At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the New York-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the United States -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution.

---
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
---

It turns my stomach that the American people allow this administration to wipe their asses with the Bill of Rights. Even the most heinous criminals have rights when they are US Citizens in the US!!!!

I've already written my Senators and Congressman. I wish other Americans speak up too.

What do you think? Is the nature of the crime relevant? Can Ashcroft pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't?

I wrote my Senator and asked him to advice your Senator to disregard your letter..
and this si what I think

I wrote my Senator and asked him to advice your Senator to disregard your letter..
and this si what I think[/b][/quote]
haha OK!

At least you're taking a stand ;)

Even Billy from Midnight Express got a lawyer ;)

There's a lot of people who don't have enough sense to be concerned.

haha OK!

At least you're taking a stand ;)[/b][/quote]
Yes, I do....
"I beleive in America..."

(--Bonaserra, God fathger)

;-)))

America is becoming more a dictatorship every day. Americans held by America without counsel. Flaunting the Geneva Convention in Quantanamo. Pulling out of international treaties. Talk of martial law by ex-General Tommy. Assassinians of heads of foreign governments. Establishment of The Fatherland, oops, I mean The Homeland Security bureau. But what does one expect after the suscessful coup in Florida to get Georgie into office to start with?

Reelect Bush! We need some Muslim internment camps in Texas next! :salute:

I will not, I swear, I will not call anybody names but...
people, you still don't get whom are you dealing with...

you and your porno agenda makes me laugh...those who perished from Kantor Fitzgerald made more money than thisa entire baord and industry combined.

The ruthless enemy upon us will take EVERYTHING we muster throwing at them.

oh well....let's have another useless demonstration of solidarity with terrorists...

We are at war. And even though I am a great believer in civil rights, we need to recognize that we are at war, plain and simple.

During war time, extraordinary measures are often called for and when the enemy can not be recognized by the uniform he wears; when the enemy can blend and hide in a civilian population; the way the war is fought must match the enemies tactics to be succesful.

The war is far from over, it really has merely begun.

This isn't about a porno agenda. This is about one of my own elected officials taking away rights guaranteed to me since 1791. These officials took an oath to preserve my Constitutional rights when they took office.

This guy is a criminal and PROBABLY belongs behind bars anyway. However, disregarding the 5th and 6th amendments for Citizens it unexcusable. In fact, it puts the public at a greater risk, because eventually this guy will get out because the gov't has fucked up this case so much.

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6th Amendment
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.

they should have shot him at the airport.

he is classified i believe as an enemy combatant. he was training in terrorist camps, had met with high level leaders of Al Queda and was involved in a plot to kill people in the US.

why are your rights being threatened? have you trained in Afghanistan with Al Queda lately?

let me help you with your quote:


5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

All American Citizens have certain rights. This guy is a scumbag, no doubt.

Holding a US Citizen for 18 months without access to legal counsel is also criminal.

Innocent until proven guilty.

All American Citizens have certain rights. This guy is a scumbag, no doubt.

Holding a US Citizen for 18 months without access to legal counsel is also criminal.

Innocent until proven guilty.[/b][/quote]
You are citing the Constitution and calling it "criminal" while its clearly not. They are not violating the Constitution. His only rights are those granted to him under the law and though people complain about it, they are failing to make the case that the law is being broken or the Constitution violated.

You seem to be confusing shoplifting with terrorism.

I don't really agree that he should have any rights at all. If the government could not make their case, they would not be detaining him. They have been pretty open about why he is being detained and its a matter of public record.

If you feel that the law should be modified, thats one issue... but to accuse people of breaking the law to detain him is another. It's not happening, no matter how wrong his detention might seem to be to some.

IMHO, he is LUCKY to be detained.

Have we been actively "at war" for 18 months? If my memory serves me correctly (which is questionable), we haven't.

Of course we've been occupying and "guarding" many places around the world for years, so *technically* they could hold anyone and say it's a "time of war".

We have been in a constant state of battle in Afghanistan since we went in after 9/11...

We have been actively pursuing terrorists around the world since about the same time...

So yes, we have been in an active state of war for the past 18 months or so...

let me help you with your quote:


5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/b][/quote]
That exception applies to the grand jury requirement. Break the 5th Amendment down at the semicolons. Semicolons seperate closely related independant clauses.

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

----

There is no exception to the clause preventing him from being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

playing semantics over 300 year old and irrelevent wording does not make either side of the argument more correct.

"public danger" - how many terrorist attacks were there in the last two years targeting westerners? how many plots foiled?

