Supreme Court will Hear Padilla Case
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Friday it would decide whether President Bush has the power to order an American citizen seized on U.S. soil held as an enemy combatant in another case arising from Washington's war on terror.

Expanding its review of the government's actions, the high court agreed to decide the case of Jose Padilla, who has been held since May 2002 as a suspect in an alleged al Qaeda plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.


His case involved fundamental constitutional questions about Bush's powers as commander in chief. It has pitted the government's national security arguments adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against concerns that civil liberties have been violated.

___________

This should be interesting

Anyone else here feel that we toss the term "American citizen" around way to liberally, and it is far to easy a title to earn?

TR

Yes, Sir, I do.

I was blessed to be born in America and to enjoy the freedoms and rights afforded to me as a citizen, but never do I take them for granted. They were paid for long ago, and will continue to be paid for, by the Men and Women who give their blood, sweat and tears and sometimes their lives. Consequently I feel that I, and all citizens of America, have a responsibilty to be productive contributing citizens and positively impact society in whatever ways we can.

In this day and age, I fail to understand when a "citizen" plots terrorist activities against our Country how they retain their rights; they wish to destroy "the Infidel" but then expect due process to be afforded to them to protect their civil liberties. It is as if suddenly they are American Citizens once again. As far as I'm concerned these people give up their rights when they strike or plot against our Nation. Even more mind boggling for me is attempting to reason with those that feel the terrorists have more rights than the victims...real or intended. They give me a headache.

Very well put Gypsy.

I too do not understand how an individual can expect to be afforded rights bought and paid for by those the terrorists intended to kill in the first place.

The oath I swore on Wednesday says I will defend this country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It would seem to me that once an individual began to plot against andor kill the citizens of this country they would have lost their rights previously afforded them under the constitution.

Wasn't Padilla born in the US?

That is how most of these dirtbags become "American citizens".

TR

I dont think it should matter whether or not a person is born here.

If a person takes up arms against their own countrymen they do not deserve the rights afforded them under The Constitution.

NDD, yes he was born in Brooklyn. He was also a member of a Chicago gang.

Thanks Surgicalcric.

So how can we strip his citizenship before we have the trial? RL?

I don't believe we can.

What we should be taking a look at is the law that says being born in the U.S. makes one a U.S. citizen.

It occurs to me that this law was written with a view of the U.S. as a growing country with plenty of room for all and very slow, limited travel. The current situation seems to call for immigration reform, beginning with this.

TR

DAMN! LOL - that's pretty much the standard around the world Boss.

Too far over the top?

Most countries do not accord the citizenship rights that this one does.

Besides, I thought we liked controversy and bold, contentious statements here.

You have seen how the Visa guys at the AmEmbassies look at pregnant applicants.

Just my .02, regardless of how strongly I feel about it.

Discussion?

TR

Alternative criteria that is manageable?

Born here, specific number of years of satisfactory residency, followed by a citizenship test, or military service, like we do for adults?

Limited citizenship rights till then.

TR

I could live with it.

What about those that slip in under the radar?

There should also be a way to strip ones citizenship from them after having been charged with a crime during a war time against the US so said person can be tried as an enemy combatant.

TR would you also include civil service for those that could not serve in the Military for some reason? (ie: physical limitations, asthma, vision problems or the like)

Not speaking for TR but adding my .02... I think Fire, EMS, LEO would be included in there.

No. Serve or die!

LOL!

I think that would make sense as well...you are serving the community at large.

So, would you let people with Visa's enlist?

One other change. Marrying an American should not
expedite the process.

I need to find the article about a New York woman that
married aliens for a living. She was on husband 85, or some
ridiculous number, when BCIS/INS finally caught up with her.

AP -- Fayetteville, North Carolina -- February 22, 2004:

Local authorities announced today that The Reaper has been taken into custody on charges of plotting to destroy Washington and New York with tactical nuclear devices. Authorities allege that The Reaper is the leader of an Al Qaida sleeper cell formed over 20 years ago, when The Reaper entered the United States armed forces. Authorities seized a laptop computer and satellite phone from The Reaper's residence which they say he used to communicate secretly with his Al Qaida handlers.

"The first thing we'll do is strip him of his purported citizenship under the newly enacted "Gypsy's Law," said Richard B. "Dick" White, III, the United States Attorney for the District of North Carolina. "This man obviously doesn't deserve a trial or any other protections available to patriotic, law-abiding citizens."

* * *

The laptop and sat phone were planted. The Reaper is completely innocent. But he's at Gitmo being treated like an enemy soldier.

Still want to deny U.S. citizens their constitutional rights? Or are you guys going to try to rewrite your proposed new laws?

:D

BTW, my opinion is that I want to make life difficult for criminals and terrorists, but I do support many constitutional rights for criminal defendants. Until you've been accused, you may not appreciate how important they are.

Molon Labe!

If you catch me, you can have me.

The real issue is these people's "citizenship".

TR

When a citizen is convicted of a felony, the citizen's rights are impaired. You lose the right to vote, for example.

OK, can someone tell me what "Molon Labe" means? :(

The last sentence is understood. The fact that TR was the wrongly accused person in my example does not mean I was replying to his post. I really was responding to a bunch of posts in the thread at the same time.

Right! Until you've been unjustly accused by the Man, you just don't know. What's the reason for unjust accusations?

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...=&threadid=667

LOL - coppers need to quit playing GI Joe and get right.

:D

BTW, Sacamuelas is perpetuating the problem.

At what point has the person "taken up arms"? When the person is accused of it?

I'm going to go off on a little tangent here. I think one of the biggest problems is that the Gov doesn't want to tell the judges how they know XYZ dude is a terrorist, sympathizer, whatever. The same problem appears to be occurring with other branches of government, like Senators, etc. Why is that? IMO, because they KNOW there will be a leak. When's the last time we tried a major pwoer figure for leaking classified information? Damn Senator's aids running to the press, judges talking more than defense lawyers, etc. The whole thing has become a whore to the press.

If we can't trust a US District Court Judge with state secrets, he shouldn't be in the damn position. Same same with Senators.

One argument is that leaked secure information is more than just a problem in itself- it also allows the government to be increasingly minimalistic with the truth, while maintaining public support. Some say that instead of lying, the government simply says that pertinent information exists, but can't be exposed because of potential security hazards.

In my eyes, the lack of control over individuals- aides, judges, and most importantly the press- has created this problem. On the other hand, I think that a free press is generally beneficial (although often annoying), and is a hallmark of enlightened democracy. I'm not sure that laws can solve this problem, and that it instead relies on the morality of the government.


Solid

I believe it means: "Come and get them" and dates back
to the Spartans. Don't know all the details.

I may be intruding, but isn't the thread slightly off topic?
I thought TR was questioning how and when a person
is granted "Citizenship" not how to revoke rights.

Further, I thought all residents of the USA were equal under
the law regardless of Citizenship. However, the status
of Citizenship grants people access to areas that are not
normally permitted in other countries. For example: serving
in the Military or Government.

my .02

Which half of the country would have lost citizenship in the Civil War? Those who began the offensive? Those who defended themselves? All the above? I do not have the answer to RL's question, but it will be intersting to see how that is defined in this thread.

Rhonda

I am not sure I have the answer.

I simply feel there should be a way to try even those who have citizenship as an enemy combatant. Citizenship does not guarantee loyalty to the country in which one is a citizen.

The subject is citizenship.

The two items being discussed are, IMHO, different sides of the same coin.

I have not read the Padilla decisions, so I don't know the facts. But there is a difference between a U.S. citizen being captured on a foreign battlefield on which he is fighting with our enemies (e.g. Lindh), on the one hand, and arresting a U.S. citizen in the United States on charges of treason or whatever (which I believe is the Padilla situation, although I'm not sure).

I am wholly in favor of making it easier to prosecute criminal defendants. The exclusionary rule, for example, is a bit out of control at the moment from what I understand. (The rule lets lots of bad guys go free when evidence was not properly acquired, even if the guy is definitely guilty and the crime is horrific.) But if I get arrested and charged with a serious crime, I want the government to have to prove me guilty before my rights are taken away from me. That's the only point I was trying to make with the TR hypothetical. You can't just assume people are guilty first. That is the essence of tyranny.

My own law! ;) Actually it was NDD who wanted to know if his citizenship could be stripped before trial. I guess I find it ironic that these enemy combatants who intend harm and destruction now wish to take advantage of the rights of law abiding citizens of the very country they are trying to destroy.

Edited for clarity

I have to get on a plane soon, but here are some links. I'll read the stuff later if I have time. You all can have a head start. ;)

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/suprem...-1027.pet.html

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/suprem...-1027.resp.pdf

http://www.thefiringline.com/HCI/molon_labe.htm

"(mo-lone lah-veh)

Two little words. With these two words, two concepts were verbalized that have lived for nearly two and a half Millennia. They signify and characterize both the heart of the Warrior, and the indomitable spirit of mankind. From the ancient Greek, they are the reply of the Spartan General-King Leonidas to Xerxes, the Persian Emperor who came with 600,000 of the fiercest fighting troops in the world to conquer and invade little Greece, then the center and birthplace of civilization as we know it. When Xerxes offered to spare the lives of Leonidas, his 300 personal bodyguards and a handful of Thebans and others who volunteered to defend their country, if they would lay down their arms, Leonidas shouted these two words back.

Molon Labe! (mo-lone lah-veh)

They mean, “Come and get them!� They live on today as the most notable quote in military history. And so began the classic example of courage and valor in its dismissal of overwhelming superiority of numbers, wherein the heart and spirit of brave men overcame insuperable odds. Today, there lies a plaque dedicated to these heroes all at the site. It reads: “Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by, that here, obedient to their laws we lie.�

We have adopted this defiant utterance as a battle cry in our war against oppression because it says so clearly and simply towards those who would take our arms.

It signifies our determination to not strike the first blow, but also to not stand mute and allow our loved ones, and all that we believe in and stand for, to be trampled by men who would deprive us of our God-given – or natural, if you will – rights to suit their own ends."

edited: Just saw RL's links (disregard).

All in one answer/questions
 

Promises... Promises.

RL beat me to the punch. If we strip citizens of their Constitutional rights before due process, then what good is the Constitution? If we can go around willy nilly and deny rights to people we think are terrorists, I have a list for you. It starts with a cake baker by the name of...

TR has an interesting point. It is kind of Starship Troopers -ish. I like it. Why should we get these rights just because the place of our birth is geographically desirable?

However, to put a crinkle in your plan, what is to stop an individual from being breed in this county, raised a model citizen, and even joining the military or civil service as a rouse to gain access to rights that only citizens do have? What then?

Or were you suggesting that we take a citizenship test at 18 years-old? Something similar to a driver's license?

That would be the Southern States, right? ;)