You are absolutely correct this man would be free if Reagan was in charge. He would have been traded for anti-Armour missiles, jet engine parts and air to air missiles.
Ignore? No, not at all. However, my concern is with incremental-ism. What the fedgov has shown is that they first put something like this in place (like say, the Patriot Act), they make promises not to abuse it, and then they wait. Years go by, people get comfortable, and then the abuses begin to surface. If we look at the example of the Patriot Act, it wasn't until 6-7 years after its passage that we the people became aware it was being abused. Promises of "we will only use this against terrorists" turned into it being used primarily in drug and fraud cases. Why not all cases? Keep in mind, the Patriot Act was sold as a tool to fight terrorism. We have now learned there is a secret interpretation of the Patriot Act and we don't even know what it is. Think about that, a secret interpretation to a law that affects all Americans. When I cite Padilla, I cite it as an example of the US tossing the rule of law out the window, and yes a descent into tyranny. He reported being tortured at GITMO and given our track record there, I believe he is probably telling the truth. Remember, this is a US citizen. They couldn't make their initial charge stick (even given the relaxed nature of the Military Commissions) so they held him for years, tortured him, then got him convicted in a civilian court (only after intense pressure from civil liberties groups) of a lesser charge. To me, that sounds an awful lot like what Iran would do. The authority to label any US citizen an enemy combatant is still in place. The NDAA changed nothing save to codify the AUMF which allows the Executive to label US citizens enemy combatants, effectively stripping their constitutional rights. Enhanced interrogations, indefinite detention, targeted assassinations (read: terrorist acts), yeah, that sounds a lot like Iran to me.
Incrementalism should be a concern with anything government touches, and I don't agree with how we handled Padilla either (the "citizen" scumbag who was ultimately convicted of aiding terrorists BTW). But it's naive lunacy to even suggest that Padilla and our other mistakes form anything even approaching an equivalence between the United States and Iran when it comes to rights. If you want to learn what real and pervasive human rights violations are, read this about Iran (who you incessantly defend and compare us to) and the 200+ references it's based on. Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran You also keep saying how U.S. citizens have lost their rights despite facts to the contrary such as how we're treating Baxam. And that eight of nine Supreme Court Justices don't believe the president has the power to indefinitely hold a citizen without due process. And that the Supreme Court ruled the MCA is unconstitutional and even prisoners have habeas corpus rights under the Constitution. If you're really so concerned, have you done anything about it besides posting on ET? Like actually working for Ron Paul's campaign (who you believe in but I don't) or meeting face-to-face with your congressman about the NDAA?
Now this what P&R was meant to be.....high level discussions about things that really matter. Thanks fellas
In some ways we are worse than Iran. As an example, the Iranian government does not claim the power to indefinitely detain its citizens without charge or trial. Also, if Padilla represents a mistake, then why did Obama specifically ask for language in the NDAA that would allow him to indefinitely detain American citizens? Seems like we are going in the wrong direction. Have you visited our prisons recently? Also, this is subjective so allow me to show my bias. I expect the US to be head and shoulders above the rest of the world, especially in this regard (civil/human rights). The fact that we carry out terrorist operations (assassinations), indefinite detention, enhanced interrogation (torture), and all but the complete suspension of our civil liberties, I'd say we have a long way to go before we can point our finger at another nation. Have we closed Gitmo? Have those prisoners been charged and/or given a trial? How do you suppose these powers will be used ten years from now? The scary thing that you should take away from this is the Executive doesn't seem to care and the Congress is in no mood to stop the Executive. In short, our government is broken. All of the above (except a face to face with my reps...sent letters) I have done and continue to do.
Wow. As a caveman who never got past hunt and peck, I could barely type all that you did in 16 minutes, let alone type it AND read and process that article on Iran's human rights violations which is 36 pages in Word including pictures. If you think we're worse than Iran for that, you must also think our Founding Fathers are worse than the Islamofacists in the Iranian Government for including the Suspension Clause in the Constitution which actually does allow the suspension of habeas corpus without even saying who can or can't suspend it or requiring that the rebellion be armed or in time of war. I was going to suggest you make an appointment with your congressman to discuss the NDAA face-to-face because that has a lot more impact. BUT if you said things like this while trying to make the appointment they might think you're a threat to his safety. And if you did make it past his gatekeepers and repeated this nonsense you wouldn't be taken seriously.
DAS we crossed the line when we violated the Geneva convention about assassination of heads of state. Now assassination ( regime change) is a matter of public policy that we openly discuss. That is one genie you cannot put back in the bottle. And one reason why Paul cannot win.
That's one reason Paul CAN win. Because the American people are becoming aware of just how far down the rabbit hole we've gone and here is a guy that was voting against it and warning us every step of the way.