Newshoggers Comments
Hi Libby
The Bush administration policy on illegal combatants has been a complete disaster. Jose Padilla belongs in jail for terrorism, if not treason, on the merits of his own actions.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/The.../
padilladoc.pdf
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Having joined al Qaida, Padilla should have been brought to a *speedy* military trial following the precedent of Ex Parte Quirin and sentenced under the UCMJ, not Federal terrorism law in a civilian court.
Zen, I don't think the evidence is clear that he joined AQ. As I recall, the government miraculously "found" the application in some safe house in Afghanistan and it's not beyond the realm of possibility in the three years they had held incommunicado, in complete isolation and marched him around with blinders on that they could have handed him the app to get his fingerprints on it.
Besides, you're ignoring that he was not charged with the crimes he was orginally seized over since the government obviously couldn't make a case for the "dirty bomb."
I'm not saying he's a great guy who was guilty of nothing, but he is surely not a terrorist who presented any danger to our national security.
Jose Padilla, a US citizen, a civilian, was arrested on US soil. Why do you think he should have been tried by the military?
Hey Libtards,
Padilla was caught red-handed with his prints, signature, et al. all over an APPLICATION FORM to join an AQ camp in Pakistan with two accomplices who were already AQ trusties. Subsequently, he tried to serve as a service-cell for AQ stateside to assemble a dirty bomb.
Just a misdemeanor in your book? Or are you so addicted to "process crimes" that real crimes don't pass muster in your playbook?
I guess you leftardos just love any and all of America's enemies as a Pavlovian reflex. And a jury of YOUR peers WOULDN'T convict Padilla? Explain why.
Empty - I assume that was directed to Zen, since I certainly don't think Padilla should ever have been tried by the military.
Dave - could you try to pay attention before you shoot you mouth off? I answered you question in the comment above.
Hi Libby,
Sorry, I should have made it clear. Yes my comment was addressed to zen.
It still grates on me when people question Scooter Libby's innocence. According to the laws of the United States of America, the man is a convicted Felon.
Padilla has also been convicted and found guilty of the charges of "supporting terrorists". He is guilty of those charges, and is rightly in jail.
Most of the case against him was made using good police work, which predated his arrest (and President Bush's "necessary for the fight on terrorism" illegal wiretaps)
From ABC News
Central to the investigation were some 300,000 FBI wiretap intercepts collected from 1993 to 2001, mainly involving Padilla's co-defendants Hassoun and Jayyousi and others. Most of the conversations were in Arabic and purportedly used code such as "tourism" and "football" for violent jihad or "zucchini" and "eggplant" instead of military weapons or ammunition.
Padilla's guilt has very little to do with the legality of the actions taken against him by our government.
Empty,
Because that follows the appropriate legal precedent according to the Supreme Court of the United States, which reiterated that precedent in their recent Hamdi case decision.
Some of the men executed in the WWII Ex Parte Quirin case were German spies, others were "civilian American citizens caught on American soil" who adhered to the Nazi cause and were helping the saboteurs.
The legal difference amounts to this :
If you decide to become a terrorist on your own or with a homegrown group, you get a civilian trial and are charged under the provisions of The Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (which, incidentally, is no day at the beach; it's a very tough law).
If you join a foreign terrorist group in a state of armed conflict with the United States, for which the Congress has authorized the use of military force, you are an irregular combatant, not a civilian, and are tried under military law.
The Bush administration has consistently tried to refuse to do either, arguing for indefinite detention without trial at their discretion, until the courts have forced them to bring detainees to trial in one venue or another or release them.
jandrew, read your own quote. Padilla was only marginally involved in those calls and you KNOW they were speaking in code because the government told you so? The same government that insisted there were WMDs hidden in Iraq based on equally fine police work? In 300000 calls you think it's impossible that sometimes a zucchini is just what you're having for dinner before a football game?
I wouldn't presume to judge Padilla's guilt since I haven't seen the evidence, but neither did the jury get to see it all. You seem to have forgotten the govt lost a key piece of it, perhaps because it was exculpatory? Or would have revealed the inhumane methods they used to get Padilla to "confess?"
As I said, I'm not even talking about whether he was guilty or not. The point is he didn't get a fair trial and that's the point Zen. This administration has contorted the meaning of the rule of law into something very ugly to suit their own purposes that was not intended by our Framers and I might remind you that Padilla was not tried for the same crimes for which he was held for three years. Allegedly filling out an application that he apparently never acted on seems hardly the sort of threat that justifies three years of isolation without due process.
I don't know why you don't seem to find that more alarming since you clearly have an understanding of the law. I think a horribly dangerous precedent has been set in this case and frankly it scares me.
Un. Be. Lievable.
A guy plans to set off a dirty bomb, possibly kill thousands, and maim thousands more.
But Bush is the enemy.
Never; never will I understand the fever swamp mindset.
jandrew, my ol' friend & ally,
I appreciate your faith in our system of jurisprudence. I believe our jury system is the best in the world. But you and I both know there's a big difference between best and infallible. The jury system struggles in high profile cases and where prosecutors are allowed to demagogue to our basest fears. Think of our past history of trying black defendants in the South before all-white juries for what I'm sure we'd both agree was a manifest failure of the jury system.
I feel the Padilla case likewise falls into this latter category. There was a Judge friendly to the prosecution at every turn. Just to name a few: (1) the government was allowed to present one of the convicted wannabe terrorists from the Lackawana six as evidence of what the government believed Padilla wanted to be (huh?), (2) the government presented a witness with a hidden identity to present the "Mujahideen Data Form" as coming from an unidentified source in Afghanistan and against whom the defense was handcuffed in cross-exam by the court's fear of revealing state secrets, (3) the defense was prevented from detailing Padilla's torture or incarceration and (4) he was tried jointly with codefendants who's hearsay statements were allowed before the jury though constituting hearsay to Padilla.
As to the 300,000 wiretaps, Padilla was only involved in 7. None of those included any coded language or anything other than inocuous conversation. The alleged coded language conversations only involved Padilla's co-defendants.
Please tell me where is the evidence of Padilla entering an agreement to kill, maim or kidnap anybody?
Zen,
The form doesn't mention Al Qaeda nor was it ever established by anyone that Padilla was ever even in Afghanistan.
I encourage everyone to look at your link to the form to understand how weak the government's case was. Even if you believed he filled out the form (if memory serves, the form wasn't signed and the govt didn't even contend the handprint next to it was Padilla's), does that merit life in prison? Where does it show an agreement to kill, maim or kidnap?
We're all lucky that Pad didn't make it to the European nation Duchy of Grand Fenwick and smuggle in a Q-bomb. The damage from a smelly dirty bomb is miniscual(sp) in comparison to a dirty bomb. Why here in Michigan a "white skinned" terrorist was caught stealing smoke detectors. Why 10,000 smoke detectors would make one scary smelly bomb.
Zen,
It seems I know even less about law than I thought. I still have a question though. You say:
If you join a foreign terrorist group in a state of armed conflict with the United States, for which the Congress has authorized the use of military force, you are an irregular combatant, not a civilian, and are tried under military law.
Is it sufficient for the government to declare that you belong to a terrorist group for you, as a civilian US citizen, to be tried before a military court? Or does the government actually have to prove that assertion before a civilian court? If the latter how can you assert that Padilla should have been tried under UCMJ? If the former, wow we really are in deep doodoo
"Is it sufficient for the government to declare that you belong to a terrorist group for you, as a civilian US citizen, to be tried before a military court? Or does the government actually have to prove that assertion before a civilian court?"
Good question. My best understanding of Ex Parte Milligan, Ex Parte Quirin and Hamdi v. would indicate that if an American is picked up in America, there would need to be a hearing to justify that change of jurisdiction. Without membership in a terrorist group at war with the U.S. ( or joining a foreign state's army) I cannot see how military trials would be Constitutional.
If a foreigner is picked up overseas by the U.S. military, there needs to be a hearing to adjudicate their status ( POW or not) before any trial may begin but military custody is clearly legal under both International Law and Johnson v. Eisentrager ( what doesn't fly is indefinite detention without adjudication of status as POW's have rights under the Geneva Convention).
It gets dicier if an American is picked up overseas by the U.S. military. A number of other laws can kick in regarding foreign relations,war depending on the context of events.
A couple of caveats to my explanation:
1. We have a mix of International Law by custom and treaty intersecting with American Constitutional and national laws here. There is a lot of legal murkiness at the margins because of the blurring between foreign affairs (where the U.S. is a sovereign) and domestic jurisdiction ( where the U.S police power. is sharply limited by the Constitution).
2. My understanding comes from a background in diplomatic history and an understanding of international law and the laws of war. I am not an attorney.
3. I cannot say exactly how any of this is affected by recent changes in habeas corpus made by Congress or will be affected by cases progressing to SCOTUS. The justices have clearly pointed the administration toward the Quirin standard, so far. The administration continues to try to find ways to get around those requirements (IMHO, a bad thing on many levels).
Leo, the fever-swampers have Mass Psychosis Malaria, and are incurably wrong-headed about almost everything.
Padilla should be locked up and the key thrown away. And FISA should be pared back to minimal surveillance over NSA and the people who protect the USA from Padillas and his leftist enablers.
I have nothing more to add except to thank most of you for your excellent commentary.
Commenting by HaloScan
