Should the president have the authority to issue this executive order?

[JohnLocke]

Poll question: Should the president have the authority to issue this executive order?

Should the president have the authority to designate American citizens apprehended in American soil as "enemy combatants," transfer custody to the Department of Defense, and hold them, incommunicado, in a navy brig, for over two years? I ask this because obviously the media doesn’t give a fuck about this... :eyes:

And look here: at the top in says, "In accordance with the CONSTITUTION and the LAWS of the United States..." These people have no shame.

[madmax]

1. He's illegitimate

He shouldn't be able to issue a parking ticket.

[pinkpops]

2. hell no

[JohnLocke]

3. Who the hell voted "yes"?

[ILeft]

11. Well, we know it couldn't have been Dubya...

I doubt his attention span would enable him to get through the logging in process necessary to post. Maybe Karen did it?

[JohnLocke]

17. Best post of the week (nt)

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Do you suppose it was Mike?

Hi, Mike. Repeal the Patriot Act.

[JohnLocke]

16. Maybe.

:hi: :hi: Hi, Mike! :)

[UrbScotty]

4. It's called "arresting him."

If they find him guilty, he goes into the slammer. If he's innocent, he gets set free. DUH!

We have a bill of rights.

[pinto]

10. arrest must be accompanied by a charge and trial within a reasonable

time. basic constitutional right.

[mongo]

19. Arrested? Yeah right...

Let's see. If he was arrested when was his Arraignmet? How about a bail hearing... Access to legal council? I'm not sure but I think he was at least given access to a lawyer - MANY MONTHS after he was "detained". If they had good evidence against him they would have charged and processed him according to American legal tradition. This is one of the most scary things that has happened since 9/11.

[acmavm]

5. Whoever voted 'yes' is out of their mind. This clown would declare

everyone but his supporters and donors an enemy combatant if he could. We could all (well, almost all) end up in Gitmo if this clown gets any more powers granted to his stupid, worthless ass.

[moof]

6. Sure, as long as he's arrested and tried for kidnapping if

the person is found not guilty or released.

[Gothmog]

7. No, this is just plain unconstitutional

Thre is simply no way that this is constitutional. The enemy combatant language is from a WWII case that was limited to its facts. Mr. Padilla is a US citizen and no one has the right to take the protection of the Constitution away.

[JohnLocke]

8. Kick (nt).

[Beatrix]

9. TECHNICALLY

if a person is indeed an enemy soldier captured in the middle of war within the United States they would probably be sent to a POW camp under the orders of the president. (as it would be a military matter, which he has authority over) At least that is what would be consistent with the language being used.

Now of course this "war" is different. There is no army. Just "rogue individuals".

In any case, one person (the president) is using a lot of discretion. If we were, for example, being invaded by England and we captured a british soldier complete in british uniform, dog tags, standard issue weapon, carrying orders, etc it's pretty damn clear he is an enemy combatant.

However, what bush is doing is arbitrarily defining people as enemy combatants when it is NOT so very clear that they are. (for all we know, he could be full of shit) It is not as if they are wearing the uniform of a recognized army. In other words we have no way of knowing for sure. At the VERY least IF the president is the be given such power it should be mandated that a court hears the accusation and decides rather or not a person is indeed an enemy combatant.

[Leprechan29]

20. And the part where:

(paraphrasing here) The United States is currently at war with al-Qaeda: I don't remember congress declaring war, and since the army didn't apprehend him, it does not seem like he could be declared a prisoner of war. Either try him, or let him go, especially being a US citizen.

[pinto]

12. he's an American citizen. Ashcroft can finneagle international law along

with Busboy, but Padilla, guilty or innocent, must have the weight of the Constitution in his court. No two ways about it. The rights to know what you are charged with, face your accusers and have a trial by jury are essential to the American Revolution's ideals and codified in the Constitution.

[Darranar]

13. No. n/t

[Suspicious]

15. An unequivocal no.

I was alarmed beyond words, like many others here, the day they announced Padilla's "detention". I was further alarmed by the unconcerned attitude of the media (as if the indefinite detainment of an American citizen with no charges or access to counsel is just another story) and people around me.

It still seems to me like they're testing the waters - seeing how far they can push the envelope.

[Djinn]

18. I'm not all that keen

on him doing it to NON US citizens either. Under international law there is no precedent for what's going on in Gitmo to citizens of Australia and other nations but when the leaders of those nations go along with it - kowtowing all teh way - what do you do?

Justice for Mamdouh Habib, David Hicks & Ahmed Aziz Rafiq