Quote:
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
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.
|
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.