How nice.  Federal prosecutors have indicted Jose Padilla on terrorism-related charges.  Now, Padilla may well be a genuine badass terrorist...but why'd it take three years to charge him?  Doesn't our Constitution provide the right to a speedy trial, not to mention seeing the evidence against you, the presumption of innocence, and the right to confront your accusers? 

It didn't matter for Padilla, though.  He is a U.S. citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil.  And the government -- our government -- said that he had none of those rights.  And threw him into prison, holding him incommunicado without even access to a lawyer until the courts said they couldn't do that.  (Those damn activist liberal judges, coddling criminals again.)  What justification did they give for this?  Basically, they said that he's a bad guy.  Again, he may certainly be a bad guy...but a court of law is the proper place to adjudicate that, not in John Ashcroft's press releases.  The simple fact that someone is proclaiming something over and over doesn't make it true.

How so very...Bushlike.  And don't forget that if they could do it to Jose Padilla, they can do it to you too.

Comments

[Vinny]

I never understood one thing. If a case was good enough to get a guy and hold him, why did it take 3 years to develop it?

It's the same thing with Tony Blair's "We can hold you for 90 years until we develop the case" crap. If yolu have a case, why do you need two years?

And if you don't, why are you holding the person?

It boggles the mind.

[Vidiot]

Exactly. If you've got enough evidence to arrest someone and hold them, you've got enough evidence to charge them.