Padilla finally charged

[Elind]

Just curious: Where to Timothy McVeigh, the KKK and people who bomb abortion clinics fit into your picture?

I'll try if you insist.

Do you consider the KKK a terrorist organization as we know them in this age? As far as I know the US government doesn't.

McVeigh could certainly qualify as a terrorist, but not an organization as such. There have been plenty of McVeighs from time to time, all unconnected with each other, who differ only in the scale of destruction that they accomplished. In the past they would have been considered twisted criminals. Today it would be criminal not to take exceptional steps to determine if there were others involved.

The abortion murderers are what they are. A fringe of religious fanatics, who for the most part don't advocate murder. nor do they advocate the destruction of society (God will do that), and the few that go over the edge are like any loonies that flip out from time to time.

The above also have other differences from Al Qaeda or similar groups, but I suggest that if you study these issues a little further you will be able to see those by yourself.

 

[peptoabysmal]

This torture of top al-Qaida leaders may also cause problems for the government were there to be a trial for the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. The tip that led to Padilla's initial detention on a material witness warrant in May 2002 came from intensive CIA interrogations of Zubaida, a close associate of Osama Bin Laden. In December 2003, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Padilla be released from military custody and either charged in federal court or released. However, any prosecution of Padilla could be very problematic for the government, because the case for his guilt rests mostly (if not entirely) on secret interrogations of al-Qaida leaders, which now appear to have involved torture. If a criminal case is ever brought against Padilla, his lawyers are sure to challenge this crucial evidence on a number of grounds, including reliability and the fact that it was procured with torture in a way that "shocks the conscience."
Tainted by Torture

If this story is true, then they went after Padilla with what they could actually use in court, plain and simple.

From the same story:

So, setting aside for a moment all the moral, political, and practical problems of such tactics (staggering though these problems may be), as a purely legal matter, the use of torture during interrogation has so many negative consequences that it may ultimately allow some accused terrorists to win acquittals merely because it will lead to suppressed evidence of their factual guilt.

Is it possible that we (the US) have gotten some information by torture which has saved lives?

If we are only concerned about the legal battle, are we truly just a "paper tiger" as described by Bin Laden?

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. ... As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger.
ABC Interview (on pbs.org)

Before you try to paint me as being "pro-torture", let me inform you that I am not. I would prefer we have a "no prisoners" policy regarding al-Queda, that is, kill them where you find them. What do you do when you are a nation who must abide by treaties (or "international law" if you prefer), yet must defend itself from those who needn't abide by any rules at all?

 

[fishbob]

Before you try to paint me as being "pro-torture", let me inform you that I am not. I would prefer we have a "no prisoners" policy regarding al-Queda, that is, kill them where you find them. What do you do when you are a nation who must abide by treaties (or "international law" if you prefer), yet must defend itself from those who needn't abide by any rules at all?

You mean the way the Brits found and killed that Brazilian electrician?? Smooth move.

There are many reasons why the rule of law is handy. Maybe not always expedient, but handy.

 

[3point14]

Oh, well. I jumped to a biased assumption that you were from the US. Perhaps you could be so kind as to add your location since the accent is hard to pick up sometimes?

No worries. I'll try to add a location - I can't get the hang of all this technical stuff!

(ETA - [petty]your location isn't listed, I notice...[/petty])

 

[richardm]

Before you try to paint me as being "pro-torture", let me inform you that I am not. I would prefer we have a "no prisoners" policy regarding al-Queda, that is, kill them where you find them.

Are you seriously suggesting that you'd be happy with a policy where any US citizen could be killed on sight on suspicion of being a member of al-Queda? Or is it just foreigners that it's okay to kill?

 

[Matabiri]

No, your comments do however strike me in a different way.

The wording of the linked Authorization for the Use of Military Force says

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.

(My emphasis.)

So it's wholly up to the President to determine who's guilty, and what the burden of proof is (according to that document). Al Queda and the Taliban aren't mentioned specifically.

So you're at war with whomever the President decides "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons". Isn't that a bit loose? And when is the war over? When "any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" are prevented?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I understand the concept of holding an enemy combatant until the conflict is over and I agree with it. But:

1. The war on terror will likely never be over (at least not in our life time); meaning anyone who is declared an enemy combatant just received an automatic life sentence.

2. I think all of us can agree that when the government labels a US citizen an enemy combatant, this label should at least be reviewed by a judge to insure it has not been misapplied.

LLH

 

[3point14]

So the practical application of all of this is that the presumption of innocence is removed from those accused of terrorist activities?

 

[richardm]

McVeigh could certainly qualify as a terrorist, but not an organization as such.

It has been suggested by more than one person that Al-Qaeda is not really a formal organization, but more something that people affiliate themselves to. It's really just people inspired by them, or having the same goals, rather than being directly part of the same group. It's one of the things that makes them so difficult to infiltrate. You infiltrate one bit, but the other bits are unconnected.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

So the practical application of all of this is that the presumption of innocence is removed from those accused of terrorist activities?

I think that sums it up very well.

LLH

 

[BPSCG]

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.

Y'all called them "Star Chambers", didn't you? Whatever happened to them?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Do you consider the KKK a terrorist organization as we know them in this age? As far as I know the US government doesn't.

Do they use violence or the threat of violence for political ends? If so, certainly.

That's beside the point though, because what I am trying to get at is your definition of what it is to be a terrorist, and how this definition leads to the conclusion that criminal remedies are inappropriate or insufficient.

McVeigh could certainly qualify as a terrorist, but not an organization as such. There have been plenty of McVeighs from time to time, all unconnected with each other, who differ only in the scale of destruction that they accomplished. In the past they would have been considered twisted criminals. Today it would be criminal not to take exceptional steps to determine if there were others involved.

