| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Let's see if it sticks, and if Rummy can follow directions, but this is a bit of
> good news:
>
> From:
>
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20031218/ap_on_re_us/terror_suspect
>
> "President Bush (news - web sites) does not have power to detain American
> citizen Jose Padilla, the former gang member seized on U.S. soil, as an enemy
> combatant, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday. "
I wonder, though, what will prevent Dubya in his Imperial zeal, from simply
throwing the matter to a non-public military tribunal? He certainly has no
qualms about secrecy in these matters.
> Thank you NYCU, CCR and 2nd Court of Appeals (1).
>
> 1 - well, two of them... "In a dissenting opinion, District Judge Richard C.
> Wesley said the president as commander in chief "has the inherent authority to
> thwart acts of belligerency at home or abroad that would do harm to United
> States citizens." Huh? So he can nuke anything he wants any time he wants???
> Gak!
What the heck qualifies as belligerency? Does that mean that boat-rockers and
malcontents are on notice for possible (and justified) nuking?!? We'd all
better watch our collective step!
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Yaay...
|
| Let's see if it sticks, and if Rummy can follow directions, but this is a bit of good news: From: (URL) Bush (news - web sites) does not have power to detain American citizen Jose Padilla, the former gang member seized on U.S. soil, as an enemy (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
