This is not my blog and you are offensive and rude in taking this “debate” if you want to call it that–all over the blogosphere. it’s not enough that you’re throwing a tantrum over at your place, or sending me trackback spam or “tiny url’s”…you have to take the argument over here where probably most people are unaware of what has taken place or the history of it.

You are completely unparalleled in the brass balls category, I’ll give you that, but I am not going to obey you, or play by your rules–no matter where or how you stalk me.

The court accepted the Government’s contention that the President has authority to detain as enemy combatants citizens captured on American soil during a time of war. Id., at 587-599.5

So if you can provide me with the detailed legal argument that illustrates definitively that his “rights” are being denied, please do so.

According to Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, “Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The question of suspending habeas corpus, then, turns on interpreting “rebellion” and “invasion.”

Since Jose Padilla is a citizen of the United States, recently converted to Islam, changed his name to Abdullah Al Muhajir, and visited the Middle East, including Afghanistan and Pakistan and had contact with Al Qaeda operatives for the purpose of making and detonating a dirty bomb, this point is moot.

Section Three (the section on Treason in the US Constitution) also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same “overt” act, or a confession by the accused, to convict for treason. In Cramer v. United States , the Court ruled that “every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses.” In Haupt v. United States , however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are only required to prove that the overt act actually occurred.

Furthermore, Section Three permits Congress to determine the punishment for treason. No-one convicted of treason “shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person” so convicted. In other words, the descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered “tainted” (i.e., their blood could not be corrupted) by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, the clause permits Congress to confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

So what “constitutional rights” are you talking about that he has that the ACLU is upholding/defending in this case?

Simple, the charges have not yet been proven. So the ACLU defends his
rights accorded him under the Constitution.

Bush could, quite literally, “vanish” the winner of the next election if it’s a democrat. Legally. It’s official and in writing, and the SCOTUS, in its present form, is unlikely to put a stop to it.

After all, oppose the president on this one and some of them might find themselves declared as enemy combatants.

The president -is- terrorism, in its truest and most dangerous form. And he’s a far greater threat to America than the brown “furriners” repubs constantly cry about.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic