Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=adcc287eb4764ef36a2c2d8b49447d3f&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
You don't have to feel sympathetic toward this criminal to feel disgusted by the sadistic and uncivilized criminals who arrested him without process or warrant of any kind, held him outside any legal framework, denied him counsel and any outside contact, slandered him with charges for which they could and did offer not the slightest proof when they were finally challenged in court 3 years later, and systematically tortured him by methods deliberately - and successfully - intended to drive him insane. Padilla deserves to be tried and punished as anyone else for whatever he has done; the criminals and torturers who vacated the law and the entire groundwork of civilization itself in their self-indulgent savagery deserve much worse. Padilla harmed or threatened some certain number of persons - a serious crime; his torturers have diminished an entire nation and threatened every person who may ever fall afoul of the torture, sadism, and savagery they have now made a part of our (non-)legal system. They are far more guilty.
To put it another way: note that nothing that was done to Padilla in prison would have been legal as a punishment for the crimes he was actually convicted of - yet it was done entirely outside any legel system, when no charges whatsoever had been laid against him and the government itself refused to defend its own hyperbolic allegations, even so far as to actually charge him with the crimes it said justified his being held. He has been tortured not only without conviction, not only without trial, not only without even being charged - but with no governing law whatsoever, and in ways that would be unconstitutional even if he had been convicted.
Do I feel sorry for him? I feel sorry for all of us.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=c10e927ca659d25357e65b3873a1c525&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Executive Branch does have the legal right to hold Padilla. I'm sorry that your \"reality-based\" worldview won't accept it, but the courts have already decided that the President does have the authority to militarily detain:
...a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.
That narrowly defines that the Executive does have the legal, quite Constitutional right to make specific detentions.
That narrow definition should also belay the squawkings of the hyper-emotive, Chicken Little leftists that still insist, against all factual evidence to the contrary, that Bush can throw anyone in jail at any time, for any reason, without hope of a trial.
It won't, of course.
Compliments to Confederate Yankee...LOL He does have a way of phrasing these things.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=1da11b64b505169db0b8b6b9e56a3012&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Having worked with some of these kids who fall into what we used to call the juvenile delinquent type. In my experience, very few of them turn around when they reach adulthood to become productive citizens; rather, the majority tend to go into more serious and often more violent crimes. Two of the kids I had in class made their way to first degree murder...one was killed by the other. The reason? A gang dispute.
Do I feel sorry for this guy? Not on your life. His actions and the consequenses of his actions are based upon HIS OWN DECISIONS, decisions he had the free will to make.
Yet the bleeding hearts think his \"treatment\" is unfair. This is why we have so many crimes here in the US, because they are not handled right and the bleeding hearts think they should have more rights than their victims.
Unbelievable.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=118d6f164c66b6d99ca783ae8b648b50&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
No American citizen should ever be held without being charged with a crime.
greg in case you haven't noticed, we have a small problem of certain \"american citizens\" joining terrorist orginizations... as far as I am concerned that makes them the ENEMY, I don't give a damn where they were born.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/st...=2169943&page=1
This guy is an example... born here but has an alliance with al-qaeda....as far as I am concerned the second he vowed to fight on al-qaeda's side...he lost ALL american rights.
Spree:
Who declares war? Who decides who the 'enemy' is?
Greg.. those that talk of KILLING americans, those that talk of a Jihad against AMERICA, those that state their purpose is to harm AMERICA....then they proceed to make plans, build bombs, hijack our planes and blow up our buildings... if you do not consider these people the \"enemy\" then you are burying your head in the sand.
All you have to do is a simple search on terrorist activity, or terror acts against America, any number of different keys and you can pull up all the info you need to see WHO these people are.
Extremists that have a loyalty to al-qaeda or terror groups that actively work to destroy America ARE the enemy.
You really need to Wake up and understand that it is a real problem and it needs to be dealt with.
People like you try to tie America's hands and feet, blindfold us, then insist we should be able to protect ourselves. It is unrealistic and naive.
Doing a post now on this exact issue.
You either didn't understand, or chose to ignore my question: who declares war and who decides who the enemy is? Could the president tomorrow declare Venezuela the enemy?
My concerns have to do with concentrating too much power in the Executive branch. Try to move beyond the 'We're good/they're bad' mantra and think of this power in say, Hillary Clinton's hands.
First off, I did answer, you just didn't \"get it\", so I will be more specific.
Who declares war? Those that attack America do. Those that sponsor the terroists to enable them to attack us do.
Who decides who the enemy is? The military and the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA... it IS his job, he was VOTED in as leader of our country in a democratic process called \"elections\".
If, a BIG if, Hillary Clinton becomes President, then YES, it will be her job to keep us safe, I can only hope that whoever is chosen in the 2008 elections actually cares to do so.
Is that clearer?
So in your opinion the President could declare war on Venezuela all by himself?
If Venezuela attacks us.....HELL YES.
New post just for you Greg:
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree....-of-denial.html
Answers will be slow for a little while, I have to actually (ick) get some work done. LOL
Will look back in a bit.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
It is a sad state of affairs when people defend the indefensible.
Law should rule, unless you are a Bush fan.
Very sad, indeed.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=0aeaa12b917ce5f4f4dd785877817258&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Spree--You must have very little faith in our laws and Constitution if you think we have to use these tactics to combat terrorism. Aren't we a nation of laws? How will torturing Padilla to the point of mental illness fight terrorism? I am proud to be an American and incredibly ticked off that this administration has shamed my country the way that he has.
ngh65-
You are right- hard to imagine that this nation has fought enemies as diverse as the Barbary Pirates and the Third Reich USUALLY by staying within the bounds of its Constitution. The few time we haven't (Internment of the Japanese comes to mind) are remembered with shame, as this era will be.
Again you are denying the \"reality\" of the fact that we are not fighting a \"country\", we are fighting a group of people called \"extremists\" that have one goal on their agenda, OUR destruction.
It is a war against a foe that has never been fought before. Not against a nation or country, but against an ideology.
To compare it with other conventional wars that have nothing in common with this type of war, is either being dishonest or VERY naive.
Our laws and our constitution do not speak to this type of terror... or actually, let me correct myself, they do, I believe it is called TREASON.
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: \"...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].\" In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
Traitor may also mean a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge.
Cumulatively, in these eight decisions arising from World War II, the Supreme Court of the United States established that for a prosecutor to take an “aid and comfort” treason indictment to a jury he must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) an overt act, (2) testified to by two witnesses, (3) manifesting an intent to betray the United States (which can be inferred from the overt act itself), (4) the act providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=a29fc7a088541cdb4ed4b31c7d20e1fa&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Any person against this country, who tries to harm an American and our intrests in general is our enemy
I do not feel sorry for him at all and only wish he could get the Chair!
Fry his ass!
AMEN. I cannot understand people who refuse to acknowledge the reality of the world we live in today.
It is true that some woke up on 9/11 and others simply hit the snooze button, rolled over and went back to sleep.
Spree:
So why isn't he charged with Treason?
One would have to ask those in a position to charge these people. I am not one of them.
Some analysis has been done in trying to figure ut that very question though. The actual question is: Why has there been no treason prosecutions since 1945 from world war 2?
According to McCarthy:
First, hand-in-hand with the evolution (some of us would say “devolution”) of perceptions about national loyalty has been a joint cultural and legal revolution in the concept of dissent. David has described the cultural phenomenon more powerfully than anyone I can think of: the Sixties, Vietnam, Watergate – that whole era is a formative experience for our present day elites in the media, the academy and government. Dissent became fashionable.
On the legal side of the ledger, we find an over-correction of excessive prosecutions, like the ones under the espionage act during WW-I. We went from one extreme to another. For example, after upholding the controversial Smith Act convictions right after WW-II, the Supreme Court – during the Warren era – went on to rule that “mere” membership in the Communist Party could not be grounds for a prosecution.
The second point is practical. Treason prosecutions are complex from a litigation standpoint. In almost any instance when the evidence is strong enough to bring one, the same evidence could also sustain a charge that is easier to prove and that carries a weighty penalty (like terrorism conspiracy or material support to terrorism cases). The incentive to resort to a treason charge is thus not strong.
Because of the space issue I will give Holzers answers in the next comment.
Holzer: Let’s shed some light on a very misunderstood subject.
