Padilla finally charged

[Kevin_Lowe]

• Ramzi Yousef's "Project Bojinka" to simultaneously bomb 20 US airliners over the Pacific Ocean using AQ linked Abu Sayyef operatives.
  
• The Padilla and Muhajir mission directed by Abu Zubeida (AQ operations chief) to explode radiological bombs in US cities.
  
• The AQ plot to poison the London water supply with ricin. Another London based AQ cell was busted with a half-ton of ammonium nitrate to be used in an Oklahoma City style attack.
  
• On the anniversary of 9/11 A-Q released a tape of "Azzam the American" making such threats against Los Angeles, CA and Melbourne, Australia. He claimed that we should "expect no restraint".

The first plot was never put into action, as far as I understand. The second was handily prevented (if it ever existed) by Padilla's arrest, but they do seem to be having an awfully hard time finding presentable evidence to take to court on that matter. The UK has refrained from pretending that they are engaged in a war, and the UK plots were dealt with by police methods. The last is simply a threat.

None of those instances constitute evidence that Al Qaeda presents any kind of extraordinary threat that requires the suspension of both civilian and military law.

Luckily we have been smart enough to take the fight to them since 9/11 instead of waiting for them to do yet worse. Or do you suppose that the reason they have not yet had a single successful attack on American soil since 9/11 is because they can't be bothered?

Anthrax? Oh, sorry, that came from a US biowarfare lab.

Anthrax aside, is this evidence that lawful police work could not have sufficed, as it has in the UK and Australia? If your claim is that the public is safer because Padilla has not been charged or tried, you need to do more work.

UBL enjoys quite a lot of support in the Muslim world:
Edited to add: The pic won't load but it showed a tsunami relief worker wearing a UBL tee-shirt.

There's also this account of ME reaction to 9/11 posted to Snopes as researched fact:

Accidentally or otherwise, you have slid from arguing that AQ has the support of a majority of Muslims to arguing that AQ has the support of a majority of people in Middle Eastern nations where people hate the USA.

I don't think it's news that lots of people in that area have it in for the USA for fundamentally political reasons.

You need to watch more news.

I'll take that as a concession that you have absolutely no evidence on that count.

Now you're speaking about individuals who happen to be members of group X and Y rather than the actual danger that group X is capable of versus Y. Yes I'm sure there may be some dangerous characters amongst the nutters who make up Aryan Nations...but as a whole AN is far less of a threat to Joe Average than AQ is.

Surely you can see the logical error there?

If you live in a major US city or major US military target AQ is a threat to you. Less of a threat than lightning, much less of a threat than car accidents, but a threat. If you live somewhere else, but near a violently racist thug, well, even you can figure out who is the greater threat to you in that scenario.

 

[rikzilla]

The first plot was never put into action, as far as I understand.

But why was it not put into action Kevin? If the terrorists decided it was too risky, or untenable, or if they just plain decided to start making nice then you'd have a point. The plot was not put into action because the terror cells made a mistake which led to their capture. Their preliminary test of the plan however did cause an explosion which killed a passenger so as you see these guys were so dangerous that even their test case was lethal; and it used only a prototype microbomb which was one tenth the power of the devices planned. One man died on the test plane which was a B747-200 series...the pilots were barely able to save the aircraft which had 272 other passengers on board.

Here is a list of aircraft targeted.

Flights planned to be affected
[1], [2], [16] - Information still not complete - need OAG of 1995*

• United Airlines Flight 80: Singapore - Hong Kong, which turned to
• United Airlines Flight 806: Hong Kong - San Francisco
• Northwest Airlines Flight 30: Manila - Seoul - Los Angeles
• Delta Air Lines Flight 59: Portland, OR - Seoul - Taipei - Bangkok (Bomber would board in Seoul and disembark at Taipei, bomb would explode on the way to Thailand)
• Northwest Airlines Flight 6: Manila - Tokyo - Honolulu
• United Airlines Flight 808: San Francisco - Seoul - Manila, which would turn around and fly another flight back Manila - Seoul - San Francisco (The bomber would board at Seoul and disembark at Manila, the bomb would activate after departure from Manila)
• A United Airlines Flight: Los Angeles - Hong Kong - Singapore, would then go on Singapore - Hong Kong - Los Angeles (The bomb would explode after takeoff from Singapore on the way to Hong Kong)
• A United Airlines Flight: Taipei - Tokyo - San Francisco
• A United Airlines Flight: Seoul - Taipei, would then fly Taipei-Honolulu (The bomber would board at Seoul and get off at Taipei, the bomb would explode on the way to Honolulu)
• A United Airlines Flight: San Francisco - Taipei - Bangkok, the flight would then turn around and go back to Taipei and San Francisco (The bomb was set to explode after takeoff from Bangkok)
• A Northwest Airlines Flight: Portland - Tokyo - Hong Kong, would turn around and go back to Tokyo and Portland
• A United Airlines Flight: Los Angeles - Tokyo - Hong Kong, the flight was set to go back to Tokyo and Los Angeles

This plot alone whould have been 9/11 writ large. (not to mention that it also included murdering the Pope and flying a bomb laden Cessna into CIA HQ) It was not cancelled due to a sudden epiphany of human kindness by AQ affiliate Abu Sayyaf Group. Luckily the terrorists themselves ran into a bit of tough luck. Not exactly something we can expect every time is it?

The second was handily prevented (if it ever existed) by Padilla's arrest, but they do seem to be having an awfully hard time finding presentable evidence to take to court on that matter. The UK has refrained from pretending that they are engaged in a war, and the UK plots were dealt with by police methods. The last is simply a threat.

Padilla's alledged plot was to explode a radiological dirty bomb in the heart of an American city or cities. Even though this plot lacks the scale of a 9/11 or Bojinka it's still well that it did not come to pass. As for the UK; perceptions are evolving there quite rapidly about the issue of what to do with radical islamists. Even the US in an acknowledged war against radical muslim terrorists is not seriously debating the deportation of persons simply for speech.

None of those instances constitute evidence that Al Qaeda presents any kind of extraordinary threat that requires the suspension of both civilian and military law.

In your opinion.... There are other opinions.

Anthrax? Oh, sorry, that came from a US biowarfare lab.

Straw. I never mentioned the anthrax mailings.

Anthrax aside, is this evidence that lawful police work could not have sufficed, as it has in the UK and Australia? If your claim is that the public is safer because Padilla has not been charged or tried, you need to do more work.

I never said that either. The only implication that can reasonably be inferred from my statements on Padilla is that the public is safer because he was prevented from completing his mission. The other stuff is open to debate...but as long as no laws have been broken in Padilla's incarceration I don't see your point unless it's that you don't like the law. However laws are not subject to change because some of us don't like them.

Accidentally or otherwise, you have slid from arguing that AQ has the support of a majority of Muslims to arguing that AQ has the support of a majority of people in Middle Eastern nations where people hate the USA.

You say to-mate-to; I say tom-ah-to. You're playing semantics now. Do you really expect me to believe that there is some magical place on this planet where the majority of the muslim umah live in peace and harmony; a place not in the middle east and where people have a un-hatred of America?? So, where 'bouts are you thinking of?? Perhaps you're thinking of a string-theoryesque parallel universe??

I don't think it's news that lots of people in that area have it in for the USA for fundamentally political reasons.

Translation; Arab muslims hate Israel. You're right; it's not news; it's not controversial at all so why are we debating semantics??

I'll take that as a concession that you have absolutely no evidence on that count.

You can take it as you like. Your strangled perception and pretzel logic is on display. My points stand.

Surely you can see the logical error there?

If you live in a major US city or major US military target AQ is a threat to you. Less of a threat than lightning, much less of a threat than car accidents, but a threat. If you live somewhere else, but near a violently racist thug, well, even you can figure out who is the greater threat to you in that scenario.

