Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Due Process for Enemy Combatants Why Jose Padilla belongs behind bars.
opinionjournal.com ^ | Sunday, September 1, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT | BY ROBERT F. TURNER

Posted on 08/31/2002 9:15:55 PM PDT by BCrago66

Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

A distinguished American Bar Association task force and countless newspaper editorials have asked why U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, also known as Abdullah al Mujahir, is not being given the full panoply of Sixth Amendment rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Instead, he is being held at a South Carolina military base without being charged with a crime, without access to an attorney, and with no apparent prospect of a public trial by a jury of his peers. The perception that the government has discarded the Constitution in its eagerness to prevent terrorism threatens to undermine the public support that is essential if we are to prevail in the current crisis, and the Padilla matter needs to be better understood.


(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: hamdi; padilla
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-185 next last

1 posted on 08/31/2002 9:15:55 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Bump


I've been trying to say this since 9-11. I guess I will be labeled as a bigoted American. By: An American Airlines Pilot - Captain ???? ?????????


September 11 Grievances

"You worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me. I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your homelands, professing to be Muslims, have been attacking and killing my fellow citizens and our friends for more than 20 years now. I don't fully understand their grievances and hate but I know that nothing can justify the inhumanity of their attacks.

On September 11, nineteen ARAB-MUSLIMS hijacked four jetliners in my country. They cut the throats of women in front of children and brutally stabbed to death others. They took control of those planes and crashed them into buildings killing thousands of proud fathers, loving sons, wise grandparents, elegant daughters, best friends, favorite coaches, fearless public servants, and children's mothers. So I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage and hate and prejudice that has destroyed the soul of these terrorists. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the Arab/Muslim terrorist. How do I differentiate between the true Arab-Muslim-Americans and the Arab-Muslims in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they plot the next attack that will slaughter those very same good neighbors and children? The events of September 11th changed the answer. It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of it's religions, with ALL of it's different citizens, with all of it's faults. It is time for every Arab-Muslim in this country to determine it for me. I want to know, I demand to know, and I have a right to know whether or not you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to it's flag? Do you proudly display in front of your house, or on your car? Do you pray in your many daily prayers that Allah will bless this nation, that He will protect and prosper it?

Or do you pray that Allah with destroy it in one of your "Jihads"? Are you thankful for the freedom that only this nation affords? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it. Your Muslim leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts on your faith, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America.

Please, no more benign overtures of regret for the death of the innocent because I worry about who you regard as innocent. And no more benign overtures of condemnation for the unprovoked attacks because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. I am not interested in any more sympathy ...I am only interested in action. What will you do for America-our great country-at this time of crisis, at this time of war? I want to see Arab-Muslims waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you chanting "Allah Bless America". I want to see young Arab-Muslim men enlisting in the military. I want to see a commitment of money, time, and emotion to the victims of this butchering and to this nation as a whole.

The FBI has a list of over 400 people they want to talk to regarding the WTC attack. Many of these people live and socialize in Muslim communities. You know them. You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little even approaching this sort of action. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You have disappeared from the streets. You have posted armed security guards at your facilities. You have threatened lawsuits. You have screamed for protection from reprisals. The very few Arab-Muslim representatives that HAVE appeared in the media were defensive and equivocating. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States prove who was responsible before taking action. They seemed more concerned with protecting their fellow Muslims from violence directed towards them in the United States and abroad than they did with supporting our country and denouncing "leaders" like Khadafi, Hussein, Farrakhan, and Arafat. If the true teachings of Islam proclaim tolerance and peace and love for all people then I want chapter and verse from the Koran and statements from popular Muslim leaders to back it up. What good is it if the teachings in the Koran are good and pure and true when your "leaders" are teaching fanatical interpretations, terrorism, and intolerance. It matters little how good Islam SHOULD BE if large numbers of the world's Muslims interpret the teachings of Mohammed incorrectly and adhere to a degenerative form of the religion. A form that has been demonstrated to us over and over again. A form whose structure is built upon a foundation of violence, death, and suicide. A form whose members are recruited from the prisons around the world. A form whose members defended Johnny Cochran and O. J. Simpson after the latter butchered his wife and murdered an innocent friend. A form whose members (some as young a five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets around the world, burning effigies of our presidents, burning the American flag, shooting weapons into the air. A form whose members convert from a peaceful religion, only to take up arms against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. A form whose rules are so twisted, that their traveling members refuse to show their faces at airport security checkpoints, in the name of Islam.

Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because our women proudly show their faces in public rather than cover up like a shameful whore? Do you and your fellow Muslims hate us because we drink wine with dinner, or celebrate Christmas? Do you and you fellow Muslims hate us because we have befriended Israel, the ONLY civilized democratic nation in the entire middle-east? And if you and your fellow Muslims hate us, then why in the world are you even here? Are you here to take our money? Are you here to undermine our peace and stability? Are you here to destroy us? If so, I want you to leave. I want you to go back to your desert sandpit where women are treated like rats and dogs. I want you to take your religion, your friends, and your family back to your Islamic extremists, and STAY THERE! We will NEVER give in to your influence, your retarded mentality, your twisted, violent, intolerant religion. We will NEVER allow the attacks of September 11, or any others for that matter, to take away that which is so precious to us: Our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Arab-Muslim in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family. I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand." "Until then ... you worry me." ""




2 posted on 08/31/2002 9:18:13 PM PDT by B-Cause
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Well, that puts that whole issue to rest. Besides, who needed a Bill of Rights and a Constitution, anyways? Much better that the government can summarily strip a persons citizenship without even a "How do you do" from the defendant.

All defendents lie. Anyone who is accused is always guilty.

3 posted on 08/31/2002 9:20:57 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Well you just has a very uninteresting conversation with yourself.

Perhaps one day you will learn to read.

4 posted on 08/31/2002 9:27:32 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Let Jose Padilla go, lock up Abdullah al Mujahir forever.

Muttly has spoken.
5 posted on 08/31/2002 9:32:23 PM PDT by PoorMuttly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"All defendents lie. Anyone who is accused is always guilty."

A very profound statement my friend.

It can be very difficult to know how to act these days.

6 posted on 08/31/2002 9:34:06 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
YAY! YAY FOR FASCISM! YAAAAAY!


7 posted on 08/31/2002 9:34:49 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz; aristeides; thinden; JohnBerger; honway; OKCSubmariner
It's always bothered me that this guy is being uniquely treated. And President Bush and Ashcroft both give this guy some sort of national security prominence.

They're wanting to hide or conceal something IMHO.
8 posted on 08/31/2002 9:41:48 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
You are the Maureen Dowd of FreeRepublic. You name-call, and imagine yourself witty, but you never actually frame an argument.

The reason you don't is because you are afraid to reveal that you nothing to say, that you are intellectually empty. In other words, you're the kind of guy who has just a little bit too much trouble figuring things out.

9 posted on 08/31/2002 9:42:22 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
They're wanting to hide or conceal something IMHO.

Roger that.

They could have easily held the guy on the 10,500$ cash or bearers bonds he was carrying. I will bet you last night's supper he didn't lawfully declare that coin upon touchdown at O'Hare.

10 posted on 08/31/2002 9:54:42 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
I'm sorry, you have me confused with someone who takes you seriously.
11 posted on 08/31/2002 9:55:33 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
That's 3 posts, and you still havn't said anything. You're having trouble, and its kind of sad. Could you refute anything in the above article, if your life depended on it?

Let's see if your able to move a brain cell in post #4.

12 posted on 08/31/2002 10:01:54 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
In order for a speaker to have meaningful dialogue, the listener has to be able to think.

I've said a lot; you just cannot figure it out.

No thanks. I'll pass. Go get your edjumakation somewhere else.

13 posted on 08/31/2002 10:12:53 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
It seems like a good idea, until a Democratic president decides to designate Second Amendment activists as enemy combatants.

You are of course aware that the plans for the DHS were drafted by the Clinton/Gore administration in response to OKC.

14 posted on 08/31/2002 10:55:52 PM PDT by SteamshipTime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Thanks for the stupidity.
15 posted on 09/01/2002 1:26:00 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Thanks for the stupidity.

Yeah I know, Habeas Corpus is sooooooo lame.

Bad Founding Fathers! Dumb ole' Founding Fathers! (whack)

16 posted on 09/01/2002 1:31:35 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Save your stupid lying insults for some place that appreciates them.

Stop spamming Free Republic.

17 posted on 09/01/2002 1:35:29 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Save your stupid lying insults for some place that appreciates them.

(looking at your mind) "No, Sam, this one looks completely closed. Let's move on!"

Stop spamming Free Republic.

Ridiculous.

18 posted on 09/01/2002 1:42:07 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Stop spamming Free Republic.

Your sissy closed-minded insults are spam.

Learn to think for yourself or stay with your fellow idiots at the sheep site.

19 posted on 09/01/2002 1:48:23 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Where are the rest of the sheep?

It's very rare when you zombies spam up FR threads without support.

20 posted on 09/01/2002 1:50:27 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Stop spamming Free Republic.

Legitimate criticism of GW Bush, albeit in the form of sarcasm, is considered 'spam' to you.

