The only thing that has ever gotten through to anyone is to list the evidence against Padilla, and point out, "They have that much evidence against YOU." Because, frankly, there is that much evidence on just about every American.
DaveCM | 12.04.06 - 7:50 am | #

this was the terrorist so dangerous that ashcroft held a press conference FROM RUSSIA to announce his detainment.
nice job.
i shudder at what kind of government we have allowed to take root in this country. because this is the kind of behavior that is permanent, regardless of who is in the white house or congress.
damaged goods | 12.04.06 - 8:02 am | #

"As I have said many times, the most astounding and disturbing fact over the last five years -- and there is a very stiff competition for that title -- is that we have collectively really just sat by while the U.S. Government arrests and detains people, including U.S. citizens, and then imprisons them for years without any charges of any kind. What does it say about our country that not only does our Government do that, but that we don't really seem to mind much?"

glenn - thank you for continuing to voice the outrage many of us feel.

yesterday i listened to 2 very fine lectures, which i highly recommend to you and/or your readers:

"Into the Light of Day: Human Rights after Abu Ghraib" by Mark Danner
http://tinyurl.com/y59xx9

and "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" by Philip G. Zimbardo.
http://tinyurl.com/yex4en

they are both available via stanford university's podcast. the tinyurl links above are to the mp3s.
selise | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 8:03 am | #

What is scary is that Padilla is a US citizen - could happpen to anyone wearing a "Bush Sucks" t-shirt to the airport.....I really wonder if Jose's root canal was just a "Marathon Man" type exercise by the military?
Jazzcat | 12.04.06 - 8:03 am | #

What does it say about our country that not only does our Government do that, but that we don't really seem to mind much?……

Along those lines, it is hard to express the contempt merited by the drooling sociopaths who not only endorse this behavior but, with what can only be described as serious derangement, laugh about it and revel in its cruelty and its lawlessness.

A couple years ago, I had a first-hand encounter with one of these “drooling sociopaths” when I was selected for jury duty in a murder trial here in Chicago (26th and California).

The woman accused of murder was a black woman 20 years old. During selection for jury duty, the judge asked us all some questions.

She came to one white woman about 20 years old who immediately said that the accused black woman should die for her crime. The judge calmly pointed out that this was not a death penalty case in the first place, and secondly, no evidence had been even presented.

The young white woman stood her ground and told the judge the other woman “should die!” and that as far as she was concerned “anyone accused of a crime is guilty.” Furthermore, said the woman, she happened to be a “Christian” and a very religious woman, and that her religion demanded that this woman must die. It was in the Bible, “an eye for an eye.”

The judge told the woman to go sit behind the glass with the spectators, but not to leave the courtroom. This woman was obviously unfit for jury duty.

Yet, the attitude expressed by this woman (the “drooling sociopathy” of it) is exactly the mentality on display in the Padilla case.

The evidence doesn’t matter, it is irrelevant – in short, these laws are about “revenge” (not to mention racism), it is about “showing” that we’re standing up to the terrorists. Whether Padilla is innocent or guilty is thus rendered completely irrelevant.

The people responsible for what happened to Padilla are not fit to serve on jury duty – yet they have become our leading law enforcement officials. That’s just how far off track we’ve gone.
zack | 12.04.06 - 8:16 am | #

Looks like Room 101 is open for business. Orwell simply miscalculated his book title by 20 years.
kuff6 | 12.04.06 - 8:27 am | #

it's also the case that the people who don't understand what human rights are all about, and how our very nation is founded on the principle of human rights -- either they're appallingly ignorant, or they simply don't care -- not only control the government, and its law enforcement apparatus, but are accepted as mainstream scholars and policy experts.

rights aren't privileges to be dispensed or withdrawn as circumstances warrant or a government pleases. rights are inviolable -- they remain regardless of the circumstance, regardless of the government. duh.

and if these bush types were repeatedly and very publically called on their bent appraisals of security threats and their twisted world views, then maybe we would all have a better understanding just how eager these people have been to trade away our rights for a certified authoritarian government.
it would be amusing if it weren't so desperate to note that the same people doing this and cheering this on would be the first to note how failed a proposition this was in the soviet union.
yet talking tough is the only way to mark yourself as a serious player. what rubbish.

my kids are growing up not only in a world that is far less safe for them to be americans overseas, but to be safe from invasive and unlawful surveillance at home. it is truly remarkable just how a relatively small band of people in a relatively short period of time have shaken this nation to its absolute foundations.
damaged goods | 12.04.06 - 8:40 am | #

we are all doped by the media. when i read about padilla or gitmo i can only stare in amazement at the thin pablum offered up by our huge "entertainment" industry.

who cares about the details of padilla's plight when Britney and Paris are hosting the billboard awards! won't that be a hoot!

america is dead. and nobody even noticed when the pillow was put over our unconcious heads.
dontcallmefrancis | 12.04.06 - 8:40 am | #

"The evidence doesn't matter, it is irrelevant - in short, these laws are about "revenge" (not to mention racism), it is about "showing" that we're standing up to the terrorists. Whether Padilla is innocent or guilty is thus rendered completely irrelevant."

I think that is the nut of it.

If President Bush came out tomorrow flanked by John Ashcroft and announced to the world that Jose Padilla's case was a horrible, botched mistake and that he was entirely innocent of all charges and Bush offered his profound apology for Padilla's mistreatment and incarceration you would see a horrible cry go up from the Right Wing blogosphere slamming Bush for apologizing and appeasing the 'enemy'. Padilla is a permanent symbol to them of 'the other' and it does not matter one lickspittle whether he is guilty or innocent of the charges.

That he was punished is evidence of his guilt.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 8:44 am | #

"I've honestly run out of adjectives to use when discussing the Bush administration's" (insert any number of crimes)

Got your adjective right here, Glenn!
Impeachable
Recluse | 12.04.06 - 8:46 am | #

GLENN:

"It also remains to be seen whether the administration might try to rename Padilla as an enemy combatant if its prosecution begins to fall apart." -- Washington Post article linked above...

Is this even possible? Wouldn't that necessarily reinstate the previous case before the Supreme Court or would Padilla's lawyers have to file a new claim to wind its way through the judicial system while he is shipped back to Carolina's brig?

How utterly horrible a thought. Perhaps Padilla isn't mentally ill. Perhaps the rest of us are. Maybe Padilla's belief that this case is just another mind twisting ruse to interrogate him isn't paranoid dementia... maybe he is just sufficiently cynical. :(
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 8:53 am | #

I am just so, so embarassed to be an American these days. It's horrible. I say things like "you're justifying TORTURING people," and I get looks back at me like I'M the crazy one in that situation!

It's enough to make anyone question their sanity at times!
john | 12.04.06 - 9:01 am | #

Regarding the effects of the kind of treatment afforded Padilla, does anyone remember Harlow's monkeys? Not the most famous ones reared by wire "mothers"--the ones on which he ran experiments in social deprivation, later in his career. Harlow himself came to regret them.
anon | 12.04.06 - 9:02 am | #

Is this even possible? Wouldn't that necessarily reinstate the previous case before the Supreme Court or would Padilla's lawyers have to file a new claim to wind its way through the judicial system while he is shipped back to Carolina's brig?

Yes, they could do that - remove him again from the civilian system and transfer him back to military custody. That was the argument of Padilla's lawyers as to why their case wasn't "moot" -- that the administration could easily reverse this decision -- and the Supreme Court all but said that if that happened, they would quickly hear the claims.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.04.06 - 9:02 am | #

You have to wonder if Bin Laden was so prescient that he knew "We were attacked" could supplant "We the people."
Vast Left | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 9:05 am | #

I have-we all have,I'm sure-acquaintances who are essentially good,kindhearted persons,folks who will work themselves past exhaustion trying to help other people,who endorse this kind of treatment of other human beings without blinking because those others are TERRORISTS.
I finally had a chance to rent V for Vendetta on PPV this weekend.While it's not the best movie I've ever seen,it might be the most important movie I've ever seen inasmuch as it gives 'regular' people a more visceral presentation of the crucial issues discussed on this blog.
AnonE.Mouse | 12.04.06 - 9:27 am | #

My god....Why aren't people rioting over this? Padilla is a citizen who's being treated worse than an animal headed for Oscar Myer.

He's been convicted of NOTHING; charged with nearly NOTHING.

We're being lead by sociopaths.
brat | 12.04.06 - 9:29 am | #

Bolton resigns.

Pammy on suicide watch.
LWM | 12.04.06 - 9:32 am | #

Glenn,

A factual quibble about what happened to the Padilla case in the Supreme Court: The court did decline to hear the case April 3. But it did not, as you say, "dismiss" the case as "moot," which was the result sought by the administration. (See report from SCOTUSblog.)

An unsusual opinion, drafted by Kennedy and joined by Roberts and Stevens, was a symbolic shot across the bow to the administration. The justices explicitly left open the possibility of swift action in federal court -- including possible direct appeal directly to the Supreme Court itself -- if DOJ should ever attempt to reinstate Padilla's status as a military prisoner.

The high court's rebuke in velvet gloves followed the rebuke in a mailed fist that conservative Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig had issued, excoriating the administation's legal tactics that obviously were aimed at avoiding substantive review by SCOTUS.
Just an Observer | 12.04.06 - 9:44 am | #

Who should take responsibility for the people not rising up against this situation? The people? I think the responsibility rests on the media for not making any real mention of this in a loud and clear manner. Ask the average person if they have ever heard of Jose Padilla and most will say no. This should be banner headlines every day until it is resolved.
cathy | 12.04.06 - 9:44 am | #

zack @ 12.04.06 - 8:16 am

I've no doubt there are people like that. I'm certain of it. I have also seen similar acts, less convincing, and judges are wise to this, of people just trying to get out of jury duty. :-)
LWM | 12.04.06 - 9:46 am | #

In Montaigne's essay on cruelty, he describes, what you have, the farthest point...that cruelty can reach.

"As for me, I have not been able to witness without displeasure ...common...when the 'stag,' (respectful toward Padilla's, I am)realizing that it has been hunted...and has exhausted its breath and its strength, can find no other remedy but to surrender to who was hunting it, throwing itself on our mercy which it implores with its tears:"

...A)[all covered with blood, groaning, and seeming to beg for grace;]
...B)[quaestuque...is we are witnessing grotesque traits in these DoJ creeps of lawless critters;]

good article. I've been not able to keep up...
brotherbruz | 12.04.06 - 9:47 am | #

"As I have said many times, the most astounding and disturbing fact over the last five years -- and there is a very stiff competition for that title -- is that we have collectively really just sat by while the U.S. Government arrests and detains people, including U.S. citizens, and then imprisons them for years without any charges of any kind. What does it say about our country that not only does our Government do that, but that we don't really seem to mind much?"

If I had Lexis-Nexis I would try to track this study down. One of the first things I learned from my favorite CJ prof (this was late 80s) was that during the late 70s some university study was conducted at supermarkets and such with what was a phony petition. It was basically the bill of rights disguised a bit. Many people wouldn't sign it saying it was too radical and permissive (liberal was not yet quite the dirty word). Then we started studying the case law from Weeks to Mapp v. Ohio, etc. Not much has changed since then.
LWM | 12.04.06 - 9:55 am | #

Myrtle:

"That he was punished is evidence of his guilt."

This is a profound insight, I think. It captures the mindset of the abuser. It not only applies to Padilla, it applies to the entire nation of Iraq, and so on.

As for me, I'm not astonished by the government conduct; I'm astonished by the lack of protest -- from Congress, from the media, from newspaper editors, from the people. What we see is not protest, but cheerleading.
MD | 12.04.06 - 9:56 am | #

Zack:

"The young white woman stood her ground and told the judge the other woman “should die!” and that as far as she was concerned “anyone accused of a crime is guilty.” Furthermore, said the woman, she happened to be a “Christian” and a very religious woman, and that her religion demanded that this woman must die. It was in the Bible, “an eye for an eye.” '

I ran into precisely the same kind of juror in a rather minor criminal case (she was also a white woman), in which I was acting as appointed counsel for the defendant. Before I asked the judge to dismiss her for cause, I confronted her directly, after she told me that all those charged by the prosecutor were guilty, and she had never heard of anyone being falsely accused of a crime.

I asked her: "What about Jesus of Nazareth?"


She didn't answer, and I didn't press her.
MD | 12.04.06 - 10:03 am | #

I asked her: "What about Jesus of Nazareth?"

Awesome.
Ugh | 12.04.06 - 10:19 am | #

Speaking of authoritarians, USA Today reports that Bolton has quit.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/was...htm? POE=NEWISVA
MD | 12.04.06 - 10:20 am | #

You must see the 1970 film, "The Confession," by Costa Gavras after the book by Arthur London who told his story. It took place in Prague
in 1951. There are the same goggles, the same treatment...but there is a difference...this time it is us.
Druthers | 12.04.06 - 10:22 am | #

"The Bush administration currently has in its custody 14,000 human beings around the world (at least) who have never been charged with any crime "

Call in the FBI! You're saying that there is evidence of at least 14,000 cases of KIDNAPPING charges pending against the administration. What else would you call it? 9/11 doesn't justify this in any way, nor can I imagine anything that would.

The US has got to stop pardoning convicted criminals who hold high government positions. What most gives the law credibility is the principal that it is applied equally to everyone. Nixon should have been tried, and if the evidence warranted, convicted and jailed. Ashcroft was convicted of crimes in the Iran/Contra affair, wasn't he?

Letting these miscreants off for crimes against the constitution seems to encourage them and others into committing even larger crimes.

SadButTrue | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 10:29 am | #

What does it say about our country that not only does our Government do that, but that we don't really seem to mind much?

It says most of us realize we are at war.

The day they throw you in jail for all of your ranting and raving Glenn is the day I get concerned about civil liberties.
The ugly american | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 10:34 am | #

I was in a hung jury once. The demographics of the "not guilty" and the "guilty" were interesting.

During the prosecution's testimony phase, he called three policemen. Each of which gave some rather different stories that, while each believeable, didn't reconcile.

And I don't mean, "different perspectives" reconcilliation. But, it would be impossible to actually reconcile the different stories to the alleged crime. And, in fact, it really sounded like they were covering their butts for their own misconduct.

Those that were, essentially, middle-class ignorant of the ins-and-outs of police misconduct voted guilty. They had no problem that the stories didn't add up and were, in places, completely contridictory.

Those of us who had some experience, directly or indirectly, with the police and misconduct voted not-guilty. We simply, knowing that police will lie to cover mis-conduct, could not accept the three divergent, and (in places) contridictory stories.

So, when I read anecdotes about the "they must be guilty if charged" people. I understand. There is a huge group of people in America that are so niave they think "charged = guilty."
Moses | 12.04.06 - 10:35 am | #

The ugly american | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 10:34 am | #

It says most of us realize we are at war.

The day they throw you in jail for all of your ranting and raving Glenn is the day I get concerned about civil liberties.


Boring troll or parody troll. Hard to tell anymore.
Moses | 12.04.06 - 10:38 am | #

It says most of us realize we are at war.

The ugly american

Nah... We'd be into gas rationing and stuff.... You'd have a coupon book instead of a Hummer.

What a dipshit!
LWM | 12.04.06 - 10:47 am | #

This will be the typical response from the “drooling sociopaths” of the right, Confederate Yankee says Boo Freaking Hoo :

Jose Padilla, the violent gang-banging ex-con Muslim convert from Chicago who attempted to murder and maim his fellow Americans in a dirty bomb attack, is once again painted as the victim by the New York Times.