The funny thing here is that you have spent so much time agitating that Padilla has been unjustly incarcerated...and in the next breath you advocate the unjust incarceration of "violently racist thugs". I am no supporter of such thugs, but cannot help observing that it is not against any law to be a "violently racist thug" type unless/until said thug breaks a law. If said thug was caught planning or executing a terrorist act then you are correct. However all the racist thugs you can point to are just unsavory persons who hold unsavory opinions. Padilla took that next step. If the Aryan Nations are caught doing likewise then I hope they end up just like Padilla or worse.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But why was it not put into action Kevin? If the terrorists decided it was too risky, or untenable, or if they just plain decided to start making nice then you'd have a point. The plot was not put into action because the terror cells made a mistake which led to their capture.

So this case does not do a lot to advance the idea that it is necessary to suspend civilisation to fight terrorism, does it?

In your opinion.... There are other opinions.

You are welcome to defend those other opinions, in you think they are defensible.

Straw. I never mentioned the anthrax mailings.

No, you said there were no successful terrorist attacks post-9/11. I pointed out that the anthrax attacks were a couterexample to that claim. No one was ever publicly caught for them either, despite the nifty attacks on civil liberties.

I never said that either. The only implication that can reasonably be inferred from my statements on Padilla is that the public is safer because he was prevented from completing his mission. The other stuff is open to debate...but as long as no laws have been broken in Padilla's incarceration I don't see your point unless it's that you don't like the law. However laws are not subject to change because some of us don't like them.

If you statements were not intended to make the case that Padilla's quasi-legal detention was necessary, I do not understand what you were getting at. As to the legality or otherwise of Padilla's detention, we have seen quite recently that the White House is capable of finding ways to construe torture as being legal. So what can be construed as legal in the USA is not much of a guide to what is moral, good, right or effective any more.

You say to-mate-to; I say tom-ah-to. You're playing semantics now.

You're just revealing your ignorance, Rik.

The funny thing here is that you have spent so much time agitating that Padilla has been unjustly incarcerated...and in the next breath you advocate the unjust incarceration of "violently racist thugs".

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I was pointing out that for the sake of consistency all people who plan, support or carry out acts of politically motivated violence against US citizens on US soil should be treated in the same fashion.

Otherwise people might, I don't know, get the idea that the "war on terror" was merely a cynical exercise in scaremongering. Just one more unsavoury example of politicians drumming up irrational fear of a caricatured foreign enemy for their own ends. Because it certainly is easier to rally the morons by staging a crusade against towel-wearing Islamic fanatics over there than it is to rally the morons by having the secret police lock up christian extremists over here.

 

[rikzilla]

So this case does not do a lot to advance the idea that it is necessary to suspend civilisation to fight terrorism, does it?

More straw. I have never argued for the "suspension of civilization".

You are welcome to defend those other opinions, in you think they are defensible.

I have defended my opinions without deliberate and dishonest re-writing of your opinions. I do wish that you would offer me the same courtesy.

No, you said there were no successful terrorist attacks post-9/11. I pointed out that the anthrax attacks were a couterexample to that claim. No one was ever publicly caught for them either, despite the nifty attacks on civil liberties.

The anthrax attacks were not attacks in the usual sense. They were envelopes with powdery substance inside. Can you tell me what "civil liberties" could possibly be suspended in order to keep us safe from such activity as placing a powder into an envelope and then sending it into the postal system?

If you statements were not intended to make the case that Padilla's quasi-legal detention was necessary,

Whoa there. The words "quasi-legal" are loaded. President Bush as CINC of the armed forces has full legal authority to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant until such time as the conflict is terminated. There is nothing quasi about it. It is legal and the USSC has upheld it's legality.

I do not understand what you were getting at. As to the legality or otherwise of Padilla's detention, we have seen quite recently that the White House is capable of finding ways to construe torture as being legal. So what can be construed as legal in the USA is not much of a guide to what is moral, good, right or effective any more.[

So you are going on record as saying that the legal system in the USA is immoral, bad, wrong, and ineffective? I hope for your sake you live far away from the injustice of America's justice system....Iran perhaps.

You're just revealing your ignorance, Rik.

You and I are now through. I will debate anyone as long as he or she has ideas to debate. One usually sees the tactics of personal attack, name calling, and logical fallacy come out when said opponent has no intellectual weapon left. Good night Kevin. Perhaps we can resume our chat when you adopt a more polite demeanor.