I'd say you are the one with the sheep problem.

Now, if you would kindly stop messaging me, I don't think we have much more to say to one another. Thanks in advance.

21 posted on 09/01/2002 1:54:40 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Stop the spam sheep.

Call the Founders fascists on the idiot site where your fellow PC sissies appreciate that kind of idiotic remark.

Thank you in advance sheep.

22 posted on 09/01/2002 4:38:46 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Informative post bump.
23 posted on 09/01/2002 6:52:34 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Stop the spam sheep.

Your continued repetition of the non-informative phrase "Stop the spam sheep" is a lot more like SpAm than anything I've ever done on this forum.

So perhaps, by now, you've slept the drunk off. We'll see.

24 posted on 09/02/2002 6:31:41 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Hey sheep, Stop spamming Free Republic.

It doesn't take a lot of discussion sheep. Just stop.

25 posted on 09/02/2002 11:05:54 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Hey sheep, Stop spamming Free Republic.

Are you, like, 12 years old?

You seem like it.

26 posted on 09/02/2002 11:42:54 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I doubt that it takes a 12 year old to intimidate such a well-programmed little sheep as yourself.

Like I said, it doesn't call for a lot of discussion- just stop your spamming of FR.
When you want to try to contribute to a discussion it'll show.

27 posted on 09/02/2002 11:58:48 AM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Grow up.
28 posted on 09/02/2002 12:07:30 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Go away sheep.

I interrupt the spanking of our petulant widdle spammer [ I'm only doing it out of love- he'll never grow past the graffiti stage if he's not challenged to behave like an adult!] for a brief notice:
those who would like to see the actual administration brief filed in the Padilla case it's HERE (pdf)

29 posted on 09/02/2002 3:43:16 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Go away sheep.

What???? No "Spam" reference???

Senility setting in????

Besides, I would LOVE to try to get into that two-neuron mass you attempt to call a brain, and have you tell me why my questioning of Padilla's indefinite suspension of his rights as an American Citizen -- strictly on some government bureaucrat's say-so -- is in any way Constitutional.

30 posted on 09/02/2002 3:51:38 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Habeus Corpus has not been suspended. Padilla and Hamdi have both filed writs and it is being adjudicated. Thems the facts Laz.
31 posted on 09/02/2002 3:53:47 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
President Bush has yet to say that the Constituion limits anything that he wants to do.

In fact, President hasn't openly used the word "Constitution" since his oath of office (or he has done it so rarely that one would be extremely hard pressed to cite examples)>

President Bush has not show proper respect for the Constitution or for citizens' rights. President Bush has decided that he has the power to decide who has and who does not have Contitutional protection.

President Bush has signe legislation that limits citizens' political speech.

President Bush has tried to play both sides of the 2A rights battle so that he can appear to do something without actually doing anything.

President Bush has helpd subvert 4A rights in some of the most egregious ways since the Revolution.

President Bush's supporters care as little for the Constitution as he does, as long as it's "their guy" doing the shredding.

Every fact has opinion surrounding it. CFR, the Patriot Act, Medicare Medicine givaways, and over-fundig the DoE are NOT the acts of one who loves and respects the Constitution.

32 posted on 09/02/2002 4:00:47 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"I interrupt the spanking of our petulant widdle spammer" (gee it was even in bold font) to suggest he read the admin's brief.

Of course since dealing with actual facts is what you sheep don't want to dohere, maybe you'd best stick with your spam method of discourse.

33 posted on 09/02/2002 4:06:24 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Legitimate criticism of GW Bush

Wow. There was only one mention of Bush before you brought him up. The article didn't mention him once.

I'd ask if it were a Freudian slip, but with the word "bush," that might result in an infinite loop of double entendres.

34 posted on 09/02/2002 4:06:51 PM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
Of course since dealing with actual facts is what you sheep don't want to dohere, maybe you'd best stick with your spam method of discourse.

Bizarre. I get much more substantitive in my post, and Mrs. Mith goes brain-dead on me.

No, I'm not surprised. I just wanted to demonstrate it for the viewers at home.

35 posted on 09/02/2002 4:14:16 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Wow. There was only one mention of Bush before you brought him up. The article didn't mention him once.

Implied throughout any discussion of any administration's activities, is the subject of the leader of that administration.

One cannot talk about the Waffen SS without at least thinking briefly about Hitler.

36 posted on 09/02/2002 4:17:02 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Habeus Corpus has not been suspended. Padilla and Hamdi have both filed writs and it is being adjudicated.

The government's official position is that Habaes Corpus does not apply to Padilla in any way. The government's position is that he may be held, indefinitely, without any charge being leveled against him.

Color me Che Guevara, but I have a problem with that.

Thems the facts Laz

Just for grins, I went and looked up habeas corpus. We are both spelling it wrong.

37 posted on 09/02/2002 4:20:43 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." -- United States Constitution

Bad Founding Fathers! Dumb ole' Founding Fathers! (whack)

Their foresight beats your hindsight.

38 posted on 09/02/2002 4:24:02 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"I just wanted to demonstrate ..."
That reading the brief is not for you, you'll stick to spamming instead!

LOL!!!!!!

39 posted on 09/02/2002 4:25:51 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
One cannot talk about the Waffen SS without at least thinking briefly about Hitler.

Seems one cannot talk about anything without bringing up Hitler.

40 posted on 09/02/2002 4:28:13 PM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
The government's official position is that Habaes Corpus does not apply to Padilla in any way.

I went and looked up government and lo and behold there are three branches.

The executive's claim is that Padilla is a combatant and thus is not covered by the sixth amendment in time of war.

The legislative branch has authorized the CIC to conduct war against AL Qaeda and those offering aid to or harboring same which is the executive's claim as regards Padilla.

The judiciary is taken this under advisement in considering Padilla and Hamdi's writs of habeas corpus. There are multiple precedents for the judiciary to rule in the executive's favor.

Therefore, the right to habeas corpus has not been suspended, Che Guevera not withstanding.

41 posted on 09/02/2002 4:31:01 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." -- United States Constitution

Wonderful! ABSOLUTELY correct!

Now, all you need to do is point me to the Executive Order or Act of Congress in which the Writ of Habeas Corpus was suspended, and we can call it a day.

Oh..... wait a minute..... don't go silent on me now...... we're all counting on you......

42 posted on 09/02/2002 4:33:31 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Seems one cannot talk about anything without bringing up Hitler.

Sometimes the word "Nazi" is substituted.

43 posted on 09/02/2002 4:34:34 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Who said it had to be suspended generally?
44 posted on 09/02/2002 4:35:50 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Actually, yes. Your response is substantive. The Executive Branch is WAAYYYY overreaching, IMHO, and the Legislative Branch also overreached. However, G-d willing, the Judicial Branch will correct these huge tears in the Constitution.

If they do not, then you or I can be summarily declared a non-citizen (shades of 1984's "Un-person") by the penstroke of a faceless government drone.

45 posted on 09/02/2002 4:37:11 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"The Executive Branch is WAAYYYY overreaching" -- Lazamataz

Backwards.

"Critics fret that Padilla's example shows that the federal government can reach down and designate any U.S. citizen an "enemy combatant," denied all legal rights. (Bear in mind that, so far, this has happened to two U.S. citizens.) But habeas corpus has not been repealed. Padilla's representative can and will challenge the constitutionality of his detention in court. Then he will lose, in all likelihood, because case law, and a fair reading of the Constitution, indicate that the president has the power to designate "enemy combatants" and that the courts should conduct their review of cases like Padilla's with deference to this authority (contravening it only if the executive is clearly operating arbitrarily)."

http://www.nationalreview.com/15july02/editorial071502c.asp
46 posted on 09/02/2002 4:39:36 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
SPAM ALERT: "government's official position is that Habaes Corpus does not apply to Padilla in any way"
Oh my, since you refuse to read the brief you certainly can't be accused of lying- how convenient for you.

"To the extent that the courts conclude that judicial review may be had of an executive determination during a war that an individual is an enemy combatant, such review is limited to confirming based on some evidence the existence of a factual basis supporting the determination..."

Aty least drop the sheep attitude enough to read the brief- with practice you may learn to think for yourself .

47 posted on 09/02/2002 4:39:56 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Who said it had to be suspended generally?

Lincoln's example and pleadings to that effect during the Civil War.

But let me get this straight: You are actually arguing FOR differing and selective rights for various citizens?

If so: Before, you amused me with your statist rantings. Now, if this is your premise, I would work diligently to get the differing level of 'rights' applied to you personally, because it would be clear to me that you are a terrorist to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You should be in an Internment Camp as a terrorist.

48 posted on 09/02/2002 4:41:30 PM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Lincoln's example and pleadings to that effect during the Civil War.

This isn't large scale rebellion or invasion. Case dismissed.

49 posted on 09/02/2002 4:44:44 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
"To the extent that the courts conclude that judicial review may be had of an executive determination during a war that an individual is an enemy combatant, such review is limited to confirming based on some evidence the existence of a factual basis supporting the determination..."

But did they clear that decision with Laz?

50 posted on 09/02/2002 4:46:26 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-185 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson