From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

George J. Sherwood wrote:
> Adam wrote:
>
>
>
>>So remind me, from the moment someone said "oy Padilla stop
right there"
>>till someone said "these are the charges your honour"  what was the
>>timeframe?
>
>
> So which part of held as an enemy combatant is so hard to understand?  At
> the point there isn't a timeframe.  Whether it was legal or not to hold him
> as an enemy combatant is up to the courts to decide.
>

Umm no coz the executive simply need to do ye olde trick which is to hold
him till it looks like the court might take an interest while delaying that
moment with all the procedures & quiet chats in judge's country clubs
& then after a number of years, move him to th jurisdiction of a court
etc. That allows you to avoid any court actually ruling on the legality of
what you're doing.

e.g.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/us/03cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This is why it's always usefull for the executive to pack a top court with
it's own people. It's what the Russians & other Former SU republics did
too so you're in good company.

"The six justices who agreed today to defer consideration of the
finding of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit were
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony
M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr."

Huzzah for those loyal to el capitan/patron.


However those of a less partisan nature made some good points:

"Justice Ginsburg said the underlying issues are "of profound
importance to the nation," and that it was high time the court ruled
on the executive branch's power to hold a United States citizen after
declaring him an "enemy combatant."

"Although the government has recently lodged charges against Padilla
in a civilian court, nothing prevents the executive from returning to the
road it earlier constructed and defended," Justice Ginsburg
wrote."

Even in voting not to hear the case, at least for now, Justice Kennedy
wrote, for himself, the chief justice and Justice Stevens, "In light
of the previous changes in his custody status and the fact that nearly four
years have passed since he was first detained, Padilla, it must be
acknowledged, has a continuing concern that his status might be altered
again."

"In the court of its supervision over Padilla's custody and trial, the
district court will be obliged to afford him the protection, including the
right to a speedy trial, guaranteed to all federal criminal
defendants," Justice Kennedy wrote on behalf of himself and his two
colleagues.

And even though Justice Stevens found today that the Padilla case need not
be considered now, he declared at an earlier stage in the case that
"at stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free
society."

But hey that's nothing compared to being a bit nasty to a pol stinking of
the smoke of corruption.

>
>
>>Oh I hope he's waterboarded. After all he's kewl with it & according to
>>this:
>>
>>""According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected
themselves to the
>>water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in.
>>"
>>
>>it'll be quick & thus efficient & thus save the taxpayer a
bundle & I
>>thought he was in favour of keeping the cost of government down....
>
>
> What is with you and the waterboard?  Exactly what would be your purpose for
> this?  None, it is just a way to add something that doesn't make sense
> here.  You are saying that we are using the waterboard in prisons or in
> courts?
>

You do in the GWOT. Old Delay & his ilk have been fully in favour of it
so not to use it on him would be a pity when it could save the state so
much time & expense wrt the trial & lawyers & law enforcement
having to ask tricky questions with Delay's lawyer there seeking to block
anything which might help to convict his client etc.etc.

Now in other states which agree with snatching folk off the street,
imprisoning people w/o proof, charge, trial etc & often in secret the
above is part of the package so I'm curious what your problem is with doing
it to someone who clearly agrees with it. It's a bit like subjecting OBL to
the Sharia.

You clearly do use the waterboard in prisons run by at least one branch of
the US gov. So why not extend it to all? Think of the savings in terms of
police time etc.


>
>
>
>>Shrug. All pols, perjure it's their job. You have to promise everything
>>to everyone while knowing that's impossible.
>>
>
>
> All pols perjure themselves in court?

Clinton was in court?

> I don't think so, if you are saying
> all make campaign or promises that are not always carried out or even meant
> to be carried out, yes.  But that is a far cry from perjury.
>

Yes they do. In our country parliment is considered the highest court &
in your country I think the congress is too. It's where you might try a
president or a Monarch for example.

The only difference is in these courts not merely do they not have to swear
to tell the truth but their speech is protected by law from being used
against them (e.g. for perjury, libel, slander, treason, sedition etc).

This is why the "court" of congress can hold inquiries where one
has to tell them the truth & why they can appoint investigators who
carry the weight of the law in order to bring back information etc to the
court.

I am surprised that you are unaware of this.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5