-z

 

[Cylinder]

President Bush as CINC of the armed forces has full legal authority to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant until such time as the conflict is terminated. There is nothing quasi about it. It is legal and the USSC has upheld it's legality.

It's not only that. This power has been established since the founding of this country and used in most every conflict on record. The Quirin opinion linked above cites the use of this power in the US Revolution, the War of 1812, the War with Mexico, the US Civil War and WWII (the case was before the court).

Just to be very clear, President Bush was born on July 6, 1946. The Quirin opinion was filed by the Supreme Court of the United States on October 29, 1942.

That unanimous opinion is very clear on these points:

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, 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.

and

Nor are petitioners any the less belligerents if, as they argue, they have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations.

and

It is that each petitioner, in circumstances which gave him the status of an enemy belligerent, passed our military and naval lines and defenses or went behind those lines, in civilian dress and with hostile purpose. The offense was complete when with that purpose they entered-or, having so entered, they remained upon-our territory in time of war without uniform or other appropriate means of identification.

 

[fishbob]

I have defended my opinions without deliberate and dishonest re-writing of your opinions. I do wish that you would offer me the same courtesy.

. . . . . .


So you are going on record as saying that the legal system in the USA is immoral, bad, wrong, and ineffective? I hope for your sake you live far away from the injustice of America's justice system....Iran perhaps.

-z

I call Bull$h1t. The validity of Paragraph 1 is shot down in flames by Paragraph 2. This week, your defense of your positions has resorted exactly to incorrectly re-writing the opinions of your opponents. More than once. Quite disappointing.


Cylinder:

My point again, is that evidence that shows Padilla can be legally classified as an enemy belligerent should be presented in front of a court in a timely manner. The president can not ignore the responsibilities that are part of his 'full legal authority'. And the recent charges, separate from allegations of enemy belligerency, indicate that the administration realizes this.

 

[3point14]

However laws are not subject to change because some of us don't like them.
-z

You are joking, aren't you? That's exactly how and why laws are changed. Slavery laws, the fuedal system, all sorts. The law requiring goods sold out of the Americas be taxed to the British Crown. If enough people don't like them, they're changed. Isn't that democracy?

 

[rikzilla]

You are joking, aren't you? That's exactly how and why laws are changed. Slavery laws, the fuedal system, all sorts. The law requiring goods sold out of the Americas be taxed to the British Crown. If enough people don't like them, they're changed. Isn't that democracy?

No it's not. Laws are not subject to the vote...they are subject to creation/change by the legislature/congress and enforced by the courts/police.

Here's an example:
The people of Colorado voted into law a referendum some years back which allowed and hence encouraged discrimination in housing against homosexuals. (I'm doing this from memory so forgive if it's not perfectly recalled)
The USSC struck down Colorado's law because it violated the Constitutional rights of a minority.

The tyranny of the majority is why we have a Constitution you know.

-z

 

[fishbob]

Cylinder:

My point again, is that evidence that shows Padilla can be legally classified as an enemy belligerent should be presented in front of a court in a timely manner. The president can not ignore the responsibilities that are part of his 'full legal authority'. And the recent charges, separate from allegations of enemy belligerency, indicate that the administration realizes this.

Oopsie. Administration called on another dumbass move.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/padilla_v_hanft_122105.pdf

page 8: . . . we would regard the intentional mooting by the government of a case of this import out of concern for Supreme Court consideration not as legitimate justification but as admission of attempted avoidance of review.

 

[fishbob]

bump

 

[Bjorn]

No it's not. Laws are not subject to the vote...they are subject to creation/change by the legislature/congress and enforced by the courts/police.

Here's an example:
The people of Colorado voted into law a referendum some years back which allowed and hence encouraged discrimination in housing against homosexuals. (I'm doing this from memory so forgive if it's not perfectly recalled)
The USSC struck down Colorado's law because it violated the Constitutional rights of a minority.

The tyranny of the majority is why we have a Constitution you know.

