Held without charges

[Commonwealth Cousin]

On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina.
Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention.

http://www.chargepadilla.org/

Obviously under the Patriot Act the US government has the authority to do this, but what is Congress for, if not, amongst other duties, to consider the ramifications of the actions of Government.

What's your view?

And, what do you think other democratic nations consider of these actions by the US administration?

Do you care what other democratic nations think of the way the US is attempting to combat terrorism?

 

[Shane Costello]

Well it's been done before in Ireland. The Republic used internment against the IRA on successive occassions, and AFAIK the government retains the power to do so.

 

[American]

"Held without charges" is nothing.


Soldiers out of uniform in enemy territory are spies. Spies have been shot for 100 years without trials or charges. And it's completely legal.

(Note- so much as an arm band or any recognizable insignia qualifies as a "uniform", affording that soldier certain rights. Jose apparently had no such identifiable gear on his body.)

The only reason we are not practicing the policy openly is because Americans have grown too soft to understand anything real about war, peace, and national security. They would sooner endure 100 terrorist attacks than shoot a single spy in the skull, like we should.

The terrorists know this very well, and are using it to their advantage. THANKS ACLU! Thanks for keeping "my right" to plot terrorist attacks safe, while enabling people who want to kill me and thousands like me, as violently and horrifically as possible. I have always known exactly where your priorities lay, lawyer-boy faggots, but this helps re-assure my own certainty that I know what is what in this world, who my real friends are, and who is the real enemy of America.

 

[Bjorn]

We don't know if he was or is a soldier out of uniform in enemy territory. We will only know if he is tried in court.

To quote from the website:

If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be.

"American" - did you see that? Better hide!

 

[ssibal]

Obviously under the Patriot Act the US government has the authority to do this, but what is Congress for, if not, amongst other duties, to consider the ramifications of the actions of Government.

Could you please provide the specific text from the Patriot Act that gives the government the authority to do that? Last time I checked, it did not authorize such actions.

 

[Commonwealth Cousin]

Re: Re: Held without charges

Could you please provide the specific text from the Patriot Act that gives the government the authority to do that? Last time I checked, it did not authorize such actions.

It might then be in the subsequent Act, The Intelligence Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2004

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Held without charges

It might then be in the subsequent Act, The Intelligence Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2004

I believe the power stems from the War Powers Act. I'm not motivated enough to research it and pick out the specific clause. Here's another interesting article that touches on this point.

The court did not address the issue presented in a separate case involving another enemy combatant, that of accused "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla. (More on Padilla case)

"We have no occasion, for example, to address the designation as an enemy combatant of an American citizen captured on American soil or the role that counsel might play in such a proceeding. See, e.g., Padilla v. Bush," the opinion read.

"We shall, in fact, go no further in this case than the specific context before us -- that of the undisputed detention of a citizen during a combat operation undertaken in a foreign country and a determination by the executive that the citizen was allied with enemy forces."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/


Edited to note: I personally have no real difficulty granting the president -- or any president -- this right of decision so long as it addresses a specific person to the exclusion of a specific crime or set of crimes. Think of it as James Bond's License To Kill on traqualizers.

 

[TAILGUNNER]

We are at war hence anything goes

Surly the rights of the individual are negated by the rights of defence of the nation

quote:If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be.

I'm British so i'm safe, and if padilla was let and went on to kill thousands everybody would be asking why he wasnt detained catch 22

 

[Nasarius]

What's your view?

The man probably is scum, but it's a disgrace to the US and its ideals to detain someone without even charging him with a crime. That's the kind of thing I expect in third-world dictatorships, not my country.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

 

[Tony]

This isn't without precedent. People have been detained for a lot less during times of war. That said, it still makes me uncomfortable that this guy is being held without being charged and without any kind of legal recourse.

 

[rikzilla]

I agree that Padilla should have been charged....but OTOH I agree with "American" on his ultimate disposition should he be found guilty.

Personally I think he should have been tried by a military court, and if found guilty should be summarily executed. As "American" said, spies and saboteurs are fair game...but I think even these guys got a trial.

-z

Edited to add this:

By June 27, 1942, all eight saboteurs had been arrested without having accomplished one act of destruction. Tried before a Military Commission, they were found guilty. One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days.

