Posted on 06/21/2002 2:58:14 PM PDT by Dawgsquat
Really?!!!!! Ssupended it himself, did he....Did our OKC Bomber suspend his own "Habeas Corpus"? Did the world Trade Bombers suspend their own "Habeas Corpus"? Since you made this statement please show me the case law to back this up? Show me where the US Supreme Court has upheld this kind of decision by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT?
Amend the Constitution, or find a suitable work-around to the 22 Amendment while a Republican is in the oval office. The public will understand that there is an imminent need for continuity in government, since it has been determined that War on Terror is not likely to end for a very long time, if ever. And if something unforeseen should happen, there is a shadow government in place too, and rest assured the shadow government are good people (not communist DEMONcRATS, or LIEberals who spawned the like of Islamicist John Walker), as Cheney and friends know what they are doing.
Yes, just one freeper has quoted the Constitution on this thread.
Apparently, those who think, by taking away from the congress the power "to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; " and giving it to the Judiciary, they can find a better balance between liberty and security than our founders did, will not be swayed by the constitution.
Has he been formally accused?
Sounds religious - "war without end".
But the very best view of the Constitution is that of the Founders.
Consider the impressive Constitutional protections Padilla does have: Habeas Corpus- he can have a court decide if he is justly held as a combatant,
Due process- he can have a court decide if he was fairly treated under the rules congress, or the executive if congress hasn't, provided, Most important- his detention is over when the congressional authorization of military force is over: no military force means no military detainees ( as surely as authorizing military force authorizes military detainees).
I think the Founders have reserved as much liberty to us as they dared.
I suspect that they did not give this power of trying crimes under the laws of nations to the courts because they feared if in times of great danger the law no longer protected the people then they will take the law into their own hands, and the Republic will be over.
In today's circumstances imagine the reaction in the people if the release of a terrorist on a technicality allowed him to take part in a horrible attack!
The mob would be loose!
I'll try to find some Founder's remarks from the Founding documents and ratification conventions that might shed some light on this.
I'm pretty much anti-abortion myself: was brought up to hate the idea, and haven't changed; but my conscience is mine alone- as is the conscience of a woman seeking an abortion. That is a problem for her and her God to sort out; and, as Jesus Christ said : " Judge not, lest ye be judged. "
I've just re-checked the Scriptures on this point, and there does not seem to be a codicil to Christ's statement- which makes an exception for "Orion" or much of anybody else-including Ministers who feel inspired to read Scriptures near abortion clinics.
"to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; "
All that is fine. When you are dealing with US citizens on US soil, the Bill of Rights is in effect. When dealing with foreign combatants, then you have your points.
This is going to be a long war. The war is on us.
I won't repeat all the info I provided in my replies on the previous page or this one.
I just refer you to it
Padilla, like any American, has Habeas Corpus and due process rights- but no right to a jury trial.
The Return of the King’s General Warrants
Fri Jun 21 18:19:59 2002
68.3.136.226
The Return of the King’s General Warrants
by William J. Holdorf
In colonial America, one of the sparks that lit the flame of liberty was the dreaded "Writs of Assistance," more commonly referred to as the king’s "general warrants." Such general warrants were a declaration issued by the Crown that allowed the king’s soldiers to search for smuggled goods in any suspected house or premises, day or night, without giving notice or warning.
In 1761, James Otis, a Boston, Massachusetts lawyer, who was advocate general of the Boston vice-admiralty court, was asked to defend the general warrants. Mr. Otis refused since he believed such warrants were a violation of a person’s liberty. He based his conviction on the political and social rights that are found in English common law. As a result of his conviction, he resigned his office rather than defend something he believed was wrong, a noble characteristic much needed in today’s legal profession.
Thereafter, he was hired by Boston merchants to challenge the legality of such warrants before the Superior Court of Massachusetts. It is noteworthy that he refused a fee offered him for his services, again, something rarely found in today’s legal profession.
It was reported that Mr. Otis spoke for four hours giving detailed evidence against the legality of the general warrants. However, the court eventually ruled against him, no doubt, more in sympathy with the king at that time. As a result, the citizens of Colonial America were constantly being harassed by the king’s soldiers using such general warrants merely on suspicion the law was being violated.
One of the first acts of the newly created nation after the successful War of Independence, our Founding Fathers, remembering the terror of such general warrants, passed the Fourth Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights added to the newly created Constitution, which reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Our Founding Fathers believed there is a certain sanctity to one’s person, the ultimate private property, as well as to one’s possessions, that shall not be violated by the government without probable cause, as directed in the due process clause of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the majority of today’s politicians no longer believe in such a sacred ideal of liberty exhibited by James Otis and our Founding Fathers. Over the last several decades, it is shocking to realize that legislators have passed laws that clearly attack or undermine our individual personal rights in the Bill of Rights. And just as bad, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such violations of our rights. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2001 ruled that it was legal for a police officer in Texas to arrest, handcuff and jail a woman for merely not using a seat belt, a victimless, state created crime that hurt no one. Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves!
Texas is one of the states that passed primary enforcement of its seat belt law, which allows the police to stop any motorists merely under suspicion that a seat belt is not being used. Primary enforcement is really not any different than the dreaded king’s general warrants for the motoring public, which our Founding Fathers thought they prevented by the passage of the Fourth Amendment.