What changed, then?

The abortion murderers are what they are. A fringe of religious fanatics, who for the most part don't advocate murder. nor do they advocate the destruction of society (God will do that), and the few that go over the edge are like any loonies that flip out from time to time.

I do not follow. People plant bombs which kill civilians as a result of lunatic religious/political ideas and they aren't terrorists, they merely "are what they are"?

This walks and quacks like a double standard.

 

[jj]

Do they use violence or the threat of violence for political ends? If so, certainly.

Ever dealt with a smalltown republican in the midwest?

 

[Elind]

So you're at war with whomever the President decides "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons". Isn't that a bit loose? And when is the war over? When "any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons" are prevented?

What's your point? Are you from the US? If you are you should know that, whatever some might like to think, this is not a one-man dictatorship and the system is a little more complicated than your understanding suggests.

I'll repeat. What's your point?

 

[Elind]

Do they use violence or the threat of violence for political ends? If so, certainly.

That's beside the point though, because what I am trying to get at is your definition of what it is to be a terrorist, and how this definition leads to the conclusion that criminal remedies are inappropriate or insufficient.

I'm sorry. I could elaborate further but I don't see the point. There are many here who see the distinctions, and some who don't, but we've been down this path before and I think you have a political rather than pragmatic approach to anything.

There is out there a cultural regression that does have a characteristic, and danger, that goes well beyond simple criminal and antisocial behaviour. You are unable to see it, and you think those who claim to do so are delusional.

This is exactly like a discussion between an established atheist and a firm creationist. There will not be a meeting of minds.

We don't have one, so let's just save our sarcasm, or worse, for more entertaining discussions and let it drop.

 

[Elind]

It has been suggested by more than one person that Al-Qaeda is not really a formal organization, but more something that people affiliate themselves to. It's really just people inspired by them, or having the same goals, rather than being directly part of the same group. It's one of the things that makes them so difficult to infiltrate. You infiltrate one bit, but the other bits are unconnected.

True enough, but there are a hell of a lot more of them (than McVeighs), and they do have a solid common denominator. Hatred of modern civilization driven by a common message that they all recognize instantly, from a god.

 

[rikzilla]

That's beside the point though, because what I am trying to get at is your definition of what it is to be a terrorist, and how this definition leads to the conclusion that criminal remedies are inappropriate or insufficient.

Kevin,

A war exists in a meaningful (if undeclared) way as soon as a beligerant power Y plans and executes offensive strikes against country X. The goals are usually large ones and involve many individuals striving for the desired outcome for the "collective" (read nation, religion, or organization that makes up power Y).

The "War on Terror"(tm) was ultimately coined by W after 9/11. But W did not create the WOT. The WOT existed and made it's presence known to the US for many years prior to 9/11. Early on the US President did just what you are now advocating....criminal remedies to terrorist warfare activity. But UBL is not a criminal. He is a political/religious/military leader. He is not holding up the local bank...he is making war to the very best of his limited capabilities.

President Clinton demonstrated the mistake of treating these people as criminals. Under his leadership the problem grew....somehow the threat of the long arm of the law to people who aspire to firey death and martyrdom was rather underwhelming. I'd even go so far as to say that UBL must have thought us all insane. Imagine; the world's most powerful nation sending lawyers and policemen as deterent and remedy to his army of martyrs!! We weren't likely to put much of a dent in AQ's plans unless UBL happened to hurt himself while laughing.

I happen to believe that Mr. Clinton, had he been POTUS during 9/11, would have finally woken up and recognised the existence of a state of war such as Mr. Bush did. In retrospect we can look back and see that not only has a terrorist war existed against the US prior to the 9/11 wake up call....but that also those soldiers of Allah were fought as if criminals. It didn't work then; why do you think it would work now?

Truth is; criminals are selfish and opportunistic. They generally are merely interested in self gratification. The law can easily handle such individuals. But the mujahadeen are not criminals. They are not selfish and simply motivated. They are comitted to a larger religious movement. We cannot deter them, we can only kill them until we take them down to a level where they can no longer conduct cohesive offensive operations against us. It's war...and it's war on our own soil, etc....we really need to win. Leaving Vietnam we were able to leave the conflict behind...we try that now in Iraq and Afghanistan it's simply not going to work...

-z

BTW: Cylinder....damned fine bunch of posts....I am enlightened!

 

[fishbob]

President Clinton demonstrated the mistake of treating these people as criminals. Under his leadership the problem grew....somehow the threat of the long arm of the law to people who aspire to firey death and martyrdom was rather underwhelming. -z

Padilla's questionable incarceration and dragging the Constitution through the dirt are Clinton's fault? I too am enlightened.

 

[Cylinder]

Just curious: Where to Timothy McVeigh, the KKK and people who bomb abortion clinics fit into your picture?

Are you in favour of detaining suspected KKK members indefinitely on the basis of allegations they met with important KKK figures and planned to attend a training camp?

Since Congress did not see fit to declare war against Timothy McVeigh, abortion bombers, or the KKK those questions present very dubious analogies. Without stautory authorization from Congress, the president would be unable to execute this well-established war power.

 

[Chaos]

Since Congress did not see fit to declare war against Timothy McVeigh, abortion bombers, or the KKK those questions present very dubious analogies. Without stautory authorization from Congress, the president would be unable to execute this well-established war power.

And what makes those folks so different from Al-Queda that they are not the target of a war? Remember, on a victims-per-terrorist basis, McVeigh´s attack was worse than 9/11.

Besides that, the abortion clinic bombers are terrorists, and fanatical groups like the Militia of Montana, Aryan Nations, and what the hell else is crawling around out there in your backyard, are very probably planning terrorist attacks against the US.