P.S. My last point is well-supported by the OP in this thread. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=119944
So, december, how exactly is it that treating this guy exactly the same as Moussaoui (the “20th hijacker”) would in any way impede us from “winning the war on terror and protecting people’s lives and health”? Be specific, please.
It’s a sad day when I misspell “Cecil” here, of all places! 
Please give an example that supports your idea that people are acting this way. From this thread, another thread, a newspaper, anywhere.
I’ll be happy to field that question, Mr. Green!
(“Green”, eh? Hmmmmmmmm)
In time of WAR, when we, the American People, are at WAR the unquestioning loyalty and uniform solidarity of the American People must be absolute! In a time of WAR, our more-or-less elected leaders demand unswerving loyalty, lest our streets be overrun with attack-trained rabid hamsters!
(music up)
Dirty bomb,dirty bomb, dirty bomb bomb bomb
Dirty bomb dirty bomb, dirty bomb bomb bomb…
(music down)
If this unstinting credulity is diluted, the Democrats will win! I mean, the terrists will have won.
(But seriously folks…anybody think maybe Mr. Padilla scammed Al Queda out of 10 grand and flew to Chicago to score some crack?)
You know, I have to agree with you all to a degree about the whole violation of rights argument. But I’d like to add a couple of things, First of all it’s Jose Padilla, NOT al whatever. We still call Lindh Lindh, and not Hamid as was his chosen name. So now that that is straightened out… Let’s just go into a hypothetical situation, and lets say that Padilla’s rights were protected, he was never arrested because he did not commit a crime (This is somewhat like what the Minority Report is about, ha?) A few months down the line, a ‘dirty bomb’ goes off somewhere. Wow, what kind of clamoring and finger pointing would we have then, about how the administration had warnings, that Bush knew about Padilla and did nothing about it, he put us in harms way deliberately knowing what he knew, that there was a possibility that something could have happened and it could have been prevented.
I think that if there wasn’t this whole circus about who knew what when and the finger pointing - which is ridiculous, hindsight is 20/20 - some of this could have been avoided.
Hell, so the guy can’t do what he allegedly set out to do, maybe, just maybe they’ll find out what they want to find out from him, and then the whole due process thing will resume, and he can have his rights back??
Unlikely I know, but hen again stranger things have happened.
Also, people can be arrested for merely talking about harming the Pres, so why not for scheming to blow up a shit load of people and render a few city blocks uninhabitable.
There are all kinds of crimes he can be charged with and convicted of, kevals. Conspiracy to commit murder is the most obvious, not to mention all the “joining up with terrorists” charges that Lindh is facing. This is by no means a question of keeping him in military detention or letting him go free.
I thought I had done so. Please read the various posts on this thread, the cited NY Times editorial, and the cited other SDMB thread. Not a single one of them includes a real analysis of the level of existing terrorism threat and of the pros and cons of various methods of attempting to deal with it.
That sort of discussion would involve such matters as military action, use of assassination, types of weapons, organization of spy agencies, number of terrorists in the US now and later, number of terrorists who may be active in Europe and other parts of the world, etc. This is hard stuff. It requires expertise, knowledge and hard work.
It’s simpler to just assume that normal criminal law is the right approach. Leave the hard problems to “stupid people” like John Ashcroft and George Bush. We’re the elite! We sit above that grubby, mundane stuff! It’s more fun to sit on the sidelines and kibitz.
If you’re being serious … I say no way. Too elaborate of a scheme for a crackhead to come up with. A little much for a common street criminal to pull off. Not when knocking off a gas station is easier.
Plus, al-Qaeda’s people aren’t quite that slow.
December may not be right on the exact percentage of people who support incommunicado detaining of US citizens with al-Qaeda ties, but I don’t think he’s too far off. I’ll bet if you took a poll that asked “Is it right for the U.S. to hold alleged terrorist Daniel Padilla and try him as an enemy combatant before a military court?”, I’d bet that 2 out of 3 would say “Yes”.
Of course, the same question posed differently might deliver less affirmation, e.g. “Is it right for the U.S. to hold alleged terrorist and U.S. citizen Daniel Padilla without due process; and to try him as an enemy combatant before a military court?”.
How people react to this case depends a lot upon what people specifically KNOW about it, as well as what they know about complementary concepts like due process.
For those who disagree with Ashcroft’s actions, I offer a ray of hope – the power of a free press. How would it be if events like Padilla’s detainment never even made it into the public’s conciousness? That’s a big reason I don’t fear the “slippery slope” situations so much – there are extra-governmental safeguards built into American society. Suffrage and a free press are the main two safeguards, neither of which our old friend Pastor Niemoller was able to benefit from 60 years ago.
It’s not polite to overlook the Charmin, december.
I don’t think anybody’s saying Padillo shouldn’t have been arrested; it’s a question of how the case is being handled. If Padillo is in fact guilty of what he’s accused of (although as far as I know he still has not been formally charged), and is properly tried and is convicted, I hope he spends the rest of his life in Federal prison.
and, of course, if one were to poll American citizens and ask:
Should our government arrest our citizens, hold them w/o charges, w/o access to attorneys for indefinite periods of time, and I’d also wager that the results would be somewhere near “Hell no” and “wtf are you smoking?”
