end the istuation but it still seems for all the world as if Padilla, a US citizen is still being held and still has not been charged. Are the judical and the legislative branches of government completely helpless to reign in such unconstitutional offenses?

It looks as if checks and balances doesn't work at all in this instance.

	17-08-2004 05:41									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

SCOTUS has ruled in the Hamdi case that he would have standing to challenge the detention. Basically, the system is guilty until proven innocent for citizens that Ashcroft deems "enemy combatants." In the Padilla case (the difference is that Padilla was arrested here, while Hamdi in Afghanistan), SCOTUS competely skirted the issue for now, sending it back to a lower court for a jurisdictional probelm.

	17-08-2004 05:44									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

Charge him, and then kick his butt in the court...

Why hold him?

	17-08-2004 05:45									#35
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Because they don't have anything on him, most likely.

	17-08-2004 06:04									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo It looks as if checks and balances doesn't work at all in this instance.

As President Jackson said, "Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it." This is nothing new. Joe Doherty was ordered released every time his case was in court, yet the U.S. government (under Regan, Bush, and Clinton) refused to let him go. He was a member of the IRA, and the U.S. wanted to extradite him to the UK, despite the fact that the extradition treaty clearly prohibits the extradition of political criminals.

	17-08-2004 06:13									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

He is one gang member who tried to acquire dirty bomb. Shooting him is a bit harsh but detention is not. But to respond to the article:

-- (even the liberal nutjobs at Time have this to say - source http://www.time.com/time/pow/articl...,262269,00.html)

quote: Details, of course, are sketchy, but it appears that Padilla converted to Islam after a prison spell in Florida, and eventually made his way to Afghanistan or Pakistan to make common cause with al-Qaeda. -- Padilla got some instruction in bomb-making, and some cash. And al-Qaeda leaders reportedly discussed with him schemes ranging from "dirty bombs" to blowing up gas stations — discussions which some captive terrorist leaders appear to have shared with U.S. agents --- Padilla entered public life via an announcement from Moscow on Monday, by Attorney General John Ashcroft, that an al-Qaeda operative had been captured at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, en route to contaminate a U.S. city with a radiological bomb.

So you tell me, how is he not an enemy combatant? Lincoln did something samey with the bastard Confederate sympathizers to great effect. In times of war the law falls silent

He's one guy, too. Let's not forget how one guy taking flight courses should've been investigated throughly prior to September 11th. This case has been publicized and as such it's worth noting Bush has taken fire for it. He must have something on him.

Especially considering the evidence perpetuated by the murderous Time magazine, mind you, he's guilty as sin.

To all you dirty-bombers or travellers to O'Hare airport - you can not run, you can not hide, we will destroy you.

(only in real life, not a speech at a democratic convention)

	17-08-2004 07:24									#38
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap There are always plenty of candidates on the ballot. And you oculd write in any name you wanted.

Please don't encourage Pekka.

	17-08-2004 07:29									#39
	Tired of ads?

quote: Especially considering the evidence perpetuated by the murderous Time magazine, mind you, he's guilty as sin.

Then why hold him for years without charging him in blatant disregard for the Constitution?

	17-08-2004 07:42									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

"
Bullshit, since all Article III appointees have to be approved by the Senate."

We don't know what the composition of the Senate will be though. And we don't know if enough Republican Senators would have the backbone to fight Kerry's SC nominees. Of Course, it would be hard for the Republican Senate to block left-wing nominees after complaining for 4 years about blocking judges based on ideology.

Even in the scenario that left-wing justices are fought by the Senate GOP, the most likely way I would guess such a standoff would end would be Kerry appointing someone whose views on controversial issues are unknown, but whom Kerry privately knows is a liberal.

Regarding Padilla, yes it's clearly wrong. But it's also nothing new. Lincoln detained Southern Sympathizers in the Civil War. FDR detained Japanese Americans in WWII. We've survived it before, and it doesn't mean such unlawful detentions will soon become broadly applies to everyone who opposes Bush.

	17-08-2004 07:43									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf He is one gang member who tried to acquire dirty bomb. Shooting him is a bit harsh but detention is not. But to respond to the article: -- (even the liberal nutjobs at Time have this to say - source http://www.time.com/time/pow/articl...,262269,00.html) So you tell me, how is he not an enemy combatant? Lincoln did something samey with the bastard Confederate sympathizers to great effect. In times of war the law falls silent He's one guy, too. Let's not forget how one guy taking flight courses should've been investigated throughly prior to September 11th. This case has been publicized and as such it's worth noting Bush has taken fire for it. He must have something on him. Especially considering the evidence perpetuated by the murderous Time magazine, mind you, he's guilty as sin. To all you dirty-bombers or travellers to O'Hare airport - you can not run, you can not hide, we will destroy you. (only in real life, not a speech at a democratic convention)

Wig all this tells me is that we should have charged this guy a long time back. Some here say that's because the case against him is slim which is clearly no reason to not press charges because a big chunk of those whom we have no evidence against could easily be innocent and the guy is a US citizen. The other reason that occurs to me is far more damning. Perhaps the case against him was strong originally but in the administrations arrogant contempt for our constitution it decided it was better to violate enough legal rules in his treatment to legally invalidate much of that evidence but possibly ferret out a few more crumbs of data than to just try him straight away. In that case they will force the horrible choice of suspending rule of law or allowing a known terrorist to go free. Incredible. I really hope it is just that they never had enough evidence on him to begin with.