It is shocking to realize we have come to such a low level of respect for individual personal rights that the majority of our present day legislators and even Supreme Court justices support the return of the king’s general warrants in the likes of primary seat belt law enforcement. What is to prevent the next step will be our houses; our persons, reminiscent of the Gestapo of Nazis Germany?
It is shocking how far afield we have come as a nation from the cry of Patrick Henry, Give me liberty or give me death," to "Click-it or ticket," the cry of politicians who arrogantly claim the right to violate the Bill of Rights in the name of doing "good." The fact is, taking away liberty in the name of doing good has been the easy road for dictators and tyrants for centuries. The fact is, if politicians who do not respect the Bill of Rights are not voted out of office soon, someday they will be doing so much "good" for us, we will no longer have any more rights to give up. Seat belt laws and, especially, primary enforcement, are clear major steps in that direction.
There certainly is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state mandatory seat belt harness laws, and primary enforcement exacerbates that wrong even further.
June 21, 2002
William J. Holdorf [send him mail] writes from Chicago.
Copyright © 2002 by LewRockwell.com
Padilla, like any American, has Habeas Corpus and due process rights- but no right to a jury trial.
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 wherin the crime shall have been committed...
I stand corrected.
Tell me, what evidence does the US have that Padilla is a combatant? Has he killed anyone? Did he have any weapons? What is his chain-of-command? What contraband did he posess at the time of his arrest?
Hating America is protected. He can burn a flag, chant 'Death to the Great Satan,' and say really mean things about GWB (provided it is not within 60 days of an election).
It is probably credible that Padilla received training in some horrible stuff. Of course, any American can log onto any number of websites and find out the same things. Is receiving training in horrible stuff against the law? Keep in mind that he probably learned this prior to 9/12. Is that against the law, and what jurisdiction do we have in a country that we are not at war? If I know how to convert a semi-auto to full-auto, and I have been open about my contempt for the ATF, IRS, CIA, NSA, etc., does that make me a combatant? Do I lose my right to a jury trial, compelling witnesses in my defense, a lawyer, and confronting my accusers? Nope.
After 4/19/95, everyone with an IQ of 85 and a desire to know, has the knowledge of how to make an ANFO bomb. You know how to be a rapist or a prostitute, so does that make you one? Perhaps you would like a trial, in the event you were so accused.
The ONLY reason Padilla is treated as a 'combatant' is the gov't does not have a case against him.
Perhaps I fly to the Caymans 5x/month. Perhaps I use a lot of cash, perhaps my bank account in San Antonio is not growing at a rate comensuate with my income. Perhaps customs/IRS seizes my encrypted pocket drive, and wants the keys and passphrase, and I don't want to talk. Because the IRS does not have a case, should they be able to change the rules? What if they wrap it in the flag and say that I have money in the Caribbean, and so does Al-Queida, therefore, I am supporting Al-Queida? What if they say that I am not paying taxes on income they only suspect, and that defunds the undefined "war" on terrorism? Am I now a combatant? Do I get my rights, or do we take the gov'ts word as gospel? HOW DO WE KNOW THE GOVT IS NOT FULL OF IT?!?!?!?!?! We don't.
Laugh at my example. It is not far off.
This has been an interesting discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong: you are worried the precedent established in preventing a potentially lethal terrorist from doing us harm may, somehow, interfere with your ability to harass, disrupt, and annoy women who seek to excercise their (constitutional) right to obtain an abortion.
I never said I wanted to harass anyone seeking an abortion. I said I want my First Amendment rights as much as anyone else. Harassing women is not my style, as I believe it only hardens their troubled hearts. I'm pretty much anti-abortion myself: was brought up to hate the idea, and haven't changed; but my conscience is mine alone- as is the conscience of a woman seeking an abortion. That is a problem for her and her God to sort out; and, as Jesus Christ said : " Judge not, lest ye be judged. "
Well, that passage has been taken out of context. It refers to judging their position before God and the motives of their hearts. It in no way disqualifies you from dicerning right from wrong. Matthew also speaks to that kind of judgment. You are perfectly free to identify sin. If someone shoved someone into traffic, you would be free to say that is wrong. I've just re-checked the Scriptures on this point, and there does not seem to be a codicil to Christ's statement- which makes an exception for "Orion" or much of anybody else-including Ministers who feel inspired to read Scriptures near abortion clinics.
Total gibberish. The Constitution allows the reading of scripture wherever one wishes to read it. If you can read a smut mag, you can read the bible.
Please brush up on your exegesis before posting on the subject. It will help us both.
FReep on,
-Orion
"what evidence does the US have that Padilla is a combatant? "
That must be shown at the Habeas hearing- that's why we have them.
"The ONLY reason Padilla is treated as a 'combatant' " is because he is, the congress has authorized using military force against him.
You give several examples of actions that the congress has not authorized military force against.
In some fantasy Constitution would they be treated under the Laws of War? I have no idea!
Under our Constitution congress would have to authorize such use of it's war power .
Reccomended,
Padilla is not being held under combatant charges but under war crimes charges which can apply in time of either war or peace.
While many people are debating Military court martials, that is a somewhat seperate issue. The issue of Military detention, as in the Padilla and Moussaoui cases, from what I understand is both Constitutional and actually has precedent and is necessary due to the fact that Al-Qaeda has so infiltrated our prison and legal system. Padilla was after all, recruited in prison.
He's being detained as a military combatant under congress's grant of that extraordinary authority to the President.
War is hell, if you don't want to be treated as a detainee, don't pi%% off the country so much that the congress authorizes the use of military force against you!
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.