Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 2149 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Good thing nobody really feels that way.
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is the only word for a worldview that has Scooter Libby as a kind of facsist war criminal and Abdullah Al-Muhajir, f/k/a Jose Padilla, ex-Chicago gang member, turned terror-tourist, as a kind of paragon of freedom fighters for civil liberties.
Because that would be nauseating. Fortunately the people you describe only exist in your twisted imagination. Everyone knows that Scooter Libby isn't a war criminal. He's merely a security risk. And Padilla isn't a Freedom fighter. He's merely a guinea pig.
-
Some reading for those interested
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh...and shooter too....
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20070305.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20070312.html
-
We hold these truths to be self evident
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](which is why we need to explain repeatedly)
That all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that among those are Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
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.
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that in amendment 14 they actually use the word citizen which mean that when they refer to "any person" they must actually be referring to "any person!"
-
My favorite link
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I always post this whenever privacy rights and Habeus Corpus gets incorrectly tagged as an issue on the "left"
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm
The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights
John Ashcroft - objecting to the Clinton clipper-chip proposals.
-
A truly excellent example
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]of truly lousy news coverage:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-padilla17aug17,1,6197477.story?page=2&coll=la-headlines-frontpage
I just encountered this tonight but it does provide an excellent example of how news coverage can totally distort a situation by insisting on he-said/she-said construction.
a verdict that follows a long legal battle that pitted the Bush administration against civil liberties groups over how terrorism suspects are detained and should be prosecuted.
....
The conviction of Padilla, 36, and two codefendants was a boost for an administration that had received sharp criticism for holding Padilla as an "enemy combatant" for 3 1/2 years without due process until the courts insisted he be charged with a crime or set free.
The government's success in the Padilla case could now encourage officials to bring other enemy combatants into federal courtrooms.
"This clearly shows that in some cases, yes, the process can handle it," Morford said. "You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. And these particular charges did work in a regular criminal trial."
Donna Newman of New York, Padilla's initial attorney who fought for months just to get a lawyer-client meeting with him, agreed, saying the administration was wrong not to "trust the courts" for so long.
"I don't necessarily agree with the verdict," she said. But in the future, "the government should be hard-pressed to say the [criminal justice] system doesn't work. It shows you can bring forth the evidence and try someone in court."
But Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said the jury's decision was not a blanket approval of how the administration had dealt with terrorism defendants.
"This verdict, if it stands, cannot be seen as an endorsement of a regime of unreviewable executive detention," he said. "President Bush should not take today's ruling as permission to continue to hold Americans outside the law at his whim."
If, as Glenn argues, the guily verdict proves that the Criminal justice sytem CAN deal with terrorist cases then how is the conviction a boost for the administration which has insisted all along that it cannot? The answer is of course that it isn't and this particular reporter is full of malarky.
-
Its the power...
[Read the article: The Padilla verdict]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see an opportunity to enlighten.
War supporters tend to assert that showing weakness or a willingness to negotiate encourages our enemies and invites attack. They have a cynical view of human nature which suggests that anyone who sees an opportunity to do harm without consequence is going to take it. Why do they then find it so difficult to beleive that precisely the same mechanism applies to our government leaders and our soldiers and police when faced with an opportunity in the form of prisoners and "alleged terrorists"?
The checks to bad behavior have to be in place at all levels or the results are going to be quite predictable and universally ugly.