You are citing the Constitution and calling it "criminal" while its clearly not. They are not violating the Constitution. His only rights are those granted to him under the law and though people complain about it, they are failing to make the case that the law is being broken or the Constitution violated.

You seem to be confusing shoplifting with terrorism.

I don't really agree that he should have any rights at all. If the government could not make their case, they would not be detaining him. They have been pretty open about why he is being detained and its a matter of public record.

If you feel that the law should be modified, thats one issue... but to accuse people of breaking the law to detain him is another. It's not happening, no matter how wrong his detention might seem to be to some.

IMHO, he is LUCKY to be detained.[/b][/quote]
Like it or not, he has the right to due process.

However, since his rights are being trampled upon, I'm sure he'll be walking the streets plotting another crime in no time at all.

Our legal system is based upon the ideal that it is more important to prevent an innocent man from going to prison than it is to put a guilty man in prison.

That exception applies to the grand jury requirement. Break the 5th Amendment down at the semicolons. Semicolons seperate closely related independant clauses.

5th Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

----

There is no exception to the clause preventing him from being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.[/b][/quote]
you are probably correct. i dont know how that would be read correctly. i understand you feel he should have a trial, but there are countless reasons why he shouldn't given the circumstances. there is a lot of sensitive info, a lot of investigations, a lot of terrorists, terrorist cells, networks, financiers being broken up etc. you can't just lay it all out on the table for the world to see. presumably you are against the military tribunals as well which would protect sensitive information that incriminates people such as this guy.

i feel no sympathy for him at all. his past is not being called into question and the issues of a speedy trial and legal representation should not take precedence over the safety and security of US Citizens either.

actually KC, after looking at it and reading it i think you are incorrect. it says "except in the case of...." nor shall any person...; nor shall any person; etc.

if you were correct, it would make the first part redundant.

KC, there was a time in this country when that motherfucker would have been strung up and hung from a tree by pissed off citizens. Only under a system this fucked up are we required to respect the consitutional rights of people who are trying to fly planes into our buildings.

now i think KC is correct. i was reading it wrong. the first part just refers to being held without an indictment of a grand jury.

Yeah, back when niggers and women knew their place, right? lol

KC, how many lives were saved because of his 18 months treatm,ent without a lawyer?
Information he provided was irreplacable...
therefore,
as somebody who has FAMILY in NY and not in Alaska which is not threatened by anybody,
I don't give a fuck about all the amendmends,
my FAMILY interests prevail over them.

have a nice day.

..and this si why I always love JR, even when we disagree..
RIGHT TO THE FUCKING POINT with laser presission.

Yeah, back when niggers and women knew their place, right? lol[/b][/quote]
hahahaha Nice!!! ;)

KC, how many lives were saved because of his 18 months treatm,ent without a lawyer?
Information he provided was irreplacable...
therefore,
as somebody who has FAMILY in NY and not in Alaska which is not threatened by anybody,
I don't give a fuck about all the amendmends,
my FAMILY interests prevail over them.

have a nice day.[/b][/quote]
I understand your anger. I'm angry and have friends and family in New York also.

The founding father's vision of Freedom and Liberty is more important to me than Ashcroft's utopian vision of a corrupt police state like Iraq.

I support the war against terrorism.

I supported overthrowing that scumbag Hussein.

I don't support holding US citizens without counsel for any reason.

But that's just me, I'm not willing to just crumple up the Bill of Rights.

Yeah, back when niggers and women knew their place, right? lol[/b][/quote]
Right! I wasn't referring to criminals, like cattle rustlers, murderers, thieves, etc. Just niggers and women.

Buff, stop belitteling Australians!
;-)))

I doubt it very much...I lived behind "Iron Curtain", you didn't..
and still I support "the infliction and bending of the Constitution"

do YOU know why?

They should have just shot him when they arrested him. At least it wouldn't feel like they're mocking the Constitution...

I doubt it very much...I lived behind "Iron Curtain", you didn't..
and still I support "the infliction and bending of the Constitution"

do YOU know why?[/b][/quote]
You support it as long as a bent constitution isn't being applied to you personally.

To me, it's a slipperly slope and when you start bending it for this.. bending it for that.. It becomes useless.

Every elected or appointed government official is sworn in to their position. Part of that swearing in involves defending the Constitution.

It should be absolute.

I wrote my Senator and asked him to advice your Senator to disregard your letter..
and this si what I think[/b][/quote]
cuncur :wnw: screw him he was going 2 kill a bunch of people. maybe others will get the ideal, you go 2 jail don't get a lawyer, and they might keep you for ever.