Color me unimpressed.

What will be typical, of course, is the detail left out of this “analysis” – that Padilla has not been charged let alone convicted of the “crime” described “the dirty bomb attack.”

That “detail” just happens to be the foundation of our criminal justice system, that Americans are “presumed innocent” until found guilty. But that “detail” gets in the way of Confederate Yankee’s racism and desire for revenge which obviously is more important than the silly idea that Americans should have some basic constitutional rights.
zack | 12.04.06 - 10:48 am | #

Maybe that's it... Twits like Ugly American aren't old enough to remember what a real war is, with rationing and sacrifice. They think gas rationing is what happens when you don't invade countries in the ME for their oil, and just take it.
LWM | 12.04.06 - 10:50 am | #

The ugly american: The day they throw you in jail for all of your ranting and raving Glenn is the day I get concerned about civil liberties.

So in essense, you would prefer to wait until protesting Glenn's arrest is likely to get you arrested as well? Perhaps you haven't thought your cunning plan all the way through.

In any event, I can pretty safely guarantee that you wouldn't lift a finger. Because The Powers That Be would give you some song and dance about how the liberals or the gays or whatever are such a threat and are destroying our way of life and so we have to wage a war against them. And being a good government-trusting, flag-waving, Bush-loving citizen, you'll "realize that we are at war", and that sacrifices must be made and freedoms must be curtailed, and all the usual mindless platitudes the apologists give.

Get concerned? Bull. You'll be out celebrating along with all the other authoritarians.
Jared | 12.04.06 - 10:50 am | #

More reaction from the right Sept 11 means we can do anything we want.
Ugh | 12.04.06 - 10:56 am | #

In a much shorter and milder case of USA law enforcement running amok, here's how the USA treated an Australian celebrity/gossip reporter who came to the USA to interview Olivia Newton-John:

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open- mikulan.php

Many other foreign reporters have received similar treatment, or worse. Then they go back to their home countries and they report.

Our MBA president and our CEO vice-president don't seem to understand that making Australians see the USA as a Kafkaesque country doesn't help our brand image. It's poor marketing, to say the least.

It makes the Australians doubt that the USA has been or will be fair to, for instance, David Hicks:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/ s1779999.htm
(This is a link to a story about how the prisoner refused to meet with Australian consular officials because he's afraid that the Americans would punish him if he did so.)
sysprog | 12.04.06 - 10:59 am | #

It says most of us realize we are at war.

The day they throw you in jail for all of your ranting and raving Glenn is the day I get concerned about civil liberties.
The ugly american | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 10:34 am | #

Ugly, this is propaganda.

If we were at war, we'd be fighting to win. The draft, rationing, an all-encompassing effort to wean us off foreign energy supplies from unstable regions....all these would be in place. There might not be a Congressional declaration of war against shadowy non-state actors, but the effort would have been made. We would not have been told to go shopping.
Fluffy | 12.04.06 - 11:00 am | #

So, when I read anecdotes about the "they must be guilty if charged" people. I understand. There is a huge group of people in America that are so niave they think "charged = guilty."
Moses

Herbert Packer of Stanford was the first to recognize the two competing models in American criminal justice process.

Here is an undergrad CJ course with a good review of Packer for thiose not familiar with his work.


"The mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is the most unfailing test of the civilization of any country."

-Sir Winston Churchill
LWM | 12.04.06 - 11:08 am | #

I asked her: "What about Jesus of Nazareth?"

Jesus wasn't falsely accused. He really was a heretic.

Depending on your point of view, this may point out a slight difference between law and justice...


"That he was punished is evidence of his guilt."

This is (literally) the logic of the Inquisition and the medieval witch trials. If the Church says they're guilty, they must be guilty, because only a heretic would dare suggest that the Church could make a mistake in a matter of such importance. So if you criticize the Church's methods, you must want the Devil to win.

