> Isn't it obvious? It has nothing to do with the merits
> of the case. If they had a case against Padilla they
> would have charged, tried, and jailed him as you
> suggest. They wanted a test case to see if the courts
> would stand for indefinite administative detention of
> US citizens on the govts mere say so -- foreigners
> they got at least offshore at Gitmo -- and Padilla is
> a good case for that because he's unsympathetic, a
> dark-skinned P.R. ex-gangbanger turned towlhead. The
> 4th Cir, the likeliest venue to support this sort of
> evil shit, of course said sure. You're next. jks
>
Right on the money.
If they have the evidence, charge him... Even if they never tell the public the nature of the charges...
Charge him or release him. Those are the options according to the Constitution... the LAW of the land.
No other options exist, and Congress can NOT change one word in the constitution without the public's voted consent.
Period.
Here's a perinent document from the good old days, the turn of the 20th century... portions borrowed liberally from an offlist post.
Read it carefully. To the best of my knowledge this ruling has NEVER been oveturned. It's in regard to a couple of Ponca Indians that were forcibly repatriated to the rez by General George Crook at the turn of the 20th century. They sued him & the US government for a Writ of Habeus Corpus and the judge, Dundy made it quite clear in his ruling that if you are in detention by the US government, the constitutional rights absolutely apply to citizens, non-citizens and foreigners.
If you are under "color" of our flag, or our authority, the constitutional safeguards absolutely apply.
That encompasses the situation at Guantanamo, and Jose Padilla
United States, ex rel. Standing Bear, v. George Crook, a Brigadier-General of the Army of the United States. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/ntreaty/ncase001.htm
Judge Dundy made an un-fleshed out exception for times of war, but as someone has noted, this one's not constitutional.
Sen. Robert Byrd doesn't quite go that far, but he does use the Padilla case in his book Losing America to indicate the absolute lack of respect for, or understanding the current administration has, of the constitution at this juncture in history.
He think the government is out of line in the Padilla case, and he may not be a Constitutional scholar, but...
Everyone knowledgeable I talk to of any political stripe says it's bad... very bad. I call it subvert fascism, in that they won't say it is the product they're selling... but once the American public gets a good look inside the box at home, they're gonna want to take it back, but they won't be able to.
Leigh www.leighm.net
Have you seen my newsfeeds?: http://leighmdotnet.blogspot.com/ Got RSS?: http://www.furl.net/members/leighm/rss.xml