Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (20811)	12/21/2003 2:13:50 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793841

Padilla deserves a hearing on whether he is, in fact, an enemy combatant I agree. There are several questions and novel situations in this. The most basic is whether he's fish or fowl. To deny him a hearing on that, and to deny him legal counsel prior to that determination, to boot, seems inappropriate to me. If he is found to not be an enemy combatant but is still considered to be in cahoots with al Quaeda, then some thornier questions and complexities present themselves, but this first step, the fish or fowl one, seems like a no brainer to me. I can understand why the Administration is resisting it, though. Same reason they're resisting the Cheney committee question. All administrations want to do what they want to do with whom and when they want to do it. That's why we have checks and balances. I don't see how favoring checks and balances is inherently anti-Bush. Or how favoring due process is, either.