Here's a better link

Does anyone really think Mr. Padilla would rather this treatment over what he's experienced himself?

 

[Agammamon]

This isn't without precedent. People have been detained for a lot less during times of war. That said, it still makes me uncomfortable that this guy is being held without being charged and without any kind of legal recourse.

Yes, and in pretty much every case the Supreme Court's review has determined that the suspension of Habeus Corpus or indefinate internment has been unconstitutional. They did it after Lincoln in the Civil War, and after the japanese internment camps of WWII.



". . .Soldiers out of uniform in enemy territory are spies. Spies have been shot for 100 years without trials or charges. And it's completely legal. . ."

American,
It's kind of difficult to know if this guy actually did what he's charged with if the gov won't bring the case to court. As a matter of fact, based on the governments actions in a couple of other, similar cases, if they haven't brought him to court yet it's because they don't have enough evidenc to convict him.

 

[Tmy]

How hard would it be to charge him with somthing?

WE are not at war. War hasnt been declared. We also have a "War on drugs", does that mean you can round up every ususpected dealer and lock them in a hole?

 

[Agammamon]

I suppose it does now, since drugs support terrorism.

 

[Rob Lister]

How hard would it be to charge him with somthing?

WE are not at war. War hasnt been declared. We also have a "War on drugs", does that mean you can round up every ususpected dealer and lock them in a hole?

Actually, we are at war. It has been declared. It just hasn't been declared in the typical manner (which isn't very typical anyway since it hasn't been used since WWII). The declaration takes the form of specific funding and support by the congress.

The war on drugs, like the war on poverty, is a different animal but even so, if the funding and support for locking up suspected drug dealers existed, it would be done as well. If it were, I've little doubt that there would be far fewer drugs availible for sale (and that would be a sad, if not bad, thing.)

 

[Ladewig]

In September of last year, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, had said in the memo that attorney access might spoil the "sense of dependency and trust" Padilla may have developed with his interrogators. Jacoby revealed that the interrogators' technique is to create "a relationship in which the subject perceives that he is reliant on his interrogators for his basic needs and desires."

Coercing confessions in this manner is un-American. The government claims that Padilla met with Al-Queda operatives in order to learn how to assemble and detonate dirty bombs. I believe it is quite possible that those meetings really took place and that Padilla is a member of Al-Queda; however, I am not willing to take the government's word for it. Each week more information about the government's intelligence gathering and analysis problems are revealed. Give him a trial (even a secret, classified trial).

 

[Rob Lister]

In September of last year, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, had said in the memo that attorney access might spoil the "sense of dependency and trust" Padilla may have developed with his interrogators. Jacoby revealed that the interrogators' technique is to create "a relationship in which the subject perceives that he is reliant on his interrogators for his basic needs and desires."

That sounds about right, even if neither the admiral or the memo exists.

[/quote]Coercing confessions in this manner is un-American. [/quote]

Be that (your opinion) as it may, the question remains, is it necessary to protect that which is American? Americans have done this since day one. It may (or may not) be unconstitutional, but it in keeping with custom.

 

[Agammamon]

"Americans have done this since day one" to other Americans. Quite often a bunch of people who thought they were as American as apple pie, but didn't look or talk like this other group of Americans who thought they were as American as apple pie.


In any cas, a long history of doing something doesn't mean that something was the right thing to do.

 

[Rob Lister]

"Americans have done this since day one" to other Americans. Quite often a bunch of people who thought they were as American as apple pie, but didn't look or talk like this other group of Americans who thought they were as American as apple pie.


In any cas, a long history of doing something doesn't mean that something was the right thing to do.

Nor does it necessarily mean it is wrong. Let's define Right and Wrong before use it in another word's definition. I'll start, you chime in with your opinion and well dicker down until we reach an agreement.

Right: That which is in my best interest or those to whom I convey my best interests.

 

[Rob Lister]

Nor does it necessarily mean it is wrong. Let's define Right and Wrong before use it in another word's definition. I'll start, you chime in with your opinion and well dicker down until we reach an agreement.

Right: That which is in my best interest or the best interest of those to whom I convey my best interests.

edit: clarity