The Great Writ

July 20, 2005 3:10 AM

Put up or Shut Up. The case of Joseph Padilla, an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, accused - but not charged - of planning a dirty bomb attack, designated by President Bush as an "enemy combatant," held for three years in a military prison at the Charleston Navy Base, denied access to a lawyer for two years, denied review of his habeas corpus complaint by a slippery US Supreme Court has reached the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - considered the most ideologically conservative court in the circuit. The US government is appealing the decision of the U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd that the government had 45 days to formally charge Padilla or release him. Andrew Patel, Padilla's lawyer wryly observed, "I may be the first lawyer to stand here and say I'm asking for my client to be indicted by a federal grand jury."
posted by three blind mice (45 comments total)

I was interested to read—in the third link—that all enemy combatants in the war on terror have further been automatically classed as unlawful combatants: ‘The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention.’ Even if one swallows this statement, it would seem (to me, at least, as an outsider) more politic that he be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, or even treason: is this an unwillingness (he is a traitor so we can do what we like) or an inability (maybe the evidence won't stand up in a criminal court) to indict?
posted by misteraitch at 5:49 AM on July 20, 2005

By all the accounts I've ever read, the evidence against Padilla is not so hot. It seems clear he had intent to do harm; what he was likely to accomplish (i.e., what there's evidence that he was actually doing) is quite another matter.

Usually, when someting like this gets raised, someone lurhces forward to declaim that good and honest folk have nothing to fear; that we should only worry about habeas corpus when people start to abuse it. The problem is that all the groundwork is there, now, under PATRIOT, for a regime under which we actually would never know if habeas had been violated.

Because, of course, under PATRIOT you can be forbidden from revealing that you're under investigation; and in the Bush admin's legal opionion, once you've been designated an "enemy combatant", you can be made an un-person without ever getting a chance to answer your accusers.

In other words, you don't need to be tried, if the crime you're alleged to have committed is opposition to America.

That pretty much describes political dissent, to a lot of people.

Sure, we're a long way from fascism in this country. But the only way we keep it that way is by fighting, all the time, to keep it that way. There are risks assoicated with living in a free society, and AFAIAC we're cowards if we fail to assume those risks.
posted by lodurr at 7:11 AM on July 20, 2005

Uh, didn't you get the memo? America's tired of this story now. Can't he just go away? It's not like we're fighting a war on terror here or anything like that. Jeez guys. Plus have you seen his mug? Terrorist written all over him.
posted by dead_ at 7:23 AM on July 20, 2005

Sure, we're a long way from fascism in this country. But the only way we keep it that way is by fighting, all the time, to keep it that way.

By 'fighting', I assume you meant 'blogging' ;P



No doubt authorities are worried about a situation like this...

At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials.

One of the repatriated prisoners is still at large after taking leadership of a militant faction in Pakistan and aligning himself with al Qaeda, Pakistani officials said. In telephone calls to Pakistani reporters, he has bragged that he tricked his U.S. interrogators into believing he was someone else.

Another returned captive is an Afghan teenager who had spent two years at a special compound for young detainees at the military prison in Cuba...but recently the young man, now 18, was recaptured with other Taliban fighters near Kandahar, Afghanistan.


But should also recall scenarios like this.
posted by dhoyt at 7:43 AM on July 20, 2005

At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials.

dhoyt This either means that the Pentagon is incompetent and released criminals they should have charged and convicted or that the Pentagon's own criminal treatment of "detainees" turned these ten into enemies of America.

Or we can cut it down the middle and say that the incompetent Pentagon is simultaneously releasing and creating enemies.

Honestly, being a non-Christian and not being steeped in the Christian philosophy of turning the other cheek, all I know is that if some foreign soldier put a leash on me and treated me like a Gitmo dog - in error - I might be looking for some payback.
posted by three blind mice at 8:20 AM on July 20, 2005

dhoyt - what do you mean? That Padilla should be held without having to show cause in order to prevent him from going back and fighting or that he should be or should have been charged?

I'm pretty solidly in favor of charging him with something (or releasing him). I dislike this "we know he's up to something so we don't need to prove it" b.s. I'm unclear how simply being the president allows someone to circumvent the constitution. Or should. Padilla is an American citizen and Bush is not a king.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:24 AM on July 20, 2005

Smedleyman

Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.

Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.

In the United States, there is precedence for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise.

/y2karl
posted by three blind mice at 8:34 AM on July 20, 2005

At least 10 detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison after U.S. officials concluded they posed little threat have been recaptured or killed fighting U.S. or coalition forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon officials.

So what exactly is your argument? Do you believe anyone arrested in America should be imprisoned indefinitely without trial because they might be released and later commit another crime, too? I know you believe yourself to be on the "minority side" of the issues on this site, but you're really reaching for a reason to be contrary because I can't imagine you actually believe that kind of logic. So what's your point?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:35 AM on July 20, 2005

This either means that the Pentagon is incompetent and released criminals they should have charged and convicted or that the Pentagon's own criminal treatment of "detainees" turned these ten into enemies of America.

No doubt they were captured in some scrape with coalition forces while already rabidly anti-US, taken to a quite uncomfortable place half a world away, and then released again which didn't "turn them into enemies of America", but certainly strengthened those feelings. If a better system was in place, I'd support charging them & assigning POW status if this war was a conventional one. It's not.

That Padilla should be held without having to show cause in order to prevent him from going back and fighting or that he should be or should have been charged?

He should be charged. Immediately. I'm sure federal prosecutors are terrified, though, that the evidence has not been sufficiently arranged, thus a "put up or shut up" scenario will occur, a very dangerous man will be released to the public, and the decision could come back to haunt us all.

XQ: First, calm down. Second, my point is that stories like that from the WaPo might contribute to "spooking" authorities who may otherwise support releasing someone in Padilla's case in the same way Willie Horton spooked a lot of supporters of the furlough programme.
posted by dhoyt at 8:48 AM on July 20, 2005

in the same way Willie Horton spooked a lot of supporters of the furlough programme.

well it certainly spooked the racist ones. let's hear it from tne rabidly unAmerican Wikipedia::

Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, bragged that "by the time this election is over, Willie Horton will be a household name." Horton had never gone by the name Willie, but rather William. [1] Media consultant Roger Ailes was reported to remark "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it."

Beginning on September 21, 1988, the Americans for Bush arm of the National Security Political Action Committee, began running an attack ad entitled "Weekend Passes," using the Horton case to attack Dukakis. The ad was produced by media consultant Larry McCarthy, who had previously worked for Ailes. After clearing the ad with television stations, McCarthy went back and added a menancing mug shot of Horton, who is African-American. He called the image "every suburban mother's greatest fear."

Horton's skin color was of course an irrelevant component of that successful, successful ad.
posted by matteo at 8:58 AM on July 20, 2005

He should be charged. Immediately.

Agreed dhoyt but what if there is no evidence other than a strong suspicion? What if the evidence that exists doesn't meet the threshold of criminal activity? What if presenting the evidence compromises intelligence assets? What if they KNOW he is guilty, but just can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law? I mean just look at him. Do you really want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?

The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.
posted by three blind mice at 9:05 AM on July 20, 2005

matteo: I'm not seeing anything about race or skin color in the quotes you gave or in the Wikipedia entry other than a sentence pointing out that the menacing picture of a murderer/ rapist was black. He's also a "nightmare" to some because he's a chronic offender released to the public, no matter his color. John Wayne Gacy was also demonized, but it wasn't his Whiteness giving people nightmares. But whatever, it's a derail.
posted by dhoyt at 9:11 AM on July 20, 2005

No doubt they were captured in some scrape with coalition forces while already rabidly anti-US

Or maybe they were sold for a bounty.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:15 AM on July 20, 2005

What if the evidence that exists doesn't meet the threshold of criminal activity? What if presenting the evidence compromises intelligence assets? What if they KNOW he is guilty, but just can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law?

