>
>>Should the government be allowed to use secret warrants to find out what
>>books and videos you have read and seen?
>
>
>
>Let me reverse that question. Should a person with a criminal record,
>known to have contacts with terrorist organizations, be released from
>custody on a technicality?
>
> In my book, taking a serious real life risk to uphold a principle is
>fundamentalism, pure and simple.
Ahhh, "technicalities." Also known asfundamental rights, if ya like 'em. What's the risk here? If there's evidence that Padilla is up to some criminal activity, I say, bust him. If there;s not, cut him loose. Please note, Wojtek, perhaps inspired by his Communist past, is defending the proposition that the govt can seize a citizen and hold him without trial indefinitely merely because he has associated with bad guys and has a criminal background. W offers no reason whatsoever to think that this makes us safer instead of less safe.
W, care to spell it out? Will I help if I do it for you? The govt has the right to indefinitely detail anyone whom it suspects of possibly being involved in terrorism indefinitely, without trial or rights, especially if the person is unsavory, even without evidence. ANyone who disagrees is a terrorsymp civil libertarian fundamentalsit who probably ought to be locked up too, especilaly if she's a lawyer who sealously represents herclients. This won't deter the fanatics, but if we lock up everyone who's suspected of being suspect, we might get some people who plan to do us garm. Or not, you never can tell.
W, I think you have gone over to the other side.
jks
>
>wojtek
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com