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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (754749)	11/21/2006 12:46:45 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	Respond to of 769667

Don't make this guy into some urban hero, he's not... he's a gang member and was targeted by the Feds for reasonable cause, if not probably cause... the lesson there is don't be a gang member, I still have no interest in him... yes, it is a far fetch to make that kind of analogy, especially when all our films are selected strictly for family entertainment... Listen, I understand your point that the guy's rights were violated, but during wartime things become a bit more diligent and nothing is perfect... look what we did with all the Japanese Americans at the beginning for WW II... listen, there will always be exceptions and people will always fall through the cracks, this can't be helped no matter what... GZ

To: pompsander who wrote (754749)	11/21/2006 1:13:30 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"According to the Justice Department and the president, the separation of powers—at the core of the Constitution—has been suspended in the war on terrorism. Somebody ought to tell Congress. Why have none of the Democratic presidential candidates, except for John Edwards, mentioned this hijacking of Padilla's rights by the president they want to replace? Why has the press in its many manifestations not stayed on this case? How many Americans know that George W. Bush believes that, as commander in chief, he is beyond the reach of the courts? As attorney Jonathan Freiman's brief to the Second Circuit—for a coalition of prominent civil liberties organizations—says in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, Bush's commander-in-chief argument "would give every President the unchecked power to detain, without charge and forever, all citizens it chooses to label as 'enemy combatants.' " Freiman quotes Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952) that the commander in chief's power "is not such an absolute—as might be implied from that office in a militaristic system—but is subject to limitations consistent with a constitutional Republic, whose law and policy-making branch is a representative Congress. . . . No penance would ever expiate the sin against free government of holding that a President can escape control of executive powers by law through assuming his military role." (Emphasis added). And Justice Jackson, dissenting in a case about a basic denial of due process (Shaughnessy v. United States, 1953), thundered, "It is inconceivable to me that this measure of simple justice and fair dealing [due process] would menace the security of this country. No one can make me believe that we are that far gone." Are we that far gone, Mr. President? villagevoice.com