Those are all elements which have no doubt kept this case in a holding pattern. It seems like the ultimate "damned if you and damned if you don't scenario" for prosecutors & authorities who are anticipating that much of the post-9/11 US public will not tolerate a would-be mass murderer—especially an alleged "terrorist"—back on the street.
posted by dhoyt at 9:16 AM on July 20, 2005

How can you expect the general public to care about this issue?

They're WAY too busy following Laci Peterson and the blonde chick in Aruba.

All they need to know about the whole issue of terrorism is five colors worth of scary, and that old G.W.B. is on the job.

And if they hammer that message any harder, pretty soon WE'RE going to start believing it too. If we don't, who knows, maybe well be in jail next. Questioning the actions of the government does give some amount of aid and comfort to the enemy, no?
posted by JWright at 9:20 AM on July 20, 2005

three blind mice writes: I mean just look at him.

I'd be most interested to hear you clarify this point.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:27 AM on July 20, 2005

The US government is appealing the decision of the U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd that the government had 45 days to formally charge Padilla or release him.

45 days without being charged? What is this, Aruba? what happend to 48 hours?

Even that is weak.
posted by delmoi at 9:30 AM on July 20, 2005

dhoyt: The fact that people released from Guantanimo later turned around and were recaptured or whatever is largely irrelevant. I think hundreds have been released, indicating a less then 10% redictivism rate.

The logic of "lets keep them all locked up, just in case some of them are really bad" is no better then the logic that lead to the Oklahoma City bombing (kill hundreds to get at a few ATF officers) or even 9/11. We can't just imprison hundreds of people with no just cause. How would you feel if you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit and were just held in jail forever? You seem to be advocating exactly that.

For every American who's afraid of some wanna-be terrorist getting released, there's another who's afraid of there government acting like lawless thugs. Keeping people in jail for political expediency is criminal.

respect for the rule of law is a critical component of any government.
posted by delmoi at 9:51 AM on July 20, 2005

George_Spiggot sarcasm sort of looses its bite when you have to explain it.
posted by three blind mice at 9:52 AM on July 20, 2005

It is the current administration's position in this and many other purported "terrorism" cases that the evidence against the subject (in this case Padilla) is so sensitive, or the means through which it was acquired are so sensitive, that the information can never come to public light because such exposure would threaten the Government's ability to detect and intercept terrorist plots in the future.
The claim (generally) is that Padilla was caught through some ongoing intel-gathering process that would be compromised by trying Padilla in the conventional fashion.
I say hogwash. I can appreciate the sensitive nature of intel-gathering, but there are means to bring the accused to trial and debate the evidence without necessarily letting the accused know exactly how it was obtained, in most instances. Either way - no intel operation is as valuable as the continuing stability of our criminal justice system, and the ongoing confidence that we as citizens require that we may not be held at the whim of a government that has freed itself of all restrictions on its power.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 9:57 AM on July 20, 2005

We can't just imprison hundreds of people with no just cause. How would you feel if you were arrested for a crime you didn't commit and were just held in jail forever? You seem to be advocating exactly that.

Halfway up the page I wrote: "He should be charged. Immediately."
posted by dhoyt at 9:59 AM on July 20, 2005

With respect to dhoyt this is not a case that can be consigned to the usual Metafiler analysis of glib comments.

What do you do? Let's pretend it's not the evil President George Bush, but the really good a decent President Jack Ryan. Jack (and his equally decent staff) bloody well knows that a suspect is planning something nasty, something that is going to result in a lot of innocent people being killed, but going the usual law and order route just won't work. What does Jack do? Does he issue an order to covertly have the suspect assassinated? Does he have him picked up, held, and interrogated a la Padilla? Or does he do nothing?

What does he do when he has to choose between compromising an intelligence asset or not charging the suspect?

What if Padilla is released, he goes directly to his hidden stash of C-4 and ball bearings and blows himself up in the middle of a crowd? Chalk it up to the price of liberty?

