Padilla finally charged

[fishbob]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1648667,00.html

Jose Padilla, a US citizen held without charge for more than three years after being accused of planning to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a large American city, was yesterday indicted on the lesser charges of conspiring to "murder, kidnap and maim persons" overseas. . . .

Announcing the charges against Mr Padilla yesterday, the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, refused to comment on why no allegations involving attacks on America were included.

Typical.
Too little, too late, and looking foolish in the process.

 

[jj]

Typical.
Too little, too late, and looking foolish in the process.

And they assert authority over crimes in foreign countries, too.

Pathetic.

 

[a_unique_person]

So is there actually anything to the charges, with the problem getting evidence that can be used in court, or is it just a trumped up case by overzealous security forces out to get a scalp.

 

[WildCat]

So is there actually anything to the charges, with the problem getting evidence that can be used in court, or is it just a trumped up case by overzealous security forces out to get a scalp.

Or they don't want to expose intelligence methods and agents by bringing them to a public trial.

Whatever sentence Padilla gets if convicted, it will be less than he gave Elio Evangelista.

 

[joobie]

yay for due process.

 

[Ed]

Another year before trial, I hear.

 

[Tmy]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Couldnt they have done this years ago?

 

[Elind]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1648667,00.html



Typical.
Too little, too late, and looking foolish in the process.

Don't you ever watch any TV about crime? One files charges on the basis of what one has the most obvious evidence on, not the least. Are you telling us that you think this guy was one of those "randomly picked up off the street because someone (in the CIA) didn't like his face" as Dorian Gray would like to say, and then all the rest was made up (aside from the eye gouging and so on).

Seriously, what is too little too late? Which is the foolish part?

Why don't you just tell us exactly what you think, instead of pissing about with pretend clever comments.

I happen to think that the guy is a moronic terrorist wannabe. Not terribly important perhaps, until he happened to kill x people as many other morons have, but nevertheless worthy of contempt and loss of liberty for life.

Now why do I think that? Because I happen to think that most people in our armed forces, and other agencies, are Americans just like me, who for the most part are smart and sincere in what they do.

You seem to have a tendency to piss on them whenever you see al Al Jazeera opportunity to do so.

Pretty sad.

 

[a_unique_person]

Or they don't want to expose intelligence methods and agents by bringing them to a public trial.

Whatever sentence Padilla gets if convicted, it will be less than he gave Elio Evangelista.

Convict them for what they are guilty of. That's the way the law works. But doing nothing is not a legal process. Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[shecky]

They might be able to get him for removing the tags from his mattress.

Habeus corpus is too good for 'im!

 

[fishbob]

Are you telling us that you think this guy was one of those "randomly picked up off the street because someone (in the CIA) didn't like his face" as Dorian Gray would like to say, and then all the rest was made up (aside from the eye gouging and so on).

Seriously, what is too little too late? Which is the foolish part?

Why don't you just tell us exactly what you think, instead of pissing about with pretend clever comments.

I happen to think that the guy is a moronic terrorist wannabe. Not terribly important perhaps, until he happened to kill x people as many other morons have, but nevertheless worthy of contempt and loss of liberty for life.

Now why do I think that? Because I happen to think that most people in our armed forces, and other agencies, are Americans just like me, who for the most part are smart and sincere in what they do.

You seem to have a tendency to piss on them whenever you see al Al Jazeera opportunity to do so.

Pretty sad.

Have you considered a career in TV Evangelism? Your ability to condescendingly twist what others say is exceptional, while your skills at reasoned discussion are completely delusional, and your grasp of the obvious has been weakened by your preconceptions.

What I am telling you is that Padilla - a US citizen on US soil - was picked up and locked up, without due process, by agencies of the US government, in contradiction to the letter and the spirit of the US constitution. Then after 3 years in the pokey, and after much public outcry, after the presidents approval rating goes in the toilet, the charges announced against Padilla are not anything like the allegations presented to the public.

