Ahhh... thank you for leaking yet another tiny bit of information at the end of all the vitriole. Eventually this might actually appear to be a discussion. As I suspected, you can actually use your own words (although obviously quite limited) in addition to cut and paste. And, and I see you took my advice to continue the vitriolic ranting. It helps to camouflage your limitations in using actual human reason.
Mayfield has been released but information from him and his accusers is not being shared. Only that the FBI person who contributed evidence had mis-identified a finger print.
Padilla: This is a more interesting case. One that opens up many good questions that need to be explored. I know how you like to simplify things to fit your blame game but of course that doesn't work for sentient beings so I will elaborate.
The interesting aspect of this case involves something that is evolutionary in our modern techno-society. Where as historically we could identify the political geography that housed our enemies, now we are seeing cultural boundaries that transpose national boundaries. So, when it comes to current enemies such as Al-Quaida we do not see a nation or even a region but a culture. The culture. The culture can only be identified by its stated goals, behavior, and general conduct. One stated goal is to kill Americans in the name of the causes Al-Quaida supports. One of those causes is to destroy America.
On the one hand you have freedom of speech. So you should be able to verbally attack the societal norms of America that you view as degenerate, bad, harmful or 'otherwise objectionable' (see: TOW). However, if you conduct yourself in such a manner that can only be interpreted as intent to murder Americans for the Enemy cause, you put yourself in a different category than the normal heinous murderer. You are now acting on the violent military goals of our enemy in committing an attack on our country. The question becomes how do we capture you in the combat zone? Well, as I have already pointed out, the combat zone is cultural not geographical. So if you are a member of the Al-Quaida type culture and you become a combatant then you are acting as a military agent in your attack on the US.
Now the 5th amendment comes into question when the enemy combatant also has US citizenship. The operative phrase in this amendment is 'without due process of law'.
Some interesting questions must be resolved before we determine that Jose should be given due process of law in a federal court vs the military justice system. Firstly, is making a determination that he is an enemy combatant part of the process? This would be easy to answer historically because we had geographically determined battle zones where peops could either engage in combat or not. Now, however, the battle zone is Urban and where ever our enemys can engage their target. Jose, is an enemy agent and engaged his targets on an airplane. Is it a crime against the state or is it a military combat action against the state? Of course you can flip your double headed coin and tell me your scripted answer but we both know that doesn't resolve the issue.
Another interesting question has to do with whether or not Jose qualifies for the exceptions stated within the 5th Amendment: "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"
Questions:
Are there military forces attacking the US? Yes
Or in the Militia? This directly refers to events on our US soil that involves persons not designated formally as the Armed Forces... and the answer is again 'Yes'.
Was Jose acting in the service of the enemy in a time of war or public danger? The time of war could be quibbled about but he was definitely acting during a time of public danger.
There are many other difficult questions we are struggling with in our new circumstances. Of course we could simply spout poorly interpreted doctrine and inapplicable dogma, but it is my hope that reasonable minds will bring us to new and better resolutions...sorry if that offends your worship of agenda.
So, I see two posiblities to justify him being detained as he was and both are qualified within the fifth amendment.
The FEAR that you are promoting concerns the possibility that any citizen could be determined to be an enemy of the state using these justifications. However, Jose was was capture in the act of attempting mass murder in the service of the enemy of our military and as an act designed to weaken or contribute to the defeat of the US military forces by the Al-Quaida. This justification does not transfer directly to persons who simply disagree with the actions of our government.
Feal free to respond with your usual limited word usage, massive vitriolic ranting, and a link to an article. |
