Anyone remember the 6th Admendment?

You know what we don't have enough in this forum of is posts that just have a link and a "WTF? Discuss" written after them.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-090905padilla_lat,0,4652277.story?coll=la-home-headlines

WTF? Discuss

Ouch. At first I figured he wasn't a citizen or something, but he is.

I'm stumped... he's probably a bastard who deserves to be held and at least interrogated for a long time, but no trial at all? WTF? Is there more to this story than this snippet is letting on?

Not really.

I just don't get how a law congress passes overrules one of the first 10 admenments to the constitution.

For our American audience, who don't know such things, I'll spell out the part of the 6th this seems in direct contridiction with:

"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 defence. "

I'll wait to read the ruling when I get home, I imagine they're loopholing it by saying it's not a criminal prosecution, but instead a detention.

WTF, I thought he was an alien too. This is criminal.

Your missing the point though. It doesnt matter if this guy is the unibomber or anything else, once you give up on the constitution, your lost. He could be an evil bastard, but if you dont have any proof (or in this case even a crime), you cant just lock people up and throw away the key. It's one of the essentail differences between the bad guys and the good guys.

Could an attorney not bring a writ of habeus corpus against the state of Virginia? It is my understanding that habeus corpus covers all 'detentions,' and is offered as a protection against wrongful imprisonment. Or am I just being daft? While the president had imbued himself with these 'special powers,' it seems that a conflict at the state level might bring this issue into sharper focus. Is this what the 4th Circuit Court has just upheld?

If the approach happened to be successful, it might begin the short circuit that would bring the Constitutionality of the "Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" to the fore.

"That's it, I am moving to Sparta."

Not only did the agogi introduce men to warfare and promote a strong bond of kinship among men, it's also where men were introduced to sex (from other men , which is why Spartan women had to shave their head before wedding night). I'm sure you'll fit in nicely. Wanna bunk?

Dianne, please analyze this clever t-shirt.

Alas, Chance, I am a chick.

The quote came from the Disney animated film Hercules--my intention was to imply that Sparta is so much more attractive than the United States, at the moment.



Sure, as long as the Spartan door swings both ways.

Wow, I'm stunned. It seems the terrorists really have won, for there is no longer much semblance of the real United States left on this earth. It's amazing to think how fragile we really were since all it took was the destruction of a few buildings to set into motion the events that are transforming what once was a nation of laws designed to protect the people from the dangers of a too powerful government into a land where the government can literally do whatever it wants and there's no one to stop them. Particularly firghtening in that artical is the whitehouse argument against trying people, described by the Times as "fear that a trial could result in their acquittals". Well, isn't that the point? Isn't a trial SUPPOSED to result in a possible aquittal? Isn't that possibility the only thing that forces the government to prove they've got the right man? Where's the accountability? Where's the respect for fundamental human rights? Today it's some guy who supposedly wanted to build a bomb; tomorrow it could be you or me for any reason they choose. All they have to do is cry "terrorist" and they've got license to do whatever they want.

I never thought I'd live to see the day when the US courts allow the government to arrest and detain at will with no need to prove its case or even to make one. This is by far the scariest time in American history. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say it could very well take centuries to undo the damage that has been done to this nation under the rule (that's right, RULE) of George W. Bush, if it ever even happens at all. We are living in dark times, my friends, dark times indeed.

...Depending on who you are. It's VERY bright times for morally upright bible slingers, corporate fat cats, and faux parental figures who justify their righteous tepidity by downplaying every possible affront to those not aligned with the ruling party because it's really conflict in their own social sphere that disturbs them and all they desire is a return to gentle complacency no matter what operant power structures rule that complacency.

I don't think I'm missing the point really. Here's my current thoughts on where the difference lies for those of you with no lives who are reading... (subject to revision )

Two camps:

One wants definite legal quality proof of a (terrorist) crime or intent to commit one, AND perhaps is confident that the court/jury system is reliable enough not to release someone who's going to blow something up and kill a thousand people a year later. This is the strict interpretation of what the admendment says of course...

I'll put more effort into the second argument since it's obviously the less popular one here:

The other camp is satisfied with "strong" but not neccesarily definite proof, and are assuming there IS some reason he's being held (it's not logical for them to care to hold him otherwise). (Maybe there's even evidence that isn't submissable to court for some reason, just a complete guess on my part, but I wouldn't doubt it given how screwed our legal system is.) This camp also may not be 100% confident that a court/jury will always "get it right" every single time (odds are they won't), and may release someone who later goes out and kills a bunch of people. After all, juries are just normal citiizens, not professionals who have strong backgrounds in law enforcement and very in depth knowledge of the specific case.

Analogy attempt:
It's like working on a project for months, and then showing to someone who's a complete newcomer that knows nothing about it for evaluation. Your project, which you believe will save lives, depends on them saying "it's a good project". You wouldn't be working on it otherwise, so obviously your opinion is that it's good. Would you trust that this total stranger won't be a complete idiot, misunderstanding your project and getting your project halted?

I think both "camps" have noble intent, but have slightly different priorities.

I doubt they'd agree with that one!

I'm prescient.

Haha... Too true. Gold star.

I wish I were a historian. I'd like to identify those times and places in world history where thinking people gathered in rooms off university corridors, in private homes and other meeting places, and quietly wondered together whether maybe there weren't signs their rulers were going a bit too far. They wondered whether maybe they ought to get up and do something before the risk of dissent got too great.

I'd like to count the number of times they didn't quite get round to it until it was huge and stark and undeniable, By which time it was indeed too late, and they either shut up or disappeared.

It would be interesting to read the justfications and explanations of the governments and their apologists, each time they strangle the freedom and independence out of their respective peoples. I suspect that analysis would show a high degree of commonality, a repeating shape that such pronouncements take, common rhetoric, whether you are Adolf H, or George W., or the courts acting subservient to either. Not the same people, of course, or quite the same situation, but definitely a very similar rhetoric.

Like you and I, almost all of these room-based ponderers thought it just too utterly far-fetched to believe that things could ever get as bad again as they had in the past. Such things don't happen nowadays.....Until they are suddenly happening right next to you, and you are too concerned for your children's safety to even let yourself recognise what is happening.

We teeter on the edge of a new dark age. Or at least, its possible enough to justify behaving as though we do, just in case.

The sacred institutions and protections and freedoms for which our forefathers fought and sacrificed over centuries are being idly crushed in five minutes by a greedy idiot baby.

Most of you in this forum are young, and US citizens. Its your job. Only you can do it. Bring this government to task. As soon as possible change it, by the proper democratic means which you still possess. Drop everything, and get involved in politics and education. Nothing else matters for the next few years. Its the only hope for all of us.

You spotted it, Chosen. The most significant point of all.