Explain to me how what was done to Padilla is any different than the federal crime of kidnapping?

Lesser charges filed years after they should have been filed only after public perceptions of the adminstration have changed is what is too little, too late, and looking mighty foolish.

 

[Upchurch]

Don't you ever watch any TV about crime?

Do you?

I'm an alum of the Law & Order School of Law and Law Enforcement and they always, always have to come up with something they can charge the suspect with or they have to let him go.

 

[Cylinder]

Explain to me how what was done to Padilla is any different than the federal crime of kidnapping?

Sure. In the wake of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks by al Qaeda against civilian and military targets in the United States, Congress exercised their constitutional authority under Article I; Section 8 to declare war on al Qaeda:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Pursuant to this authorization and his powers under the US Constitution, Pres. Bush ordered Padilla to be held as an enemy combatant.

Jose Padilla, who is under the control of the Department of Justice and who is a US citizen, is, and at the time he entered the United States in May 2002 was, an enemy combatant.

In the latest opinion by US Courts, the 4th District Court of Appeals answered the very question that you pose:

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 Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.
We conclude that the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001.

This power, in fact, is nothing new. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the US Supreme Court ruled that, in Justice O'Connor's words:

The AUMF authorizes the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 115 Stat. 224. There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use.

and

t is, [REDACTED] consistent with US laws and the laws of war for the Sec. of Defense to detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant.

But that's just another Bushitler decision. Surely he is An Evil Man, Intent on Destroying the Fabric of American Society by Subverting the Liberties Americans have Enjoyed since the Time of our Founding. Read the following narrative:

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between [317 U.S. 1, 31] those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. 8 The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

and

The Constitution thus invests the President as Commander in Chief with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offences against the law of nations, including those which pertain to the conduct of war.

and

The Government challenges each of these propositions. But regardless of their merits, it also insists that petitioners must be denied access to the courts, both because they are enemy aliens or have entered our territory as enemy belligerents, and because the President's Proclamation undertakes in terms to deny such access to the class of [317 U.S. 1, 25] persons defined by the Proclamation, which aptly describes the character and conduct of petitioners.

Surely these are prime examples of Pres. Bush overstepping his constitutional authority in an unprecedented power grab under the guise of war. The problem is that these arguments and findings were not written in 2005.

The year was 1942. The case was Quirin v. Cox in which a US citizen was captured as a enemy combatant on US soil, denied habeas writs and tried my military tribunal.

Such was the practice of our own military authorities before the adoption of the Constitution, and during the Mexican and Civil Wars. [317 U.S. 1, 32] Paragraph 83 of General Order No. 100 of April 24, 1863, directed that: 'Scouts or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country, or in the uniform of the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.' And 'Armed Prowlers, by whatever names they may be called, or persons of the enemy's territory, who steal within the lines of the hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, or of destroying bridges, roads, or canals, or of robbing or destroying the mail, or of cutting the telegraph wires, are not entitled to the privileges of the prisoner of war.'

and

By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has likewise recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This precept of the law of war has been so recognized in practice both here and abroad, and has so generally been accepted as valid by authorities on international law that we think it must be regarded as [317 U.S. 1, 36] a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War.

and

Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.

Thems the breaks.

What I am telling you is that Padilla - a US citizen on US soil - was picked up and locked up, without due process, by agencies of the US government, in contradiction to the letter and the spirit of the US constitution.

This is a very peculiar claim. At some point this argument should be promoted to Article of Faith. According to FindLaw, Padilla has been heard before:

US District Court, Southern District of New York, 2003
US US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2004
US Supreme Court, 2004
US District Court for South Carolina, 2005
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2005

Other cases involving other detainees with implications for Padilla have been heard in dozens of cases on every level in US federal courts.

