So true. Sort of like the way you’ve avoided providing the cite for Bricker’s statement.
No question, huh? Perhaps you can tell me what court made that determination that you’re so willing to stick by.
Was Padilla detained under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1101 (236)(A)? No. If he was, there would be no problem, as that section mandates that he be charged, placed in removal proceedings, or released within seven days. The Partiot Act does not authorize indefinite detention of aliens.
The Cato Institute seems to agree.
[/QUOTE]
The Cato Institute’s report does the same thing you’re doing: conflating the detention of people in general with the detention of people under the Patriot Act. Padilla was not detained under the autohrity of the Patriot Act. If the Patriot Act were repealed tomorrow, or extended through 2020, Padilla’s case would be unaffected.
So what does testimony about Padilla have to do with the Patriot Act?
He’s got the wrong thread, Bricker, and I can’t recall which is the right thread. But I do remember a comment from you recently that could be construed that way. It was a throwaway line at the end of a Pit post by you. Sort of a “neener, neener, go ahead and bitch about this topic, but my side has the power.” Not those precise words, of course, but that general idea. I recall at the time reading it and feeling it could be read the way ElvisL1ives sees it.
I’m sorry I can’t dredge up the cite, but after wading through the miscited one I don’t have enough time free now to search out which one it was.
Sheer sophistry. The absence of a court finding on the matter of thier guilt is of precisely zero consequence. Sitting Bull was not found guilty in the death of Custer, yet I remain assured that such is the case.
Of course, you are not asserting the innocence of the aforementioned Nazis. And, of course, there remains that minor technicality of an actual state of declared war. Little stuff like that might lead one to suspect you are on a water-muddying mission.
If one didn’t know you so well, of course.
Ex parte Quirin was a case involving German saboteurs who landed on our shores in 1942. If you’d read the cites, you would have known that, and wouldn’t be calling me on a Godwin fallacy.
Calling an actual Nazi a Nazi is still allowed, isn’t it?
Even if that is true, there is a gulf ebtween a post that “could be interpreted that way” and a post that “directly states” the claim. ElvisL1ves said:
If I stated that directly let’s see where I did. If I made a post that maybe someone could interpret as hinting that perhaps I might feel that way… well, I don’t feel that way, but I can hardly refute such a mushy claim. ElvisL1ves’ claim was very specific and direct. He said I “stated directly”. If he’s relying on a post such as you describe, then I believe he has misquoted me, and I believe that violates this baord’s rules.
So now we’re discussing only the Padilla case rather than the detentions at Gitmo? I just want to make sure I can follow the discussion, which seems to be constantly shifting.
With your myopic view of relevance, I would have so loved to have prosecuted cases against you. It would have proven much quicker and easier than a vast majority of my cases.
You seriously contend that how this administration has conducted itself in it’s detention of both foreigners and citizens is irrelevant to whether ir should, or how it would, conduct detentions of aliens in this country? It is certainly an… interesting stance. One that I find indefensible, but perhaps you could elaborate and change my mind.
True, true. They were found guilty by military tribunal before their hanging.
Would it be fair to take your endorsement of this practice by the Roosevelt Administration as an endorsement in general? After all, we’re setting up the military tribunals in a similar fashion now.
If not, I’d like to see how this circle can be squared in your head.
Wow, MM, I thought your obtuseness was just an act. The subject is the *Gitmo * prisoners. You don’t have Clue Number One what any of them is alleged to have done. The comparison to Nazi war criminals is your own, but trust me, you really don’t want to press it.
Eddy, have you really read only one of Bricker’s “Neener neener” posts? They’re pretty mild compared to what he’s capable of. I might have confused the linked thread with this other very recent one, though, but it’s certainly not worth even more of my time to expose his own obtuseness as well. That would play into his diversion game, anyway.
Even if that is true, there is a gulf between a post that “could be interpreted that way” and a post that “directly states” the claim. ElvisL1ves said:
If I stated that directly let’s see where I did. If I made a post that maybe someone could interpret as hinting that perhaps I might feel that way… well, I don’t feel that way, but I can hardly refute such a mushy claim. ElvisL1ves’ claim was very specific and direct. He said I “stated directly”. If he’s relying on a post such as you describe, then I believe he has misquoted me, and I believe that violates this baord’s rules.
Searching THAT thread for “power” yields fifteen posts. None by me says anything like what ElvisL1ves claims.
He’s made a claim that I “directly stated” something I never did. That is, I believe, a violation of the board’s rules.
Bucko, someday I may tell the story of why I don’t practice criminal law anymore. But here’s a hint: it wasn’t because I was losing lots of cases.
If the law in question already requires that aliens detained thereunder are charged, released, or deportation provisions be begun against them in seven days, then the discussion of detentions under other, more onerous standards is absolutely irrelevant.
Okay, ElvisL1ves has kindly linked to the thread with the post I was thinking of, though once again hasn’t bothered to link to the exact post itself. I did find it, though, and these are the wrods I was thinking of:
SteveG1 directly responded:
I too got the “We’re on top, we’ve got the power, don’t care how, screw you if you don’t like it” vibe from your post, Bricker, but I’ll do you the credit of believing that Elvis is pushing that post (and other statements like that) beyond your intent.
Yes, Elvis, I’ve read a lot of neener neener posts by Bricker. I believe he uses his skills of legal analysis in the service of sometimes detestable ends. But fair’s fair. I’ve never read anything by him that says plainly what you claim he’s said.
Okay, now that I’ve defended one of the Dopers who most consistently annoys me, I need to go get a drink. 
I always figured you quit PD work because you wanted your soul back so you could then sell to the Republicans. 
The Patriot act allows for the detention of aliens for 7 days without being charged, without a hearing, and without legal representation. Padilla and the prisoners at Gitmo have been detained for 7 days without being charged, without a hearing, and without legal representation. The Patriot Act allows that that detention is not judicially reviewable except by habeus. Padilla and the prisoners had to fight this administration just to get a shot at habeus. If the alien cannot be deported, the Patriot Act allows the alien to be held INDEFINITELY without trial. Padilla and the prisoners at Gitmo have been held indefinitely without trial. The Patriot Act authorizes the continued detention of aliens if the Attorney General thinks the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person. Padilla and the prisoners at Gitmo are being held indefinitely only on the review of the executive branch.
And, we’re talking about relevance here. The lowest fucking standard I can think of in the justice system. And that’s all you have to hang your hat on to defend his actions? You are seriously reaching on this issue.
Thank you for your defense. I agree with what you said. If that’s the post ElvisL1ves was thinking of…
It does NOT “directly state” that I recognize no principle higher than money and power. Sure, I agree it’s got a “neerner-neener” flavor to it. But ElvisL1ves didn’t accuse me of posting a “neener-neener” post.
What, I got you to admit that you “[use your] skills of legal analysis in the service of sometimes detestable ends” ?
Okay, I’ll stop playing cross-examination games now and get back to work proofreading depositions – which is where I learned how to do it. 
Closer guess than you know.
Bricker, I must congratulate you on a wonderful hijacking of this thread. You have seceded in distracting everyone from the main point of what was done and focusing on bullshit minutia. I assume that was your goal
“Bullshit minutia” – band name or lawyer’s fame?
Something the Dope has a liberal* supply of in any case.
[sub]*Pun intended.[/sub]