I don’t see anyone here claiming that the man shouldn’t be arrested or detained. However, we do seem to have a major problem with the bill of rights being apparently suspended for citizens on our own soil. If the evidence is so overwhelmingly obvious, there should be no problem providing it in court. If national security is an issue, closed courtrooms can be had. But this???
It’s funny how you managed to paint this situation exactly 180 degrees from reality.
If we were content to let Bush/Ashcroft handle it any way they want, and violate whatever rights of the accused they want, then THAT would be sitting on the sidelines.
It is the people who just mutter “well, I guess they know what they are doing… I better not question it…”, those are the people who are on the sidelines letting apathy get the better of them. Those are the people who neither have the stomach for the vigilance that freedom requires, nor deserve the freedom that it offers.
Sometimes astoundingly wrong ideas get me mad; but to be honest, this idea that questioning Bush/Ashcroft is somehow equated with “standing on the sidelines”, and blindly accepting what they do as non-apathy; well, that’s wrong on a whole new level. It’s WAY too wrong for an emotional response, I can only shake my head slowly in deep wonder at this never-before seen level of wrongness. It is like crystal-pure wrongness, grown in a space station clean room, uncontaminated by even the smallest quark of common sense.
Actually, it appears that the DOJ determined that they could not win a court prosecution because the evidence “was derived from intelligence sources and other witnesses the government cannot or does not want to produce in court.” (LA Times)
december, I am willing to be convinced that this detention is legal and necessary and am offended that you believe that even questioning the policy is unpatriotic. Since the position the administration is taking allows them to hold someone as an “enemy belligerent” until the end of the war, I think some standard for defining the “end” would be kinda nice. Something other than, “we’ll let you know.”
Does it make no impression on you that even the quite conservative Dallas Morning News in an editorial is questioning this policy?
I am willing to give up my life to a terrorist if that is necessary to maintain the freedoms that our Constitution provides. Apparently you are not so willing to defend the Constitution yourself. And that makes me sad.
I think you’re correct in general … though I wouldn’t be surprised to see a significant percentage answer your question with “it depends” or “undecided”, if those answers were available.
The way your question is stated, you leave out the most important factor in the man-on-the-street’s mind – that Padilla is being held for suspicion of terrorist activities.
Constitutionality of such detainment? Less of a factor for most people, for better or for worse. “Terrorism” … “Constitution” … place these words on opposite ends of a scale, and see which one carries more weight right now for the Average American.
See, for many here, the WHY’s don’t make a difference. For example: “WHY is Padilla being held?” “Who cares? Doesn’t matter!,” shouts the SDMB concensus. But for many, many more people off of the SDMB, the WHY makes all the difference in the world.
um. that was my point.
Well, those people are wrong, for all the reasons posted here in this thread. I believe in due process, whether the person is accused of shoplifting bubblegum or planning to nuke Washington D.C. Why? Because he is only accused. I will say this again, because it is very important; he is **ONLY ACCUSED **. He is not proven guilty.
But a lot of those people vote.
Does it matter if they are wrong if it turns out that they have the majority? “Wrong” could become “right” – all it takes is a change of priorities and a majority of opinion.
A) Defend the nation by any means necessary.
B) Uphold the Constitution at all costs.
What is the result when there appears to be a fundamental conflict between the above in the minds of many people?
The constitution exists to prevent the nation’s current fears from dismantling our system of government. The rights given to citizens are there precisely for this sort of scenario: because the application of those rights to certain people may sometimes be unpopular.
This man is entitled to the same due process any citizen of the United States is. If he’s guilty, it should be proven by a fair trial.
december: It’s simpler to just assume that normal criminal law is the right approach.
It’s not that it’s simpler, december—in fact, you are being highly offensive to all of us concerned about the issue by suggesting that what’s motivating our concern is ultimately just laziness. The point is that maintaining due process for those accused of crimes, even heinous and highly dangerous crimes, is the only moral approach for a democratic society with constitutional protection of individual rights.
Your precious skin, and that of the rest of us, may indeed end up being in more danger from terrorist attacks if we observe due process than if we don’t. Too bad; that’s the price of living in a free society. I actually don’t see any convincing reason to believe that the combination of an intelligent counterterrorism policy with continued respect for civil liberties will in fact increase our danger. But if it does, I for one am quite ready to accept my Teeming Millionth share of the blame for that increased risk, as well as the increased risk itself.
I notice that you yourself don’t seem to be entirely clear as to what your views are on this matter. First you insinuate that any criticisms of the DOJ’s current tactics are lazy, petty, unhelpful, and possibly even treasonous. But then you assert that you just want the US to “use all legal, Constitutional methods at its disposal” in addressing this situation. Well, the reason we’re criticizing these tactics is that they’re very probably unconstitutional! Make up your mind, december: should the government comply with the Constitution in these circumstances, or not? And if you think it should, exactly how do you think that compliance is to be maintained except by having citizens raise a big stink about any governmental actions that appear not to be in compliance with it?