 

[WildCat]

Convict them for what they are guilty of. That's the way the law works. But doing nothing is not a legal process. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Exactly. Padilla shoul have been convicted of murder back in '85 and should have been sitting in a prison cell ever since. I'm glad we agree here. His murder victim has not received justice.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

As Cylinder put it, the Habeas Corpus does not exist anymore in the Land of the Free. Anyone can be picked up off the street and be branded 'Enemy Combatant' and denied any chance to challenge that status.

 

[3point14]

I know nothing of this, but are you guys seriously telling me that this guy was held for 3 years without charge???? No evidence was required to be produced, he had access to legal advice, surely?

And what safeguards are in place to ensure that this level of state power isn't abused?

Boy you guys must have immense faith in your government!!

It's vital that justice be done, but isn't it equally vital that justice is seen to be done?

It's bad enough here, but 3 years? Ohboy.

 

[richardm]

Or they don't want to expose intelligence methods and agents by bringing them to a public trial.

Would it be possible to present the secret parts of the trial in camera? This has been done in various trials here where witnesses are not to be identified. I daresay methods could be discussed in a similar way. Otherwise, you have to wonder what the point of the intelligence gathering is if you can't do anything with it (well, nothing legal anyway...)

It's bad enough here, but 3 years? Ohboy.

Where's 'here'?

 

[Cylinder]

I know nothing of this, but are you guys seriously telling me that this guy was held for 3 years without charge????

Criminal charges are not the standard. Padilla was being held as an enemy combatant. As such, he is subject to detention for the course of the conflict a priori. In fact, had Padilla came to the United States in uniform and in furtherance of an attack against a military target in accordance with the laws and customs of war the government would be prohibited from charging him with a criminal offense because of his combatant privilege.

No evidence was required to be produced, he had access to legal advice, surely?

Evidence is required to be established by the DOD. Whether it has to be "produced" - which I take to mean presented to a court - is still under debate though the evidence against Padilla has been produced for some time now in the form of the unclassified Mobbs Declaration.

And what safeguards are in place to ensure that this level of state power isn't abused?

The US Constitution as interpreted by federal courts and enacted by Congress.

Boy you guys must have immense faith in your government!!

As noted above, this is a long-established power enshrined in the US Constitution as well as international law and the laws and customs or war.

It's vital that justice be done, but isn't it equally vital that justice is seen to be done?

This is an argument of expectation. The US has upheld the letter and the spirit of the law. They have exceeded my expectation in this regard. DO you think that combatant powers have a legitimate right to detain enemy combatant forces during time of war?

It's bad enough here, but 3 years? Ohboy.

Unless you have a crystal ball, all combatant detentions are indefinite in nature. No-one knew in 1940 how long WWII would last, yet those captured during the initial battles of that war were detained for the duration. For instance, Rudolf Hess was captured in 1941 and not charged until 1945.

 

[3point14]

Sorry, 'Here' is the UK.

Cylinder, I see your point, and you say that the safeguards are upheld by the courts, the constitution and by congress, and I have insufficient knowledge to dispute this. How is this demonstrated (if at all) to the American public? For me, the 'argument of expectation' stands because having a government official, elected or otherwise, tell me that 'justice has been done, but we can't prove it' is a more than a little worrisome.

And the points you make are more relevant during 'time of war' but how long has the US got to be free of attack before the 'war' is over? When are these draconian powers revoked? - indeed, the decision over when to end these special powers (The Patriot act, am I right?) will be made using information protected by it, so in theory there can be no attack on US soil for years, and the security services can keep using these powers because the population would have no access to information that would be relevant in ending them.

Hey, it's your country, but if I were you, I'd be worried!


(ETA - and isn't the suspect in US law, still an innocent man, or has that been revoked too?)

 

[Ladewig]

I know nothing of this, but are you guys seriously telling me that this guy was held for 3 years without charge???? No evidence was required to be produced, he had access to legal advice, surely?

The government had reasons for not allowing him access to legal advice. In March 2003...

..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."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/11/padilla.decision/