Now replace Church with Government (or President), heretic with traitor, and Devil with Terrorists and you have modern right-wing rhetoric. Only the names have been changed.

It's time to start expecting the American Inquisition.
Chris | 12.04.06 - 11:08 am | #

The notion of due process (as individual rights) is in constant tension with the notion of crime control (as individual responsibility). One of the first to point this out was Herbert Packer in his 1968 book, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, published by Stanford University Press. It remains a definitive work in the field. It's mentioned in all the introductory textbooks; it's mentioned in class by many instructors; analysis of it is commonly given out as assignments; and professors wish more students would grasp Packer's ideas. However, this 385-page book is hard to find and hard to read, so here's my review of it.

Above link.
LWM | 12.04.06 - 11:09 am | #

I once got jostled into the court: I would have loved to find a ugly, handsome, cute or honest law defense. Lawyers protect each other when white-collar criminals are teamed up...Serious, a WCC law firm would not follow me to court to defend my arrest in a Bank-Lend predator scheme. My American/Asian friend got snookered into a 210,000 bushey-roo-crook cover-up laundrymat mess. (lost home and the scrub buss.)I got legal papers to show fot it. Threats too. A lesson for me...is

Next time I get arrested in a Bank for "defiant Trespass"...I'l take one of those 'ole time washbboards and scrub-a-merry tune "there ain't NO Justice until your crime-syndicated rich."

so much for my belief in frankness 1sr amendment rights. And a notion of truth or jurisprudence in our times...oh, I mean no offece to govt DoD's trolls. they do bore a hole with them crooked sneers...bury them some day...with some "justice with a crooked auger," I say.

Glenn, your helping multitudes to learn how to be devout cusses. Curse 'um. Shame. what a little inner-looking can do for those shady sqinters. Shine more Light. You equinox the hell outa 'um.

You a law-boxer. a knockout. A day will come when we can clone you and spread justice throughout the hinder-dark-land. no offence to your toll guest. they are your nice dormant pupils. the worm-pupa or larva stage is what we must be going via as society gets rid of parasites.
brotherbruz | 12.04.06 - 11:10 am | #

What does it say about our country that not only does our Government do that, but that we don't really seem to mind much?

When the first information started trickling out about Gitmo, my husband and I couldn't believe it. This, we thought, would cause Americans to rise up in horror. We were wrong. There was only a huge and awful silence. Even people we knew who hated the Bush regime and considered themselves extremely liberal only shrugged their shoulders. And we knew plenty of people -- including folks we loved -- who thought it was a positive thing for the War on Terra and the Monumental Clash of Civilizations that WE MUST WIN!!!!! That was when we started being very afraid for the future of this country.
Svensker | 12.04.06 - 11:14 am | #

The most salient reason for treating domestic terrorists very harshly is to deter future terrorism. There is very good reason to believe that this policy is working well: to wit there haven't been any major domestic terrorist incidents since the fall of 2001. To boil it down to a bumper sticker: Terrorize the Terrorists!
anonymoose | 12.04.06 - 11:16 am | #

And the really troubling part of all this is that our President is the "Drooling Sociopath-in-Chief"
ckelly | 12.04.06 - 11:18 am | #

Some questions (blogged at my blog):

If it turns out that Padilla is innocent, he has to be released, correct? What then? if as Glenn, Atrios, Digby etc point out, Padilla has been utterly dehumanized and is now certifiably insane, what will happen when he's out ont he streets? Has the Bush adminsitration created a terrorist?

And what of the hundreds (thousands?) of Afghanis, Iraqis, and other Arabs and muslims detained and presumably tortured? If determined innocent, justice demands that they be released. Is there any doubt that once relased to their countries of origin, these men, who now certainly hold a grudge against the US, will join any militia or organization that allows them the opportunity to kill Americans?

This is a really bad Catch-22, and its going to bite us in the ass.
brendan | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:19 am | #

If we were at war, we'd be fighting to win.

It's not a 'war'. It's the world's most expensive campaign commercial.