(1) Dr. Pipes is correct that at least in the United States “the crime of treason is defunct” because “the notion of loyalty has fundamentally changed.” Mr. McCarthy is correct that the “dissent revolution” has devalued the concept of treason, equating “aid and comfort to the enemy” with labor picketing. There are other reasons: historical baggage, from when the English crown used treason laws to stifle dissent; confusion between speech/dissent and treason. There is, however a crucially important, albeit pernicious, reason which appears in Mr. McCarthy’s last paragraph—the “practical” reason: “In almost any instance where the evidence is strong enough to bring [a treason prosecution], the same evidence could also sustain a charge that is easier to prove and that carries a weighty penalty (like terrorism conspiracy or material support to terrorism cases).” With all due respect—and I have much for Mr. McCarthy—when our government confronts treasonable conduct, the Attorney General’s last concern should be “practicality.” As I wrote in my monograph, by not prosecuting Fonda, Walker, and Stewart (let alone rogue CIA, FBI, NSA agents, and other American citizen spies) for treason, “the United States government has defaulted on its obligation to provide [not only legal, but] moral justice.”
(2) There is no future for treason prosecutions in the United States until “the notion of loyalty has fundamentally changed,” until the people and their institutions understand the difference between speech/dissent and “aid and comfort”/”levying war,” and until our prosecutors eschew the “practical” for the moral. I fear none of these necessary changes in attitude will occur until one of our cities is destroyed by home-grown terrorists, and maybe not even then.
In the last comment as an answer I will quote Horowitz. I am quoting them because they are more knowledgable in these areas than I am and I prefer to quote those \"in the know\" rather than try to answer something I do not \"know\".
Next Horowitz:
Unfortunately, I agree with Henry Holzer that only a major atrocity – or series of atrocities – inflicted on the homeland will wake Americans up to the fact that we are in a war and have to take the war seriously if we are to defend ourselves. We have already seen the beginning of such an awakening in England, a country which had probably traveled further down the suicidal path than we have. It is obvious that most Americans, and an even greater percentage of so-called liberal Americans don’t even recognize that we are in a war at this point.
Capitulation on the field of battle is apparently seen as a plus by some leaders of the Democratic Party and Republicans like Chuck Hagel. As for the homefront, a bereaved mother makes herself the spokesperson for a movement that regards the terrorists as “freedom fighters” and us as the terrorists and no one in the media or at Homeland Security bats an eyelash. The sentiments expressed on the left are reminiscent of the peace movements of the 1930s who regarded Churchill and Roosevelt as the “real” threats, and Hitler as a somewhat abused and overrated clown. At the instigation of radical groups, more than 350 American cities have passed resolutions refusing to cooperate with the Homeland Security Department and it isn’t even news.
I also agree with Andrew McCarthy that we have redefined legal categories in a bizarre way that makes terrorist organizations part of the democratic process. I also agree with him that for some well meaning people this was an over-reaction to episodes like Watergate, but only if we understand that Watergate was a fairly trivial episode that was exploited by a political movement to cripple the Nixon Administration and defeat America in Vietnam. This movement was quite malevolent and deliberately exaggerated and exploited Watergate to achieve its ends. It was abetted then as the soft on terrorism crowd is now by a willing leftwing press.
Like most Americans who actually love this country and understand that it is in danger, Andrew has a far too benign explanation for what has happened. The redefinitions of national security, loyalty and dissent are the work of a fifty-year campaign by domestic enemies of this country on the political left to weaken our national security structures by redefining the concepts and laws that protect us.
Holzer has a very good piece here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...le.asp?ID=19550
Hurst: The law of treason has another good piece here:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/treason_5.htm
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/...h_treason_6.htm
Wikipedia has the technical definition of treason here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
Spree let's just say I hope I never live in an America like the one you envision. Terrorists can take my life, and I accept that, but they can't my liberties away. Only people who think like you can.
Spree--You're contradicting yourself. First you say this is a new kind of enemy, blah, blah, blah. But then you correctly point out that Padilla could be charged with treason. So our system IS equipped to deal with this \"new\" kind of enemy.
Let's be real. We want to think the world changed on 9/11--it didn't. We just became aware of the horror that many other countries have to deal with everyday. The world didn't change. Terror just was brought to our doorstep.
I thought that our country and Constitution were strong enough to face this. But if you think like Spree, I guess we're not. Instead we have to resort to the tactics of those whom we claim are \"evildoers.\" No one has been brought to justice for the murders on 9/11. Doesn't anyone care about this anymore?
There is no contradiction there. If you believe you have found a contradiction, check your premise.
If you had bothered to read the rest of the comments you will see we have not prosecuted a case of treason since 1945.
To deny that the world has changed for us, here in the US is to live in complete denial, from that day foward we understood that we could be attacked on our own soil with the devastating loss of thousands of lives. If YOU don'tsee that as a attitude changing reality, perhaps a shrink would be in order for ya.
In any war, or fight, you must use the weapons handed to you. Would YOU fight with a knife when your enemy was holding a gun?
Considering we JUST, this year, passed the military commissions act-2006, it stands to reason that the trials and prosecutions woould NOW begin on those in custody.
You really need to wake up ngh65, because the next attack might be in YOUR neck of the woods and who will be there to listen when YOU are the one crying? Not me,because you refuse to deal with reality and are trying to change it to meet your warped views.
![\"Gravatar\"](\"http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=dc1a9cfbb3e3c48ca270885420f5c7d8&default=http%3A%2F%2Fec1.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fx-locale%2Fcommon%2Ftransparent-pixel.gif&rating=PG&size=28\" "\\"Gravatar\\""){kind=avatar}
Actually Greg, the world I \"envision\" is one where we will not have to worry about being attacked on our own soil again.
But to get there, we do have to deal with the reality of today. To think you can get to \"tomorrow\" without having to go through \"today\" is a classic case of denial.
I actually feel bad for ya'll.
Spree--If you had read my post you would have seen that I said the WORLD didn't change on 9/11. I am awake and my mental health is fine, thank you very much. I have never suggested that we shouldn't defend ourselves. And, I firmly believe that those responsible for 9/11 should be brought to justice. But you don't seem to think that the values that this country was founded on are good enough to do that.
You're right . . . things did change on 9/11 . . . accepting your worldview means that the terrorists won.
The first sign of a mental health problem is denial...lol
No you didn't suggest not defending ourselves, you simply suggest that we follow rules created before this new enemy presented itself, in effect, trying to tie the US's hands and feet and blindfold them, then saying go, protect us.
That is skewed reality.
My world view is based on reality, not based on how things \"should\" be.
Now, go troll elsewhere, I have actual \"work\" to do.
I warned you to go troll elsewhere. I do NOT tolerate personal attacks in case you cannot read that statement on ever comment window.
buh bye
Edited By Siteowner
I thought you were interested in a debate. When I outargued you, you called me a troll and deleted my post. I did not attack you personally. Have a good day!
If you call name calling, outarguing, then perhaps we have a difference in our ideas of debate.
You did attack personally and that is NOT accepted here which you would have known had you READ.
I answered all your questions and when you ran out of legitimate questions you resorted to childish temper tantrums. THAT is unacceptable here, I know others allow it. I do not.
Have a good day.
For the record: a troll is one that consistently spends time commenting on sites they do NOT agree with, and deliberately trying to start arguments.
Seemed appropriate and still does.
A few points.
1. Declaration of war by the United States against another nation can only be done by the Congress of the United States. Refer if you will back to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the request, by President Roosevelt, of Congress to declare war on Japan and Germany.
2. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces and may committ those forces to action when there is need. President Bush declaring a \"war on terror\" is not a formal declaration of war by our country on another, but a statement that we will NOT stand for having our shores breached and attacked by foreign or domestic enemies (domestic, i.e. Timothy McVey, foreign, i.e. Al Qaeda, and in cases like Padilla, domestics who join foreign, again being Al Qaeda).
3. The world DID change on 9/11, if you think it didn't, ask any of the people who survived the attacks, or the families of those who perished in them. The world changed because it happened here. The world changed because we were forced to wake up. The world changed because we realized we could no longer simply isolate ourselves from the events happening in Europe, much as we would like to do so. The world changed...deal with it.
4. This site, and it's owner and contributers, are dedicated to the preservation of, and the upholding of, the United States Constitution, and to the ideology on which this great nation was founded. We are not here to uphold the rights of, nor hold sympathy to, traitors and enemies of state. Armed combatants from other nations have no rights to due process under our Constitution; our Constitution is written to guarantee the rights of the citizens of the USA, not the rights of others. Too many try to make our laws all encompassing when the founding fathers had no intention of them covering the entire world.
Commenting by HaloScan