I've said several times: I don't have that information in the Padilla case (and neither do you), but I can imagine it exists in some cases: I refuse to believe that it's "never" true. Do you believe that the 9/11 crew were determined to commit a crime? And do you believe, in the interest of civil liberties, that they should have been "allowed" to commit their crimes, because that's just the way we do it here?
Is there room for preventative action anywhere in your viewpoint?
> The good solution is justice. It is removing the need for
> terrorism, which is a relatively modern phenomenon and crops
> up whenever political action becomes impossible.
This is all post-hoc: Al-Q was commited to this before Bush did anything. This is not "Bush's fault" -- sure, he's made it worse. But it predates his time, by a lot. There's something bigger at work here.
> But not letting Padilla go means plenty in terms of the civil
> liberties in the U.S.
Just so we're clear, you're saying that nothing is to be done until there's a crime, right? So "conspiracy" should also be abolished?
-----
jks writes, about TROs:
> No. You need to show:
> [...]
Or hey, you just need to ask for it in the case of breaking up a relationship. In most states, it's the default case in a divorce filing: just check the box, a TRO gets issued. But anyway.
> There is absolurely nothing troublesome about this
> procedure from a civil libertarian perspective in my view.
Read my post again, because you missed all the points.
/jordan