And it isn't working any more.

The #1 war aim was to make the opposition party irrelevant for a generation. All the other rationales were just lagniappe.
Davis X. Machina | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:19 am | #

I thought this Military Commissions Act thing made all this legal? Or am I thinking of another bill? Didn't it make it retroactively legal to have done it all before otr something? Or was that only the FISA one?

If you take the view that only the illegality of it is bad, which is the view Glenn took over the wiretapping, what happens when they make it legal?

Or again, does the fact that various other treaties, laws and constitutional clauses say Bush cannot do this stuff make any difference here?

It's not clear to me what Glenn's position is when the president and the congress get together to attempt to break the law. That's why I keep asking for clarification. While the president has the job of upholding the law, the congress *is* the law. So while the president is not above the law, can the president and congress acting together be considered above the law? without any constitutional issue? the law courts wouldn't bother to challenge the two in agreement as far as I can see.

So congress passes a little rubber stamp bill for whatever the president wants to do. There remain however various other laws, treaties and maybe constitutional clauses that say the act is illegal. What is Glenn's position on this sort of situation?

On the declaration of the Iraqi war Glenn said it was legal for the president to just ignore the treaty obligation of the UN charter since congress had said ok.

On the FISA stuff he said he didn't buy the idea that FISA was implicitly overriden by the AUMF.

On this habeas corpus thing he's saying that -- I think he's saying that it's illegal despite congress passing a bill specifically (not implicitly) saying habeas corpus can be suspended -- presumably because of treaties and the constitution saying you can't.

Is it down to technicalities?
gnomes | 12.04.06 - 11:20 am | #

"This is (literally) the logic of the Inquisition and the medieval witch trials. If the Church says they're guilty, they must be guilty, because only a heretic would dare suggest that the Church could make a mistake in a matter of such importance. So if you criticize the Church's methods, you must want the Devil to win."

Ok, let's try it:

This is (literally) the logic of the President and the Guantanamo trials. If the Government says they're guilty, they must be guilty, because only a traitor would dare suggest that the President could make a mistake in a matter of such importance. So if you criticize the Government's methods, you must want the Islamofascists to win.

Yep... that could easily come from any number of Right Wing blogs. Anyone want to bet that Scalia/Thomas/Alito are sympathetic to this argument?

That he was punished is evidence of his guilt.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:28 am | #

anonymoose-
Then I think we should also put you in jail to make double sure we don't have another terrorist attack. I'm sure you would think it would be worth the sacrifice.
cathy | 12.04.06 - 11:29 am | #

"An eye for an eye"

Any eye will do, as long as I get my eye!...
~
nuf said | 12.04.06 - 11:35 am | #

GNOMES:

"While the president has the job of upholding the law, the congress *is* the law."

Wrong! The Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court is the decisive law of the land. Couple more things...

1. The Military Commissions Act (at least one part of it) was intended to prevent precisely what has happened with Padilla. When the President labeled him an 'Enemy Combatant' and instructed him to be turned over to the military, his lawyers immediately filed a petition for habeas corpus which wound up before the Supreme Court. Now that Padilla is no longer an 'Enemy Combatant' the Act should not affect his case unless the President tries to brand him as an 'Enemy Combatant' again.

2. The Military Commissions Act is going to eventually come before the Supremes and it will ?likely? (hopefully) be found unconstitutional. At least for the cases like Padilla's.

In other words, just because a sycophantic Republican congress passed a law doesn't mean that it the President's actions are necessarily legal. Last I heard they did not pass a constitutional amendment which is exactly what many legal experts would think is required...
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:36 am | #

The most salient reason for treating domestic terrorists very harshly is to deter future terrorism. There is very good reason to believe that this policy is working well: to wit there haven't been any major domestic terrorist incidents since the fall of 2001. To boil it down to a bumper sticker: Terrorize the Terrorists!
anonymoose | 12.04.06 - 11:16 am | #

It would also be effective to select people at random from their middle-calss homes at 3 am and whisk them away forever. After all, what better way to reinforce the concept that we're involved in 'a new kind of war' and that just because someone _might_ be innocent is no reason to trust them.

