billvon 3,120 #1 December 18, 2003 Some good news this morning. A federal appeals court ruled today that US citizens cannot be deprived of their sixth amendment rights by the US administration. The case in question was the Jose Padilla case, where a US citizen was arrested in Chicago and held incommunicado without trial in a military prison for 18 months. The ruling requires him to be charged with a crime within 30 days and put on trial. Good news for people who believe that essential freedoms are more important than temporary safety (to steal a phrase from Ben Franklin.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #2 December 18, 2003 I particularly liked the part of the decision where they stated, "the President cannot operate in a vacuum". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
panzwami 0 #3 December 18, 2003 QuoteGood news for people who believe that essential freedoms are more important than temporary safety (to steal a phrase from Ben Franklin.) Actually, although this appears all over the Internet, I believe it to be a misquote: http://www.interdisciplines.org/defispublicationweb/papers/13/4 (Look in the "Digitization of Original Sources" section in the gray area on the right) Matt ----- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #4 December 18, 2003 However, if the President were operating in a vacuum, all presidents would have the same fall rate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #5 December 18, 2003 Quote"the President cannot operate in a vacuum". I bet he could. He should try for a few minutes just to make sure.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #6 December 18, 2003 Quote"the President cannot operate in a vacuum". Too bad, I thought that might explain why he sucks! A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #7 December 18, 2003 QuoteQuote"the President cannot operate in a vacuum". Too bad, I thought that might explain why he sucks! Naa... in a vacuum, he'd blow!Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #8 December 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuote"the President cannot operate in a vacuum". Too bad, I thought that might explain why he sucks! Naa... in a vacuum, he'd blow! But he could honestly say he didn't inhale!_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HRHSkyPrincess 0 #9 December 18, 2003 This is a victory for freedom. Now, if we can get the far right with the blinders on to get OFF of the Pledge of Alleigance and restore it to the original, pre-1954, version. One of the freedoms upon which this country was founded was the freedom not just OF religion, but also FROM religion. Remove the phrase "under God" from our Pledge. Yes, I digressed a bit, but it's related to the whole Constitution and Bill of Rights debate. We must be vigilant forever to protect the contents from those who would disembowel it and sew it up to meet their own views. Happy Holidays, y'all!***************** Attitude is everything! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #10 December 18, 2003 QuoteI particularly liked the part of the decision where they stated, "the President cannot operate in a vacuum". That is a perfect example of how the political standing of a judge in NOT impartial.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #11 December 18, 2003 Would this also be a step against the Patriot Act?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #12 December 18, 2003 QuoteHowever, if the President were operating in a vacuum, all presidents would have the same fall rate. So that's what Monica was trying to do! -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #13 December 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteI particularly liked the part of the decision where they stated, "the President cannot operate in a vacuum". That is a perfect example of how the political standing of a judge in NOT impartial. Why is that? It's a perfectly valid statement. The president tried to use executive power to circumvent basic constitutional protections and bypassing congress. Saying he can't operate in a vaccum is akin to saying he can't operate outside the system of checks and balances built into the constitution which is exactly what he was and is trying to do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #14 December 18, 2003 QuoteA victory for our constitution As was impeaching President Clinton for commiting perjury. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #15 December 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteA victory for our constitution As was impeaching President Clinton for commiting perjury. Chris There must be tens of thousands of cases by now where the courts have protected the Constitution. Why do you folks keep picking on this one case which, in the great scheme of things, is irrelevant. Beside, IIRC the Senate found him not guilty.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #16 December 18, 2003 No, a Democratic Senate found him not guilty. The question as to whether he commited perjury was already answered. The reason we pick this incident is to show that it works both ways. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #17 December 18, 2003 QuoteBeside, IIRC the Senate found him not guilty. and OJ was found not guilty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #18 December 18, 2003 Oh, I forgot, the Democratic Senate could not figure out what the meaning of "is" is. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScubaSteve 0 #19 December 18, 2003 I have to agree with this as painful as it is. I would personally like to see Padilla fry. But this is the US and if we dont protect our citizens, even the worst, than what is the point. I am disappointed that this has become a political issue. I think we agree that Padilla is guilty of something. Does anyone know if he was caught with actual destructive materials or just plans? Is it legal to have plans for explosives? I am just curious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #20 December 18, 2003 QuoteDoes anyone know if he was caught with actual destructive materials or just plans? No, no one does. Mainly because he's been held illegally and denied the right to defend himself for a year and a half. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #21 December 18, 2003 QuoteOh, I forgot, the Democratic Senate could not figure out what the meaning of "is" is. I'm sure you also approved spending $50M of taxpayers money on the Whitewater investigation, run by a Republican, which also went nowhere.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #22 December 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteOh, I forgot, the Democratic Senate could not figure out what the meaning of "is" is. I'm sure you also approved spending $50M of taxpayers money on the Whitewater investigation, run by a Republican, which also went nowhere. That $50mil was money well spent. It gave the right wingers the ability to bring up irrelevant issues every time Bush is discussed (see above). It's not like it was wasted on giving medicine to poor people or anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #23 December 18, 2003 >As was impeaching President Clinton for commiting perjury. As you perhaps may recall, the impeachment failed, hence it would be more like a failure, rather than a victory, for prosecutors. Congrats, BTW, for making it all the way to post 14 before succumbing to the desire to add the obligatory right wing slam on Clinton. I keep thinking that at some point republicans will end their hate/love affair with Clinton and instead start concentrating on what's going on in 2003; but hey, whatever floats your boat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #24 December 18, 2003 >Does anyone know if he was caught with actual destructive materials >or just plans? Is it legal to have plans for explosives? I look forward to the trial where that material will be presented. If he is guilty of what he's (unofficially) accused of, I hope that at the very least he spends the rest of his life sitting in a cell as an example of what potential terrorists can expect in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #25 December 18, 2003 As perhaps you may recall, he was impeached, just not convicted and removed from office. The impeachment did not fail, it still remains his legacy. And Kallend, I never mentioned Whitewater. That was your assumption. Like I can assume that you are a socialist who despises our country and wants to see it fail. But that would be just an assumption. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)