Remember, Padilla was not picked up JUST because he was of a different color or religion. It was not an indiscriminate abuse of governmental power.

I am normally on the law and order side, but I see dhoyt's point (which is why I tried to provoke dhoyt by playing devil's advocate when dhoyt took what appeared to be the easy out.) If we are all honest about this (if that is possible in the blue) there is no black and white here.
posted by three blind mice at 10:08 AM on July 20, 2005

What if Padilla is released, he goes directly to his hidden stash of C-4 and ball bearings and blows himself up in the middle of a crowd? Chalk it up to the price of liberty?

Yes.

What do you say to the families of the innocent victims? I don't know. What do you say to the families of innocent people who have been held without charge for years?
posted by Happy Monkey at 10:29 AM on July 20, 2005

Sorry tbm -- it was a little too accurate a pastiche.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:29 AM on July 20, 2005

What do you say to the families of innocent people who have been held without charge for years?

Chalk it up to the price of liberty.

Seriously, Happy Monkey, why is it so obvious to you that one price is perferrable over the other?
posted by three blind mice at 10:34 AM on July 20, 2005

Honestly, being a non-Christian and not being steeped in the Christian philosophy of turning the other cheek...

Actually, it is Christian philosophies that led to Guantanamo Bay in the first place. Don't forget that the Shrub is a good Christian, and that Christian history is filled with preaching "turn the other cheek" while busily burning people at the stake.
posted by nlindstrom at 10:47 AM on July 20, 2005

"Don't forget that the Shrub is a good Christian"

Err, by who's measure?
posted by lazywhinerkid at 10:52 AM on July 20, 2005

What do you say to the families of the innocent victims? I don't know. What do you say to the families of innocent people who have been held without charge for years?

That they're still alive.

I'm with TBM. There is no glib MeFi-approved snark which applies to this case one way or the other. It's difficult, it's dangerous, it raises a lot of ethical & legal questions, and a lot of people will be furious if Padilla is loosed upon the public — unless the formal charges and substance of evidence are provided in a compelling manner, toot sweet. Granted, the public will not know or care about the details of his detainment. All they'll know is that a terrorist is being set free.

But given the widening grey area of post-9/11 terrorism law "reform", it's hard to be optimistic that authorities will be comfortable simply letting him walk out the door even if they haven't assembled the machinery necessary for a successful prosecution. Yet I still don't feel comfortable as Happy Monkey saying, "Welp, that's the price of liberty!" as my friends & neighbors get blown up on the subway.

Actually, it is Christian philosophies that led to Guantanamo Bay in the first place. Don't forget that the Shrub is a good Christian, and that Christian history is filled with preaching "turn the other cheek" while busily burning people at the stake.

This is really a disposable comment in the context of this topic.
posted by dhoyt at 11:00 AM on July 20, 2005

What do you say to the families of innocent people who have been held without charge for years?

Chalk it up to the price of liberty.

Um, that doesn't make any sense. Would you tell dying lung cancer patients "That's the cost of good health"? No, because it would be ridiculous. You say "That's the cost of smoking cigarettes". You tell someone who wants a smoke but isn't doing it "that's the cost of good health".

You might tell these people "this is the cost of being free of terrorists", and they might not buy into it, because they might not be so scared of terrorists. The cost of libert can never been enumerated in liberty.
posted by delmoi at 11:07 AM on July 20, 2005

I mean the cost of liberty.
posted by delmoi at 11:08 AM on July 20, 2005

If there's not enough evidence to convict, then you let him go.

If you're worried that he's going to do something dangerous when he gets out of jail, then put a cop outside his door and follow him every time he leaves the house. Tap his phone, sniff his network connection, write down everyone he talks with and run background checks.

This guy's cover is so blown that he's not going to be an asset to anyone and if he did try to meet up with his super double secret hidden cronies he'd end up outing them too.

This is a law enforcement problem and we must abide by the rules that we've set. We've decided, as a people, that it's wrong to imprison people without charging them with a crime.

