Padilla Indicted
 

This U.S. citizen was held for three years without any charges. Is this what we mean by "all available tools?"

I'd say the majority of Americans are just happy this p.o.s. has been off the streets -- 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years, wtf ever.

Yeah, who cares about those silly Constitutional rights?

The administration blinked. They either figured out that they would lose the case in the SC, or figured that they didn't want the negative publicity. If the majority of the citizens in this country really were just happy to have him off the streets, whatever the costs, I can't see why the Bush administration would not have pushed this issue to maximize political gain. They are obviously on the defensive now.

I agree. Which is what has made America worth existing for the last 200 or so years. A small group of people decided that some rights are important enough that they are worth having, even if over half the people eligible to vote in an arbitrary geographic area happen to disagree with those rights. And they built a country based on that idea.

The idea that a United States citizen has been detained for over three years without charge is antithetical to the idea of the United States.

Personally, I think that the guy did some really bad stuff. So charge him, try him, prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and punish him to the extent allowed by law.

And if we can't do that--well then our having kept him detained for the last three years is even more disgusting.

If it takes the Administration 3 years to return an indictment, not even a conviction, even with the powers the Patriot Act has given them, then I'd say we're in bad, bad shape in the War on Terror.

I won't argue with you on that point, heck, I can even tell you why. Or, better yet, I'll borrow from someone who recently put it more eloquently than I can.
"... side by side with the virtues of Western Civilization are paired vices that may destroy us: a narrow legalistic mindset, an emphasis on form over substance, and an unwillingness to do the ruthless and violent things we must if we are to survive. This list is not exhaustive. Perhaps worse than these things, however, the West has nurtured at its own breast a set of execrable, vile, treacherous and treasonous villans that seem to seek at every opportunity to do all they can to ensure its destruction."

That's from paratrooper-turned-Sci-Fi-writer (and apparently occasional NYT op-ed writer) John Ringo ... but I sure wish I could have put it that well myself. He sure boiled it down pretty well AFAIC. But all is not (yet) lost, which he also alludes to.

"Yet there is hope. 'Survival cancels out programming'"

Yeah, that quote is borrowed from sci-fi ... but if it doesn't hold true, you're most certainly right Flere -- we will lose the War On Terror, and a nation to go right along with it.

And, with that, all the treacherous & treasonous villains can have it as much as they like ... if I don't get offline & get my ass in gear so we can leave for the holiday, I'm not going to be around long enough to worry about it.

C'mon Jon, I thought you were above the petty demonizing of all those that oppose you.

Yep. The majority of Americans would rather burn the U.S. Constitution and be "safe from terrorism" than have the freedoms it guarantees and carry some personal risk in their lives. All the while, Bush and his cronies insist the terrorists hate us because of our freedoms... :confused:

They said the same thing about Communism, Jon.

hey, stop reading my blog :p

Yup (or at least he has been for pretty much the whole time).

Always made me wonder why they thought an enormous shipping port was a good place to hold terrorists, but go figure. I'd think South Dakota might be a better choice. :)

this administration = not so bright

Ah! And suddenly it becomes clear. ;)

Charleston is in South Carolina, which is one of the states in the Fourth Circuit--generally considered the most right wing circuit in the country (it's a toss-up between it and the 5th Circuit). For every federal case that the Supreme Court does not hear, the Circuit Court is the final federal court to hear that case. The administration, I am betting, wanted to make sure that any federal actions brought by Padilla would be heard by the Fourth Circuit. That's the same reason most of the anti-terror prosecutions are being heard in Virginia--also in the 4th Circuit. (And the same reason that the ACLU brings various civil rights actions in California. The 9th Circuit is generally considered the most liberal in the country.)

Overall, I think that the difference in the circuits, while real, is somewhat overblown. As much as we try to politicize these judges, there are only a very few of them that I would classify as more political than judicial. Most of them will agree on most things.

The administration may have taken note of this. Padilla, it says above, was indicted in Miami. That's in the 11th Circuit.

I can only imagine what the Republicans would have been saying if it was Clinton who did this.

It's a shame, really, as a Supreme Court consideration of his being held without indictment would have been fun. Fun in that I can't see Scalia being all that happy with it, for instance.

Considering in his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, he told the government to either charge him or let him go, yeah, I don't think he'd be happy with Padilla's treatment at all.

Well, admittedly, this really isn't a D/R issue much any more... there are plenty of liberal democrats who believe these freedoms are critically important, but it's also a pretty basic part of quite a lot of conservative doctrine as well (to limit the power of the government).

However, I think you're exactly right in one respect -- many of the diehard republicans who currently are so boldly in favor of granting all sorts of new and expansive powers to the authoritarian state might be less so if they felt that the government were not firmly and in the control of the party they prefer for the foreseeable future.

Which is exactly why I think these diehard's a bunch of idiots. They can't see past today. They just keep giving the executive all these powers, not realizing that hey, the other party just may win one of these days and be able to wield them. You'd think they'd be concerned that they may be handing over the reigns to this imperial executive to Hillary Clinton in the future, but nope, they can't even think as far as 2008.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...730.xml&coll=2

This story does not do a good job of filling in all the details. Basically, the U.S. moved to transfer Padilla from U.S. Military custody to the custody of Florida law enforcement officials. That motion was unopposed by Padilla. The 4th circuit, on its own initiative, has asked the parties to discuss whether, in light of the changed circumstances (that Padilla is not actually charged with the crimes upon which his extended detention was based), it should vacate its opinion giving the President the right to detain someone in Padilla's situation.