A federal circuit court has ruled that the govt can no longer hold Jose Padilla without charges. Hopefully this is the first of many court cases overturning the bending and breaking of constitutional protections that have occurred these last two years.
If I were running against Bush in 2004, I would not stop saying that this administration held an American without trial or the right to even see an attorney for more than a year.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I still believe that the US has the best system of government and laws under which to live. At least the best one in existence.
I believe that certain other civilized nations would've had the same sort of thing happen (Britain, Canada, maybe France), but I think our constitution is actually the strongest and most well-defended of any of them.
Hurray!
If the upper court (Supreme Court) hears this case, I'd be surprised. If they overturn today's ruling, I tell you right now that every single one of us should be rioting in the streets.
Not for love of Jose Padilla, but because such a ruling would mean that the government could just claim "national security concerns" every time it wanted to deal with someone without first building a case against them and going through the processes of obtaining a warrant, arrest and prosecution.
That Bush Admin has even tried this (and succeeded to date) makes me think that the whole crew should be tried for treason!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Lincoln also suspended rights during the Civil War. Maybe he should've been tried for treason.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Things are a bit different now. We aren't fighting an army on our soil (and please don't try to say we are...we're not) and the army we are fighting is not made up of our own citizens (or separatists).
The guy is the "enemy within," sure, but to say that our existing criminal statutes don't have a way of dealing with him short of secreting him away and denying habeus corpus is a HUGE stretch!
Way beyond anything I want my leaders trying.
The problem isn't even that I think it's a slippery slope. The problem is that I think it really is an act of treason against the American people. The only difference between Bush and tin-pot dictator on this score is that he didn't stage a military coup first..
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only difference between Bush and tin-pot dictator on this score is that he didn't stage a military coup first..
It's more than that, but it's a difference of degree, rather than a difference of principle. The problem with what Bush/Asscroft have done is that the US has previously tried to be different in principle from dictatorships.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that for our country to have the election process we did in 2000 is beyond ridiculous. I mean, Castro (CASTRO!!! ) used it as a way to make fun of us. Remember? He offered to come up here and monitor our election.
I also recall some precincts where officers of the law were harrassing potential voters by operating roadblocks/checkpoints on election day...
It may look a bit different from the more blatant things that are done by dictators elsewhere, but it is only a matter of degree. And I don't want my leaders coming even close to where we're talking about gray areas and "matters of degree."
Nope, I don't like it at all.
And, by the way, ever since Nixon, I have been acutely aware that political "operatives" will do damn near anything to steal an election, if they think they'll get away with it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if we assume the best possible motives of President Bush, Ashcroft, and the rest of the crew, this idea sets a dangerous legal precedent that can be very dangerous under the hands of a Nixon or, yes, even a Lincoln.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, Caligula and Nero wouldn't have even had the chance to be such disasters for their people if the other "leaders" of Rome were willing and able to uphold their country's own laws. Instead, they altered the law to give power to the Caesars (Siezers?) and the result was a complete mess.
Even if you trust Bush and his administration implicitly, you should not want these powers to pass into the hands of a president. Because the "fine line" of today is the common practice of tomorrow.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has always been allowable to suspend rights in a war zone given certain conditions. The US is not a war zone right now. Much of it was during the Civil War (and I still disagreed with Lincoln's actions, but they're certainly far more justifiable than the current admin's).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
) used it as a way to make fun of us. Remember? He offered to come up here and monitor our election.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Old enough to not care what tenses I use.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
