Padilla
 

Judge Luttig bitch-slapped the DOJ today in the Padilla case. Ouch.

Here's a taste:

• For, as the government surely must understand, although the various facts it has asserted are not necessarily inconsistent or without basis, its actions have left not only the impression that Padilla may have been held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake –- an impression we would have thought the government could ill afford to leave extant. They have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the President possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war against terror –- an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant. And these impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the government’s credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today. While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be.

Padilla
 

Here's what I can't get by from you guys, and why the 2004 election was such a cakewalk,

Hypo: on 9/11 in Little Rock 4 saudi nationals were stopped at the airport because the baggage screener saw box cutters in their bags. They were held for a little bit, then 9/11 happened, Now the FBI has them- what do you charge them with? trying to bring something wrong on a plane? Me, my wife and both kids are guilty of that.

You, and the rest of the people looking at this shit from the "how do we investigate the crime that was 9/11" crowd just don't see. Fortunately, for my kids and your's Ty, the majority of American voters understand- Bitch now- bitch 40 years from now BECAUSE BUSH MADE AMERICA SAFER.

Padilla
 

A judge whom Bush almost picked for the Supreme Court a few months ago does this, and that's all you've got?

Do you understand why the Padilla facts are unlike your hypothetical?

Do you think it should be OK for the government to arrest a US citizen here in the US, lock him up in a military prison, and refuse to charge him or give him access to counsel?

Padilla
 

Ask Judge Luttig about that -- your boys had him short-listed for the Supreme Court.

What I can't get from you guys, and why you're out on your asses in 2008, is an understanding of a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things.

You can get there without being a knight in shining armor but also without wading knee-deep though the shit and turning into what you despise. There is a happy medium. This administration seems too often to lose sight of that concept.

S_A_M

Padilla
 

S_A_M -- Check your PMs.

Padilla
 

I don't give a fuck what the judge is short listed for- and change my hypo from Saudis to US citizens. What would you do with them? Let them go, right? They didn't do anything wrong.

Here is reality. The laws do not reflect where we are at. The Uk has more realistic laws on this. I'm glad the admin says that it will hold onto some guy who had Afghan training. What do you think he was up to- just wanted to become a lean mean fighting machine?

Padilla
 

OK, I will answer your dumb-ass hypo, and then maybe you can try to say something intelligent about Luttig's opinion, which is much more interesting. I pick those guys up, and I lock them up for as long as it takes to find evidence that they've acted in concert -- not very long, to be sure -- and then I try them for attempted murder, conspiracy, terrorism, tax evasion, and anything else that will stick, after which they get sentenced for the rest of their natural lives to a maximum security prison in Colorado.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Hank and Ty etc.

I am a little confused by your debate.

Hank: are you suggesting that US citizens can have their phones tapped without warrants? Or that US citizens can be held in Jail without access to a lawyer indefinitely? No phone call?

I would rather have twenty towers taken out and toxins released in the Bay Area than that be a standard precedent. Wouldn't you?

You are arguing something else correct?

Ty:

From the other point of view if Two Saudi citizens were caught getting onto a flight on 9-11 with paper cutters put them in jail and throw away the key. The only reason I can see for letting them out is if Saudi Arabia complains. Otherwise they are history.

Do you have a problem with that Ty?

If the people with the paper cutters were American citizens then they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

I invite you to review the portion of my post that referred to "a maximum security prison in Colorado" and "the rest of their natural lives."

They're committing a crime, so prosecute them. If the evidence is clear -- and the hypo is that it is -- then they'll go away.

What kills me is that it's the conservatives who are talking the most about how important it is to bring democracy to Iraq who seem to lack faith in our institutions and rule of law here.

Suppose Hillary Clinton wins in '08. Would you feel comfortable living in a country where she asserts the unfettered power to conduct warrantless searches of U.S. citizens' communications, in the name of terrorism?

If conservatives don't step up to Bush now, he's not backing down. And if he pulls this shit for three years, y'all are going to have a hard time reining the executive branch in when it's run by someone you don't like.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Ty and Spank- my 7 year old son (at the time) tried to bring a laser gun on a plane- if we had caught M. Atta version 2 with his box cutters that morning he would only be different because he was an Arab. My boy doesn't belong in prison and neither does that guy, right- that where your socratic method leads. The law doesn't fit today- the UK's might- our's does not.

the only real question is whether you let the killer go because the law doesn't address the crime yet-. Ty I know your answer, but Spank I'm still hopeful.

Padilla
 

At least one person figures Stevens is holding out for 2009.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

I have no problem when prosecutors exercise their discretion and decide not to charge someone they could charge, if they do so wisely. Zero tolerance policies are an abdication of judgment. Any prosecutor should recognize that when you bring the force of the government's power to bear on people, you don't do it lightly.

But that's completely different from announcing that the executive branch gets to lock people up, or snoop on people, without telling peopel and free of judicial review.

I find it hard to believe that you don't grasp the distinction between those things, but there you go.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Warrantless searches on US citizens and detention of US citizens without access to a lawyer and a speedy trial is not cool. I don't know if I really qualify as a conservative (most Republicans think I don't, most Dems think I do), but I don't need this power in the hands of a Dem to be scared of it. I don't want anyone having that kind of power. Up until a few days ago, the investigations into my background, credit checks (I have had sixty five credit checks run on me and all my alma maters have been contacted at least five times) etc. have seemed humourous. But once they can throw people in jail for no reason and deny them legal council all of a sudden this stuff ain't so funny anymore.

Full page newspaper ads attacking incumbant Republican congressmen are going up in five districts next week with my signature on them (one of the criticisms is that they voted for torture - I am not sure how the votes worked out on the McCain thing but for some reason the ED thinks we can safely see these guys voted for torture). When they start rounding people up for the camps it looks as though I will be one of the first ones able to pick which bunkbed I want.

However, what they do with foreign nationals doesn't bother me so much. I would like to see them not tortured and not brutalized. But when we need to weigh their well being with National Security, I vote for national security (this may seem hypocritical being that I am attacking these guys for voting for torture - but politics is hardball baby. If the good Lord give you an AK47 you use it).

On a final note, if you think that the Bush loyalists are going to complain about this you are wrong. It is up to you and me baby. We need to sing like canaries (I always do anyway) because no one else will. Even if things go swimmingly well for now on in Iraq the hard core liberals are never going to think the war was a good idea. On the flip side no matter how much Bush (although I must say I prefer Gonzales looking into my dirty laundry than Ashcroft) infringes on civil liberties his loyalists will think it is OK. Complaining is the job of the loyal opposition.

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

For me the dividing line is whether or not Mr. Atta is a US citizen. If Mr. Atta is not a US citizen send him to Gitmo and throw away the key. But if he is a US citizen he needs to be arraigned and found guilty by a Jury or let free. Was that the answer you were looking for?

No surprize here but I am confused again.....
 

Au contraire -- if folks like me are the ones complaining, with a few of you maverick GOP types, but most Republicans stick with the White House, then Bush is not going to back down, and Congress will not push the issue. It's up to Republicans to make him see why he's wrong.