Daily Kos

View Story | 293 comments

  •  That is a good question (4.00 / 7)

    Why was he detained in the first place?? He hasn't broken any law..Look, maybe he should contact a First Amendment lawyer and see whether he has a case against the goverment for harrassing him illegally.
    •  Bush is a dictator- look at Padilla (4.00 / 6)

      Bush will detain anyone he damn well pleases, and if he feels like making up some secret charges, you will be thrown in jail until the "war on terra" is over.  And Dictator Bush will decide when the war is over.

      Will Bush appoint himself dictator for life?  That could well be the end result if the 4th Court of Appeals decision is upheld by the Supreme Scum.

      What would stop Bush from declaring that it was just too dangerous to hold the 2008 election?  Surely not Joe Lieberman, he would just continue to kiss Bush and confirm incompetent jerks like Mike Brown.

      •  Considering his popularity (none / 1)

        I wouldn't think that would stand.  Regardless of how it sometimes seems, we do not live in a 3rd rate Bannana Republic, and people do NOT have to answer to him.  He would need to build a strong and loyal force of well-armed men to enforce his will, and frankly I think he's been so busy sending them off to be slaughtered in Iraq that their loyalty to him is hanging by the thread of their oath and damn little else.

        If he were not bound by the 2 term limit, I'd say we could expect an election-rigging in 2008, but the Republicans themselves were so outraged that a liberal would take office and impede their rollback of the New Deal for almost 16 years straight that they may have cut off their own noses to spite their face in amending the constitution to limit Presidential terms.

        Warned you we tried. Listen you did not. Now screwed we all are.

        by slippytoad on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 04:02:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'd go with the Fourth (none / 0)

      Amendment IV.  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      This was not a 'reasonable' seizure because there was no probable cause, as the MPs freely acknowledged, and no warrant was issued.

    •  If martial law... (none / 0)

      ... was declared in the area, I believe that the troops can do what they wish.

      Serious grey area, however. I'm no expert.

      Do you have a child? Will you send her to the war?... anon

      by andreww on Fri Sep 09, 2005 at 05:42:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We are in America (none / 1)

        In America, there is no such thing as martial law.

        Show me a man trying to enforce martial law in America, and I will show you a foreign invader or a traitor to the Republic.

      •  Posse comitas (4.00 / 2)

        prohibits US soldiers from excersizing any police powers, martial law or no.

        Otherwise the US would be a police state.

        Is Cheney  telling us something?

      •  Martial law (none / 1)

        was NOT declared. I wish people would stop saying this.

        We talked about this in my law school class the other day. Our professor talked about how there was a press conference with everybody, and they were very careful NOT to declare martial law.

        So the dude should not have been detained. Full stop.

View Story | 293 comments