|
| In a shocking decision, "a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to reverse a judge's order that the
government either charge or free Jose Padilla, who has been in custody
for more than three years" (AP). Padilla has been incarcerated on
suspicion of cooperating with al-Qaeda since returning to the US from
Pakistan in 2002.
Judge J. Michael Luttig, a candidate for the Supreme Court, wrote, "The
exceedingly important question before us is whether the President of
the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a
citizen of this country who is closely associated with al-Qaida, an
entity with which the United States is at war. We conclude that
the President does possess such authority" (AP).
In my opinion, it is absolutely unbelievable that any judge would allow
an unconvicted American citizen to be imprisoned for three years
without a trial. Judge Luttig bases his decision on a perceived
association between Padilla and al-Qaeda, a relationship that has never
been proven (or even explicitly explored) in a court of law.
Indeed, Judge Luttig takes the President's word for it that Padilla is
an al-Qaeda member, without the need for an evidenciary hearing or
trial. Concluding that the Bill of Rights and other
constitutional protections do not apply to non-Americans is one thing,
but withholding those rights from an American citizen is simply
unacceptable. What ever happened to being innocent until proven
guilty? (Or at least not guilty until proven guilty?) It scares
me that the President can sign a piece of paper calling an American
citizen a terrorist, and that person could be arrested, held without a
lawyer (as Padilla had been for years until the Bush Administration
relented), and be indefinitely imprisoned without trial. Scary
stuff, whether you're a liberal or a real conservative (as opposed to
neocons, who used to call themselves domestic liberal internationalists
in some academic circles).
Let me know what you think about the 4th Circuit's recent ruling
against Jose Padilla's appeal. All opinions are welcome, as usual.
| | |
| Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was declared the winner of Egypt's first contested presidential election today, winning a six year term with nearly 89% of the vote.
In reality, though, the election barely qualified as "contested." Mubarak disqualified many of his main political opponents from the election (leading to a boycott of the election by other political opponents), leaving only Ayman Nour, the Al-Ghad party's candidate, as Mubarak only significant rival. Turnout was a measly 23%.
The Egyptian election is a welcome shift from earlier uncontested elections (where President Mubarak disqualified all other opponents), but it hardly constitutes a free democratic election.
Please feel free to share your thoughts on the Egyptian election. All opinions are welcome. | | |
| Here are a few articles from The Onion, a satirical newspaper, that are
simultaneously disturbing, funny, and politically relevant:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40305
| | |
| Here's an article by Ted Rall about his experiences as a guest on Fox News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20050901/cm_ucru/greenroomconfessions
Interesting stuff. Let me know what you think- all opinions are welcome.
| | |
| As most people know by now, Judge John Roberts has been appointed to
fill former Chief Justice Rehnquist's seat on the Supreme Court instead
of former Associate Justice O'Connor's seat. This move means that
Roberts is up for the Chief Justice position, which is the most
important seat on the Court.
The Chief Justice acts as a leader for the Court, and holds power in
the Court's administrative processes. He has authority to appoint
judges to the FISA Court, among other judicial bodies. In short,
the Chief Justice is particularly important.
That Judge Roberts is now up for the Chief Justice position only
intensifies the need for the Bush Administration to disclose all papers
pertaining to Judge Roberts' practice and career. The Senate must
be informed before confirming a new Chief Justice, and Roberts'
nomination is no exception.
Let me know what you think. All opinions are welcome.
| | |
|