It's a controversial issue. I'm surprised there wouldn't be more outrage on this forum. :)

Thanks for the debate.. I'm happy as long as I am free to write my Senators and Congressman with my first Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" :)

You support it as long as a bent constitution isn't being applied to you personally.

To me, it's a slipperly slope and when you start bending it for this.. bending it for that.. It becomes useless.

Every elected or appointed government official is sworn in to their position. Part of that swearing in involves defending the Constitution.

It should be absolute.[/b][/quote]
KC, wrong!
I lived with bent constitution or actually lack of it for 22 years..
care to try again?

KC, wrong!
I lived with bent constitution or actually lack of it for 22 years..
care to try again?[/b][/quote]
I don't have any other guesses.

I've shared my point of view on the situation. I'm not really looking to change anyone else's opinions. I just felt the need to raise the issue.

Unfortunately for him, his crimes fall under the Patriot act. And under the Patriot act, they don't ever have to charge him with anything formally as long as he is supposed to have been involved in any terrorist activities. In fact, even if he is a born American, I believe he can lose his American citizenship under the act.. (or is that the Patriot act 2). And people still want to vote Bush back into office.. scary shit.

That is what is alleged by the government - the same government that assured us that Saddam was ready to deploy WMD on 45 minute's notice.

Some of us take seriously thoughts like opposition to "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"

And KC - you really shouldn't be suprised at the reaction here. It has nothing to do with Lensman or GFY, guns, Lensman or GFY, democrats, Lensman or GFY, GFY or Lensman ... and did I mention Lensman?

and I glad you did....this is Oprano and America after all
;-))

I find Bush much LESS scarier than Bin Laden and Co...

"It was Barzini all along. Lensman is a pimp, he would have never outsmarted Santino!"

;-)))))) :gbounce:

That is what is alleged by the government - the same government that assured us that Saddam was ready to deploy WMD on 45 minute's notice.

Some of us take seriously thoughts like opposition to "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"

And KC - you really shouldn't be suprised at the reaction here. It has nothing to do with Lensman or GFY, guns, Lensman or GFY, democrats, Lensman or GFY, GFY or Lensman ... and did I mention Lensman?[/b][/quote]
The 60's are over.
J. Edger Hoover is not coming to get you.

P.D. maybe the "reaction" is also due to the painful reality that there is no blanket rule that can EQUALLY gaurantee the safety, security and rights of all people, innocent or not. People have made a choice to make some hypothetical sacrifices to help make sure that a nuclear bomb is not detonated in Manhatten and 1,000,000 people get vaporized because we had to play fair with murderers in a system that favors, shields and protects them.

That does not sound unreasonable to me at all.

It will be interesting to see how the Patriot Act plays out. I have a hunch the lawmakers got a little too greedy in some places.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

I've been reading a bit about the oath's of office various officials are required to take.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/histor...Oath_Office.htm

Serge, I was also a little surprised that you said "I don't give a fuck about amendments" ;)

I think YOU also took this oath when you became a US Citizen!!

Spoken like a good German, JR

what kind of fascist remark is that?

Serge, I was also a little surprised that you said "I don't give a fuck about amendments"

I think YOU also took this oath when you became a US Citizen!!
************************************************** *****

as I said before:

Bonasera: "I believe in America. America has made my fortune."

and if my AMERICAN Government decides to detain the fucker for 18 months or for all etrnity-
I'll support my Government...

is there anything wrong with that?

If the American Government becomes a Domestic enemy of the Constitution there's something wrong with it. ;)

--
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
--

I never took an oath when I became a Citizen, but you did. ;))

what kind of fascist remark is that?[/b][/quote]
Not a facist remark at all - I would have used sheep instead, but [some twit] has used the word far too often lately.

With regard to your comment about the 60s being over. There are more than a few people who only regret that the illegal violations of civil rights of hundreds of thousands of Americans were made public and that they were discontinued. There are people ON THIS BOARD - who reflect the feeling of at least some within the administration - that a large portion of the American people who disagree with their political philosophy are in fact traitors to their country.

I wouldn't trust Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton with the powers we've given Bush and Ashcroft. Unlike many of the partisans around here, I wouldn't feel any different about it if they were the ones who held those powers.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Nov 30 2003, 09:55 PM

If the American Government becomes a Domestic enemy of the Constitution there's something wrong with it. ;)

--
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
--

I never took an oath when I became a Citizen, but you did. ;))[/b][/quote]
and who do you think he is talking about? Just Kay?
;-))

Kay Adams: "Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed!"
Michael Corleone: "Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?"