-z

But if the referendum they voted into law wasn't unconstitutional, it would have become law, wouldn't it? At least that's how it works here in California.

Further, if we want to change the constitution itself, wouldn't it be by the vote of the people (althought deliberatly made difficult, isn't that how it's supposed to happen)? As far as I can see laws, including the constitution, are indeed possible to change if "some of us" (or make that "a lot of us") don't like them.

 

[fishbob]

New developments

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1229/dailyUpdate.html

The Los Angeles Times reports that the government's petition does more than ask for permission to transfer Padilla to civilian custody – some legal analysts say it "could set precedent over an array of legal disagreements between the White House and civil liberties advocates, particularly over the administration's aggressive use of executive power without seeking prior approval from the courts or Congress."

----------------------------

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1135764309664

Since April, Kifah Jayyousi has been living in a small cell in solitary confinement in the Federal Detention Center in Miami. . . .

The U.S. Justice Department says Jayyousi, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Jordan, was part of a Muslim extremist cell operating in this country that included Jose Padilla, the Chicago man the government had originally accused of conspiring to set off a radioactive bomb. Padilla, who was recently indicted in Miami, is being held in a military brig in South Carolina as an enemy combatant. Prosecutors are fighting to change Padilla's legal status and move him to Miami to face terrorism charges.

-----------------------

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...y?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia who monitors terrorism litigation, said that taken together, the two petitions made it more likely that the Supreme Court would hear the Padilla case on its merits and possibly issue a ruling that would set precedent on a broader group of issues.

Tobias said Wednesday's petition by the solicitor general was as notable for its combative language as last week's ruling by the 4th Circuit. Both sharply worded legal briefs, he said, reflected the high stakes and charged emotions associated with the case and with the struggle between the administration and other branches of government over what is an appropriate use of presidential power.

"That's the nub of this issue," Tobias said. "Whether there is a pattern of unilateral executive action without approval or consultation with the other two branches of government."

We live in interesting times.

 

[fishbob]

The latest

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/p...&en=1ccc4e4f2bd8a7fa&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Supreme Court Allows Transfer of Padilla to Civilian Court

. . . The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., refused last month to allow Mr. Padilla to be transferred to civilian custody, declaring that the Bush administration gave the appearance of pushing for the transfer to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing the case and ruling on the government's ability to hold an American citizen like Mr. Padilla outside the civilian criminal justice system. The Justice Department assailed the ruling as an "unwarranted attack" on presidential discretion.

. . . . . . .

One of Mr. Padilla's lawyers, Donna Newman, told The Associated Press today that she was pleased at the Supreme Court's statement in its one-page order that the broader issues in the case would be weighed "in due course."

Still need to see what exactly was contained in the order. Apparently not available on-line yet.

 

[Cylinder]

Still need to see what exactly was contained in the order. Apparently not available on-line yet.

It's on FindLaw:

Jose Padilla has filed a petition for certiorari, seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s judgment upholding his detention by military authorities. See Padilla v. Hanft, No. 05-533 (filed Oct. 25, 2005). On November 22, 2005, the Government filed a motion before the Fourth Circuit, seeking approval to transfer Padilla from military custody to the custody of the warden of a federal detention center in Florida, to face criminal charges contained in an indictment filed November 17, 2005. See Supreme Court Rule 36.1 (“Pending review in this Court of a decision in a habeas corpus proceeding. . . the person having custody of the prisoner may not transfer custody to another person unless the transfer is authorized under this Rule.”). Padilla agreed that the transfer should be approved. The Fourth Circuit denied the request, citing a concern that transfer might affect this Court’s consideration of the pending petition for certiorari and concluding that the “decision should be made not by this court but, rather, by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Order at 3, Padilla v. Hanft, No. 05-6396 (CA4 Dec. 21, 2005).

The Solicitor General has now filed with this Court an Application Respecting the Custody and Transfer of Jose Padilla, seeking the same authorization previously sought from the Court of Appeals. Padilla has filed a response, arguing instead that the Court should delay his release from military custody and consider his release along with his petition for certiorari. The Government’s application presented to the Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The Court will consider the pending petition for certiorari in due course.