On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:00:56 -0500, Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: Robert Seeberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > The Justice Department didn't respond directly when asked this > week > > whether it had consulted with experts and knew that uranium > wouldn't > > make a dirty bomb. > > > > Instead, spokesman Mark Corallo said Padilla's statements, in view > of > > his al-Qaida links, made clear that he was "willing to cause > > devastating harm to innocent Americans." > > Being stupid doesn't get a criminal out of being prosecuted for his > crimes, why should it in this case? It's intent that counts, isn't > it? > > - jmh > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > I forget if it was Wolfowitz or Perle who thought he shouldn't be prosecuted because Padilla wasn't playing with a full deck of cards. Not that I would trust anything they say. The real argument in this case is what the Supreme Court is deciding, should he have been thrown in jail for years without charges, without contact with his family, and without a lawyer?
Not according to the Constitution is obvious but this stacked court sometimes has problems with the obvious. Gary Denton - Civil Rights Maru #1 on google for liberal news
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
