Is there a witch hunt on in the US?

[billvon 3,107]

>Bill, would you please stop with the self-righteous "I'm an American
> who realizes that most Americans are simpletons, which therefore
> excludes me from judgment of the American masses . . .

No, I recognize I'm part of the problem. That's one of the reasons I do post/protest/vote on the subject, so I can be less of the problem and more of the solution. However, I do support my government even when it is doing something stupid, so I will not claim that I am innocent of the foolishness that's going on.

> and pretty much means that I am an f'ing genius" attitude. If you
> would like to explore the shortcomings of Americans, what say we
> start with a critical analysis of your infantile and generally incoherent
> rants!?

Personal attacks aren't welcomed here. If my posts upset you, or you find them objectionable, don't read them.

[billvon 3,107]

>You believe that he should have been allowed to continue his
> mission until the government had enough evidence, beyond a
> reasonable doubt, to take him to court.

Rumsfeld has said that they have no intention of charging him with anything - they just want to question him. That's fine; question him and release him. I don't think an indefinite imprisonment of someone who has no charges against them (and whom will not have any charges leveled against them according to the government) is all that reasonable.

>You believe that he should have been allowed to continue his
> mission until the government had enough evidence, beyond a
> reasonable doubt, to take him to court.

Not at all. Arrest him and charge him with a crime. If it's going to take three months to do that, then say so. If the charges pan out, then put him in jail. If the government does not have enough evidence to charge him - isn't there a chance that he really isn't guilty of anything?

And this is just the beginning. ""One [intelligence] estimate is that there are up to 5,000 people in the United States connected to al Qaeda," one U.S. intelligence official said." (washington post) Really think it's OK to hold even, say, 1000 people secretly forever? I don't. Padilla's case is critical in that respect; the precedent will be set.

We have a system of laws and judiciary in this country that has worked well for 200 years. We are in no more danger than we were during the civil war, world war I, world war II, the cold war etc. The constitution stood during those trying times - it can stand now.

>I know that it kills you that you are not getting 100% of the
> information and evidence against Padilla. The government must not
> consider you to be in a 'need to know' position.

I agree that I have no need to know. It bothers me very much that the US government thinks that both he and his lawyer have no need to know, either - especially since Rumsfeld himself said there was no link between Padilla and Al Quaeda. Imagine being arrested and put in jail for a secret crime, one you have no way to appeal or even answer.

>except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
> when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

You argue that Padilla is in "actual service" in a militia or army? That's really a stretch. Rumsfeld himself has said there is no direct link between Padilla and Al Quaeda.

[billvon 3,107]

>Bill, unfortunately the US government is in a rough spot.

I agree, but we've been in rougher spots. We had a civil war that just about tore the country in two. The constitution stood. We had a world war that was started with a much worse case of "terrorism" than we had on 9/11 - 2400 americans were killed in Pearl Harbor by an aggressive act by a much, much worse enemy than Al Quaeda. The constitution took quite a battering during that war - we actually had concentration camps for japanese nationals here, and 99.9% of the people who have looked at that realize that it was a huge mistake. But it prevailed.

We are in a rough spot now, and it will take determination and a strong will to keep the country safe. The backbone of our country is our constitution. If we abandon it in the name of defense, then we are the fools - we will have given away freely what others seek to take from us, our freedom.

>I hope that we can somehow stop the terrorism without burning the
> Constitution but I'm not really confident that will ever happen.

We've done it before.

>I
> think either terrorism is here to stay or we are going to be looking
> at a VERY differen't society here in the States.

Terrorism is certainly here to stay. How many americans remember there was a plot to blow up the WTC that involved explosives and nerve gas that almost worked, almost ten years ago? There has been terrorism in the middle east for a long, long time. There will be terrorism here for a long time. We can slow it by not giving others reasons to hate us (which in general means leaving them alone) but we can't stop it.

As we fight terrorism, we have to make decisions on how to balance the individual's rights against the safety of our society. How do we do that, how do we strike the balance? Fortunately, we have that piece of paper that tells us how to do that - how to fight our enemies while keeping our people free. The constitution was born of a war; it is not too fragile to survive terrorism.