This is obviously a tough decision to make, but it's what seperates our nation from totalitarian regimes. We have a government of laws, not of hunches.
posted by bshort at 11:09 AM on July 20, 2005

We don't imprison people for thoughtcrime, we imprison people for actual crimes. We imprison people because they have broken the rules that we've set, and this should apply to Padillas and Presidents alike.
posted by bshort at 11:12 AM on July 20, 2005

Cops do this all the time with mobsters and such. They get a tip, and they go round and lock the guy up for a couple days to get him off the streets and foil his plans, using some BS excuse.

But they don't hold him indefinitely.

THAT is the difference. It is absolutely, not just illegal, but completely IMMORAL to lock someone up *forever* for something he *might* do.

That is what separates a free country from one that's not. They want to round up suspected terrorists for, say, a month to screw up their plans? Fine. It's nasty, but it's not a big deal in the grand scheme.

But to hold them for years, with the government lawyer literally saying in so many words that they can hold them for the rest of his life if they choose? For mere SUSPICION of plans of a future act?

THAT is the act of a totalitarian state. Period.

The price of freedom is allowing people to be free.
posted by InnocentBystander at 11:13 AM on July 20, 2005

What if the evidence that exists doesn't meet the threshold of criminal activity? What if presenting the evidence compromises intelligence assets? What if they KNOW he is guilty, but just can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law?

Any number of individuals may "know" he is guilty, but the judicial branch's definition of knowing something IS that there is evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. If this is a problem (I believe very strongly that it isn't), why don't we change the law to allow the courts to convict people who are "probably guilty" or "very suspicious"? Either do what the constitution says, or change the constituion if it's wrong.
posted by aubilenon at 11:45 AM on July 20, 2005

three blind mice: Chalk it up to the price of liberty.

delmoi got this one.

Seriously, Happy Monkey, why is it so obvious to you that one price is perferrable over the other?

Because one of them is us doing it. Of all the things that the terrorists could do to us, we mustn't let them goad us into becoming worse people. The fundamental basis of our country is that there are some things that governments do not have the right to do. Indefinite detention without trial is one that is specifically enumerated.

dhoyt: Yet I still don't feel comfortable as Happy Monkey saying, "Welp, that's the price of liberty!" as my friends & neighbors get blown up on the subway.

It doesn't have to be comfortable. It simply is. You can't get around it. The chance that a trial can be decided incorrectly is the price of a trial system, not justification to do away with trials. What can you replace a trial with? The gut feeling of a DOD employee?
posted by Happy Monkey at 11:50 AM on July 20, 2005

three blind mice: What do you do? Let's pretend it's not the evil President George Bush, but the really good a decent President Jack Ryan. Jack (and his equally decent staff) bloody well knows that a suspect is planning something nasty, something that is going to result in a lot of innocent people being killed, but going the usual law and order route just won't work. What does Jack do? Does he issue an order to covertly have the suspect assassinated? Does he have him picked up, held, and interrogated a la Padilla? Or does he do nothing?

Well, color me unconvinced on all of these counts. The other side to this story is that we have a legal system that is, when it wants to be, capable of conducting a trial with a high degree of security and confidentiality.

The other issue is that it's been three years. His cover is blown, he's a marked man who is going to be held under suspicion no matter what. Let him go, put him under surveilance and see where he leads.

The actual danger of a government that can, for arbitrary reasons known only to its self, keep people in custody for years without trial, is far greater than the potential that this guy can revive a three-year-old plot. We can quibble about shades of grey all we want, I can understand that. But this is not a precident that we want to see set.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:36 PM on July 20, 2005

My recollection is that in the Hamdi case, decided the same day last term as Padilla, even Mr. Scalia joined in the majority opinion which, in so many words, said "charge him or release him immediately." Padilla has slightly different facts (e.g., detained at O'Hare, rather than on a foreign battlefield), but in that case the administration effectively bought some more time by successfully arguing a procedural technicality (Padilla's lawyers named the wrong defendant in their initial habeas action). What happened to the evil Hamdi? He was quietly released a couple months later to his native Saudi Arabia, where we all know he certainly can't cause any trouble for Uncle Sam.
posted by Cletis at 12:56 PM on July 20, 2005

I'm just curious to know how some of the devil's advocates on MeFi will defend the fact that the demonstrably dangerous terror plotter William Krar, a white supremacist who was implicated in a terrorist plot around the same time as Padilla (and who was actually found to be in posession of the components to construct a dangerous chemical bomb--see excerpt from Technology Review article below [sorry--it was the best I could find on short notice]) was given all the usual constitutional protections an American citizen charged with a crime has come to expect while Padilla, also an American citizen, was not?

“In the small town of Noonday, Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon [a cyanide bomb] big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building.“

This is big stuff, and the American media has been remarkably silent about it --- especially when you consider the front-page coverage of Jose Padilla, the accused “dirty bomber“ who didn't have either radioactive dirt or a bomb. (Proof: Google for William Krar and you'll get about 2000 hits, while Google for Jose Padilla and you'll get more than 50,000.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 1:31 PM on July 20, 2005

I wish the government would stop filibustering this case...doesn't Joseph Padilla deserve a straight up-or-down vote by a jury of his peers?

I mean, if it's good enough for judges, it should be good enough for citizens.
posted by filmgoerjuan at 7:30 PM on July 20, 2005

What if Padilla is released, he goes directly to his hidden stash of C-4 and ball bearings and blows himself up in the middle of a crowd? Chalk it up to the price of liberty?

Rarely has the division in America's citizenry been so succinctly pinpointed. One one side, you've got people who are willing to discard the protections of the constitution for the sake of possibly increased safety; on the other hand, you've got people who are willing to risk death and injury to preserve the protections of the constitution. Count me and Ben Franklin among the latter group.

As others have said here, follow the law and, yes, chalk up the risks to the price of liberty. I really don't see an ethical alternative.
posted by squirrel at 8:19 PM on July 20, 2005

There is a glib Mefi answer to this: If you've got nothing on him, let him go. It's not like he'll be able to take a piss without the secret police knowing about it. If he does anything suspicious, bring him in again.

This guy can be released because he can't operate in the dark any more, and no other wanna-be terrorists will work with him because he's a cop-magnet.

There is no such thing as no risk. There is only low risk. This guy is low risk, yet the alternative - enshrining the right to lock up American citizens indefinitely with no trial or appeal is - is bad for certain.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:02 AM on July 21, 2005

I was also looking forward to a trial where the government was going to explain to me why a bomb laced with uranium would potentially kill and contaminate thousands, while the government was simultaniously explaining (re: Iraq) that our bombs laced with uranium are entire harmless and anyone saying otherwise is a lying anti-american peacenik activist.

For anyone who didn't catch it, his "dirty bomb" plan was to blow up some uranium, the same stuff we've been blowing up in Iraq for over a decade.

Interestingly, the govt described the likely effect of his plan as something only a few steps short of nuclear armageddon. I'm quite keen to see a few heads roll for attempting to shout fire in a crowded theatre.

But it will never happen. There is no accountability, and even if there were, the goal is not to protect us, it is merely to appear to be doing something.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:10 AM on July 21, 2005

dhoyt: By 'fighting', I assume you meant 'blogging' ;P

By "assume", I assume you meant "impute."
posted by lodurr at 8:19 AM on July 21, 2005

but he means well, after all a citizen too american .. ask me about my company "mental advancement" and i will give you a summary. mr padilla is a candidate. free of charge.
posted by xtiml at 9:31 AM on July 21, 2005

"The price of freedom is allowing people to be free."
Thanks InnocentBystander - and everyone else who argued in defense of liberty.
three blind mice - I'd give my life for freedom - is that black and white enough?
Re: Article 1, Section 9 - so we're currently under martial law?

Actually I had in mind amendment 6. I think amendment 9 is a good retort to your post. I don't see where any president can declare martial law regarding one man. Amendment 9 would seem to prevent him from expanding his power to do that.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:18 AM on July 21, 2005