Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bill of Rights trashed in "war" on terrorism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bill of Rights trashed in "war" on terrorism



    Here is an excerpt from the above article:

    "The case was transferred to military custody Sunday, Ashcroft said, after President Bush designated Padilla as an "enemy combatant who poses a serious and continuing threat to the American people and our national security."

    Padilla is being held in the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C. It was unclear whether he might be headed for trial by a military tribunal, possibly as the first defendant to face such a panel since Bush announced last year that he would create tribunals as part of the war on terrorism.

    Bush has said the tribunals would apply only to non-U.S. citizens. It is unclear whether Padilla would be an exception to that rule..."

    Mr Padilla is a United States citizen. He is entitled to all of the rights of Americans as they are spelled out in the Constitution. He was arrested on American soil. Regardless of his slimey status as an enemy of the United States, trying this man by a military tribunal is an outrage.

    This so called war can last for ever and the President even said as much. So that means that our rights are trashed. By, by miss American pie...

  • #2
    Re: Bill of Rights trashed in "war" on terrorism

    Originally posted by Lincoln
    Bush has said the tribunals would apply only to non-U.S. citizens.
    Pardon?

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't think that the people of this nation will stand for this but if there is another attack then they will probably ignore it in support of this endless war.

      Comment


      • #4
        And so it starts...

        Comment


        • #5
          I imagine that he was transfered to a military court so that his civil rights would be fewer?

          I really am not in a position to judge, but it is always these two things that are on the balance: the protection of civil rights against dire national security concerns.

          Personally the phrase "national security" always gave me the goozebumps, but is necessairy...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by paiktis22
            I imagine that he was transfered to a military court so that his civil rights would be fewer?

            I really am not in a position to judge, but it is always these two things that are on the balance: the protection of civil rights against dire national security concerns.

            Personally the phrase "national security" always gave me the goozebumps, but is necessairy...
            Civil rights are always infringed in war time and that is understandable. The problem this time however is that this war will never end. So the rights are gone forever.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Lincoln
              Civil rights are always infringed in war time and that is understandable. The problem this time however is that this war will never end. So the rights are gone forever.
              Lincoln, do you remember in the times of the Cold War, many political analysts had said that this partision of the world into these two blocks was an historical "abnormality" that was destined to come to an end, one way or another, and could not be, factually, perpetuated.

              I wonder if this is the same with terrorism. I'm saying this in respect to the fact that there are only a handful of terrorist squads out there. Not complete power blocks.

              This war against terrorism was actually predicted (by several political analysts, many of them american) as the next "fight" of many countries.

              IMHO, this will not end untill the parts of this world where terrorists are spawn can afford decent levels of quality of life for their citizens.

              But in respect to the reduction of civil rights in America and to a lesser degree elsewhere (since the threat appears not to be so grave), maybe new technologies will come into the scene that will in fact protect many of these rights in the short term. Maybe.

              Comment


              • #8
                --"This so called war can last for ever and the President even said as much. So that means that our rights are trashed."

                What I don't understand is why this could possibly surprise anyone. It's not the first time these exact same methods have been used to do just that. Politicians didn't take very long to figure out that they can do a lot of extra things in the name of a war, and almost always keep them around after said war.
                It just took them a while to come up with these permanent wars. Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terror, now they're trying to start (of all things) a War on Fat (the language they've chosen to represent themselves is so telling)...

                --"I'm saying this in respect to the fact that there are only a handful of terrorist squads out there."

                They don't have to constitute a power block for the government to have enough excuse to keep the war going. This is also one of those things where a wag the dog situation could apply, since terrorist incidents could be easily faked if the people in power were so inclined (I don't think they are yet, on the whole, but the possibility doesn't escape me).

                Wraith
                "I object to power without purpose, and to authority without restraint."
                -- Mr Spock

                Comment


                • #9
                  Better than the McCarthy times.
                  Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                  "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                  He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Paiktis, I don't see how technology can help much here. In fact that is just another avenue where the rights have been trashed. Surely this guy would be found guilty in a court of law if the evidence is as the government says it is.

                    This man can be held "for the duration of the conflict" without trial.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Imprisonment for an indefinite period without trial to one of your own citizens is a very serious violation of human rights.

                      Of course nothing will be done about it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't know. I think that something will be done about it. There are too many people here that can still see beyond the immediate crisis to roll over so quickly.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Wake up people: This guy has been stripped of his citizenship.

                          And Lincoln ignores this part of the article:

                          A former Chicago man who federal authorities allege had become part of an Al Qaeda terrorist plot to detonate a "dirty" radioactive bomb in the United States--possibly in Washington--was in U.S. military custody Monday following his arrest a month ago at O'Hare International Airport.
                          A dirty radioactive bomb... and you were going to let this guy get a chance in a civilian court? Absolutely not. He had plans to blow up a dirty weapon in the US.

                          I am glad Bush did this.
                          For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Whatever their crime was it does not justify unfair punishment.

                            If this man has not had a trial he is not guilty.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Giancarlo, the problem is that this power will be abused. I have no sympathy for this particuar individual but does not the thought of indefinite detention without trial bother you?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X