	17-08-2004 07:52									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Regarding Padilla, yes it's clearly wrong. But it's also nothing new. Lincoln detained Southern Sympathizers in the Civil War. FDR detained Japanese Americans in WWII. We've survived it before, and it doesn't mean such unlawful detentions will soon become broadly applies to everyone who opposes Bush.

I guess it is the haunting resemblence to those two awful episodes whichs scares the hell out of me. I condem FDR more for that internment than just about anything else he did (and I consider just about every distinctive thing FDR did as worse than worthless) and I regard Lincolns suspension of habeas corpus as the worst thing lincoln ever did and enough erase all of the admiration I would otherwise have had for his presidency. There are only two ways to oppose an out of control government. Legal means and open revolt. Removing the guarentee of habeas corpus from citizens allows only the latter and it tramples all over our constitution. You cannot prevent a future dystopia style coup by waiting until the conditions seem ripe. At that point it is almost always too late. You must be most vigiliant when you know you are the most safe to keep things that way.

	17-08-2004 08:16									#43
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Of Course, it would be hard for the Republican Senate to block left-wing nominees after complaining for 4 years about blocking judges based on ideology.

You mean that you really think that politicians will avoid fighting for a political gain in order to not look like hypocrites I'm sure the Republicans in the Senate will pull out all the stops to fight an even mildly-left appointee.

quote: We've survived it before, and it doesn't mean such unlawful detentions will soon become broadly applies to everyone who opposes Bush.

Nope, but its still a bad idea to vote for someone who blatantly disregards the constitution when its convenient (same applies to FDR for the Japanese internment which was worse).

	17-08-2004 08:34									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

And considering that the Republicans held up something like 60 of Clinton's appointees (i.e. far, far, far more than the number of Bush appointees the Dems have held up), it's more than a little hard to believe that the Republicans will give Kerry's judicial appointees a free pass.

	17-08-2004 08:39									#45
	Got spare money?

quote: You mean that you really think that politicians will avoid fighting for a political gain in order to not look like hypocrites I'm sure the Republicans in the Senate will pull out all the stops to fight an even mildly-left appointee.

It's not nessecarily politically hurtful in itself if a leftie gets through. It would be politically hurtful if they made themselves out to be brazen hypocrites?

quote: Nope, but its still a bad idea to vote for someone who blatantly disregards the constitution when its convenient (same applies to FDR for the Japanese internment which was worse).

And what about Lincoln, then? Kick him out of office? Now, suppose everyone felt as you did in the North, and upon realizing what he is doing they turn overwhelmingly against him, allowing the Dems to sucsesfully nominate a peace candidate and have him win. Too bad for all those slaves, huh?

Now, had Kerry taken a stand agaisnt extrajudicial detainment, that would be something to consider but he hasn't, and I don't think it is too likely he would release Padilla either lest he be seen as weak on terror. WIth both candidates esentially the same, even if civil liberties is your most important issues you can then look at other ones. I am sure you wouldn't disappointed about it, but if you are a conservative as I assume Geronimo is there is a lot to lose. A Liberal Supreme Court could establish partial birth abortion on demand as a constitutional right, it could re-allow quotas in affirmative action, it could declare banning affirmative action unconstitutional, it can take away State's rights and ignore the Tenth Amendment, It can refuse to allow any type of gun ownership to be constitutionally protected, it could ban the death penalty, it could do any number of things and we might not get the chance to repair the damage until decades later.

	17-08-2004 08:45									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Actually, Kerry has taken a stand against indefinite detention of at least citizens (maybe noncitizens, but I don't recall him saying that). See the quote I posted earlier in the thread. As for partial birth abortion on demand or racial quotas, I've seen no reason to believe that Kerry advocates any of that.

I don't know why you're assuming that Kerry takes these extremely liberal positions on abortion and affirmative action, and an extremely conservative ( Bush's) position on civil liberties, when all the evidence is to the contrary, that he's a little left of center in both respects.

quote: It's not nessecarily politically hurtful in itself if a leftie gets through. It would be politically hurtful if they made themselves out to be brazen hypocrites?

They already have. After holding up Clinton appointees for 8 years, they're *****ing about the Dems doing a much milder version of the same thing.

	17-08-2004 08:46									#47
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi "Please help save Geronimo from voting for Kerry" Consider this. As problematic as this current President has been at times, the Next President will likely appoint several Supreme Court Justices, and the effect of that will continue long after Bush and Kerry's political careers have ended. Supreme Court justices have the ability to make rulings that have far reaching effects and can set the national pollicy for a long time. With the parties generally deadlocked right now, it seems the judiciary will be far more likely to be able to make the big decisions on national issues such as States Rights, Affirmative Action, etc. Kerry would appoint left-wing justices who would move our country in the wrong direction.

Souter

	17-08-2004 08:56									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: And what about Lincoln, then? Kick him out of office? Now, suppose everyone felt as you did in the North, and upon realizing what he is doing they turn overwhelmingly against him, allowing the Dems to sucsesfully nominate a peace candidate and have him win. Too bad for all those slaves, huh?

Kerry doesn't support slavery, you know.

	17-08-2004 08:56									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

shi, they are hypocrites. Fiscal conservatives?

	17-08-2004 08:58									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: They already have. After holding up Clinton appointees for 8 years, they're *****ing about the Dems doing a much milder version of the same thing.

There is a big difference. The Republicans (in majority) mostly voted down Clinton appointees while the Democrats (in minority) use the filibuster. So as long as the Republicans have the majority and let them come to the floor, but vote them down, they won't look like hypocrites.

	17-08-2004 09:01									#51
	Tired of ads?

Hatch didn't let tons of appointees out of the Judiciary committee with his blue-slip policy. IMO, that's worse than filibustering.

Last edited by Ramo on 17-08-2004 at 09:10

	17-08-2004 09:09									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi If you vote for Kerry when you do not support his policy, then you give him a bigger mandate than he deserves, which can have a huge effect on how he governs.

It could be a one issue election for Geronimo. Obey the Constitution or risk losing the Republic. I can't help but see things his way. Bush lost me (for what little my opinions matter) on just such issues. He doesn't deserve to hold the office of dog catcher, let alone POTUS.

Kerry, if he wins and reverses the trend of dragging the American flag and Constitution through the mud, would be an improvement even if he were not as effective at defending the US against further attack, IMO.

Put it this way, would you favour taking some slightly higher risk that Canada is attacked when we could lessen that risk by rounding up extremely likely suspects and holding them for years on end without a lawyer or so much as a hearing?

	17-08-2004 09:10									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

"Actually, Kerry has taken a stand against indefinite detention of at least citizens (maybe noncitizens, but I don't recall him saying that). "

Fair enough. But were he to release Padilla he'd face political charges that he was weak on terror and that he cared more about protecting Moslem's constitutional rights then the safety of the American people. Not that that'd be justified, but it makes it questionable if Kerry actually would.

" As for partial birth abortion on demand or racial quotas, I've seen no reason to believe that Kerry advocates any of that."

Well, you can check his voting record on Affirmative Action or Abortion. Kerry is also likely to appoint justices who are of his same general ideology, who are likely to hold those views. The Supreme Court has already been interfering with partial birth abortion laws and the liberal wing of the supreme court(Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg) in favor of quotas already.

"
They already have. After holding up Clinton appointees for 8 years, they're *****ing about the Dems doing a much milder version of the same thing."

The Clinton stuff was before they came out so strongly against ideological screening of nominees. Now it will be harder.

quote: Souter

Was over 10 years ago, was appointed in a far less ideological and partisan time, and was appointed by a President who was very moderate himself.

	17-08-2004 09:14									#54
	Got spare money?

shi, its not if he doesnt support indefinite detention he supports unquestioned release. he might want him charged and tried ASAP

	17-08-2004 09:19									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Not that that'd be justified, but it makes it questionable if Kerry actually would.

I disagree. If he were that spineless (and there's no reason to think that he's that bad, since he was the only Senator up for re-election to vote against DOMA, for instance), why'd he be criticizing Ashcroft's policies to that effect?

quote: Well, you can check his voting record on Affirmative Action or Abortion.

What in particular?

quote: The Supreme Court has already been interfering with partial birth abortion laws and the liberal wing of the supreme court(Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg) in favor of quotas already.

And what in particular?

quote: The Clinton stuff was before they came out so strongly against ideological screening of nominees. Now it will be harder.

But they came out so strongly against ideological screening of nominees after they came out so strongly in favor of ideological screening of nominees. Why not another flip-flop?

	17-08-2004 09:22									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

SCROTUM

	17-08-2004 09:29									#57
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Hatch didn't let tons of appointees out of the Judiciary committee with his blue-slip policy. IMO, that's worse than filibustering.

Well IMO, filibustering is worse. It is a deplorable practice which never should have been part of Senate rules.

	17-08-2004 09:34									#58
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Filibustering allows a large minority of Senators to prevent the vote, the blue-slip allows one Senator to prevent the vote. The latter is definitely worse.

	17-08-2004 09:35									#59
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Put it this way, would you favour taking some slightly higher risk that Canada is attacked when we could lessen that risk by rounding up extremely likely suspects and holding them for years on end without a lawyer or so much as a hearing?

This is precisely why even the security argument fails to persuade me even though as a supporter of the partiot act I can probably be recognized as someone who takes national security very seriously. It should be obvious that thousands of american lives could be saved by simply rounding up all of the usual suspects in every area where violent crime is common and holding them indefinately but that would be a gross negation of our constitution. I am willing to sacrifice many things for security even precious things such as my privacy but never my personal liberties. He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither. As true now as the day it was first said.

	17-08-2004 09:39									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If you oppose indefinite detention, why do you support the Patriot Act? An provision of it allows the indefinite detention of aliens on the attorney general's whim.