Join the Discussion
NY Times misrepresented Mukasey ruling on Bush's authority to hold detainees
Summary: The New York Times stated that attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey "has repeatedly spoken out to support the administration's claim to broad powers in pursuing terrorist threats, especially in conducting electronic surveillance of terrorism suspects and in imprisoning them before trial." But Mukasey's ruling as a district court judge on the detention of terrorism suspects went beyond what the Times reported. In the case of Jose Padilla, Mukasey ruled that the government had the legal authority to imprison Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested within the United States, without trial.
Read more
Threaded Comments: on / off
Posted by Limit Corp. Ownership
Is this Dork a moderate??
Sounds like another right-wing fascist. Does he keep a copy of Mein Kampf in his office?
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 4:29:38 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by dexteritas0071418 in reply to Limit Corp. Ownership
Oh ho, good one. Go talk to Chucky Schumer, he likes him.
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 4:39:09 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by open_mind in reply to dexteritas0071418
Yeah. That's what I don't get. I was starting to get a warm feeling in my belly about a possible conservative with integrity as an AG based on Shumer's recommendation and now this happens.
Mukasy looks like just another rubber-stamper of Bush's aggressive and hostile interpretation of the Constitution.
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 7:02:07 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by redking75687 in reply to open_mind
If you ever take a good look at Schumer's ideology, you find a fascist. He's big into the police state.
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 8:02:14 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by dexteritas0071418
I think we need some constitutional clarification on this one, thanks Congress (both during the issue and now) for stepping up to that one. If one is an American citizen but can be proven to be a fighter for an enemy of the state, are they an unlawful combatant or a citizen first?
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 4:40:14 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by Limit Corp. Ownership in reply to dexteritas0071418
Proof is in a Court of Law...
isn't it? Or is it in the mind of King George? I think we're not far from a police state.
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 4:47:32 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by dexteritas0071418 in reply to Limit Corp. Ownership
True, so we'll agree that someone like Padilla at least gets a hearing on whether he's an enemy combatant or citizen, right?
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 4:57:59 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by open_mind in reply to dexteritas0071418
I am not sure it is that simple. It may not be entirely an either/or situation. Those kind of arguments are often tricky and can have major unintended problems down the line.
Of course, your question ignores the fact that the administration never wanted Padilla to be anywhere near the judicial/tribunal system in the first place in order even to settle a question similar to yours.
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 7:08:28 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by solon in reply to dexteritas0071418
Hearing? If he is accused of a crime he gets a TRIAL period.
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 10:06:24 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by redking75687 in reply to dexteritas0071418
If he's an American citizen and accused of terrorist activities, by law he is to be given due process and a trial. But then the Bill of Rights was mortally wounded in the Drug War and now has been shot to death in the War of Terror. DC blatantly disregards the Constitution....more viable reasons for secession.
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 8:25:16 PM EDT / Flag this comment
Posted by solon in reply to dexteritas0071418
Actually that is not a question at all. If they can be PROVEN to be a terrorist or to have comitted a crime it makes no difference whatsoever if they are citizens they are judged and guilty. The question is is an accusation by the administration ALONE enough to keep someone in incarcerated without even TRYING to prove they have done anything at all. And the answer to that is if so there IS no sixth amendment and the Bill of rights and constitutional rights overall no longer exist
Posted Wednesday September 19, 2007 10:04:01 PM EDT / Flag this comment