Posted on 04/03/2006 11:44:56 AM PDT by truth_seeker
It was technically 3 to 3 to 3, fwiw.
Treason used to mean the death penalty, too.
Maybe the government has a weak case against him?
Oh... never mind. :)
Well there was definitely a strong case against the muslim soldier who threw a granade into his fellow soldiers' tent at the beginning of the war. Treason wasn't mentioned then either.
It appears that a 6-3 majority would've taken the case if it were not mooted by the transfer of jurisdiction. As it were, three justices would've taken the case anyhow, I guess to rule on principle; three justices would take the case if it were not moot, or if it becomes 'unmooted' again; and three justices would evidently deny cert regardless (but it's unclear, since they didn't write an opinion).
Yup. Don't see why they don't bring these two to trial unless sources and methods might be exposed.
Don't think that would be the case with the soldier.
Nope, not a Prisoner of War. In order to be a POW you have to have Identification with the army of your country (dog tags) and a uniform. So Paddilla doesn't get this status nor what is provided under the Geneva Accords.
But the T word is never mentioned. Probably too draconian for these "enlightened" times.
Oh, I forgot to mention the words "Aiding and abetting the enemy" and oh, let's not forget he was intercepted with enemy instruction manuals. IMHO, I think the term "Traitor" is entirely appropriate here and our "enlightenment" here is nothing but a mask for Political Correctness and the democratic party.
"Our constitutional rights are more important than our security any day"
You are right...you have the right to be murdered by terrorists.
PresidentFelon
and had the case been taken - the administration would have lost it.
folks, see the other two threads on this. this is not a win for the administration. at best, both the executive branch and the SCOTUS agreed to duck this confrontation when Padilla was transferred to civilian court a few months back.
can't happen.
what are you going to do, allow the ACLU to depose KSM and Zubayda and all the other AQ people we are holding at the secret CIA prisons? that would be like a wet dream for the left to be able to access those people and air it all out in a public trial.
the SCOTUS screwed us on this one - they would have ruled for Padilla had the case gotten there - Scalia especially.
Yup. That is probably why they don't want it to go to court.
Padilla should be treated as an enemy combatent. Did conservatives get screwed again on the appointment of Roberts??
Is there some way to get Ginsberg to resign or pass on before Bush becomes an utter lame duck?
I think you would agree that certain circumstances require Presidents and governments to take extraordinary steps to safeguard average citizens. The question is, and always will be, where is the line. The actions of governments must be checked by it's citizenry. But the citizens also have a responsibility not to over-react and become the mob for "civil liberties" demagogues who have political aspirations more important to them than the well-being of American citizens.
With today communications technologies being both pervasive and instantaneous, it is hard to imagine a single President, Party, or even a series of laws, being much of a ultimate threat to our civil liberties. I am more concerned with creeping socialism disguised as "health" advocacy in it's potential to curtail liberty.
I think the President is doing what he believes is both legal and necessary to fullfill his constitutional duty to protect the country from foreign agents and terrorists. I am not aware of a single fact that would lead me to believe the President is not sincere in his beliefs. I think he is extroadinarily honest and courageous and wants nothing but the best for this country. I disagree with several things he has done but think nothing he has done has been done in bad faith.
In the case of Padilla and other potential terrorists you may think the government has gone too far..I happen to think it hasn't gone far enough.
Freespectfully,
PresidentFelon
I forgot to mention; What would happen to our civil liberties if a terrorist managed to detonate a five or six kiloton weapon in Washington DC during a joint session of Congress? You want to talk about threats to our liberty...imagine the things that would occur across the nation and the world were some middle easterners able to accomplish this.
Think about it for a while......I've been thinking about it for several years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.