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.