Would you find that acceptable? If not, why not?
Ames | 12.04.06 - 11:40 am | #

To boil it down to a bumper sticker: Terrorize the Terrorists!

Yes Anoninny, terrorize the terrorists and everyone else too! Whether they are terrorists or not! Regardless of evidence! Terrorize the Constitution, the US citizenry, civil liberties and personal freedoms!

P.S. (The terrorists won)
ckelly | 12.04.06 - 11:44 am | #

GNOMES - You purported to describe 5 or 6 of my positions and did so all inaccurately. But that's because you've been banned here before and this comment is a by-product of that.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.04.06 - 11:45 am | #

Yep... that could easily come from any number of Right Wing blogs

Right-wing blogs, hell. We hear that kind of tripe on Fox "News" and in Bush's White House press releases.

"Guilty because you were arrested" is not a fringe position anywore. It is now a fundamental platform of the Republican Party.
Jared | 12.04.06 - 11:46 am | #

and there is a very stiff competition for that title

So true tragically. And the big mystery is how this all happened and why it wasn't stopped long ago. I get tired of always being the most outraged person in the room which is why I read this blog to associate with others who feel the same and to make sure there still are some.

Lately whenever I read about these horrible things I think--- well, thank god this is all going to stop now, be reversed, the Department of Homeland Security will be disbanded and in time be thought of about the same as the KGB, the innocent will be let free and society will make amends to them for what they went through, machines won't be at every airport to see who is not circumcised and we won't have national ID cards, anyone who even says the word data bank will be deported and people will be able to enter buildings again without having to go through check point charlie.

But then I think what if it isn't all reversed? We get stuck with it all forever unless there's a revolution? Innocent people will be sitting in little cells and tortured until they die? Papers please becomes the new hello?

I cannot even imagine that will happen. I pretty much expect everything will be changed now. One picture being worth a thousand words, perhaps visual confrontation of hell will be enough to shatter people's complacency and motivate them to insist their government stop all this insanity. Like Abu Graib. Wasn't that sort of the start of The Awakening?

I don't read digby or the others to whom Glenn links. Only Glenn's writing really socks home the points in a way graphic enough to stir the dead, like certain pictures. Keep up the good work Glenn.

What does it say about our country that not only does our Government do that, but that we don't really seem to mind much?

I do mind. I mind passionately. Perhaps enough others do too so we can turn back the hands of time to 9/10.
Eyes Wide Open | 12.04.06 - 11:50 am | #

My god....Why aren't people rioting over this?

1. A lot of people in the U.S. agree with the way Padilla is being treated, regardless of any crime he committed or not. Any connection to Islam is crime enough.

2. Total desensitization of the average American. Many don't know, don't care, don't wanna know. Because we're here doesn't make the average American intellectually curious.


It will take much worse to get Americans to react strongly over things like this. Of course, being what we've learned thus far is just the tip pf the iceberg, it's possible that may just happen.

--WKW
William K. Wolfrum | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:50 am | #

"The most salient reason for treating domestic terrorists very harshly is to deter future terrorism. There is very good reason to believe that this policy is working well: to wit there haven't been any major domestic terrorist incidents since the fall of 2001. To boil it down to a bumper sticker: Terrorize the Terrorists!
anonymoose | 12.04.06 - 11:16 am | #"

By that illogic, we should treat Americans incarcerated for crimes for which they've been convicted as harshly as possible, to serve as a warning and (ahem) deterrent to future lawbreakers.

Aside from the inhumanity of such a behavioral rationale, to practice it would be unConstitutional. Moreover, you haven't even demonstrated any correlation: just because we have not suffered terrorist attacks subsequent to 9/11 is no evidence that Li'l Butch's inhumane and criminal activities have deterred them...there were 8 years that passed from the first attack on the WTC and the 9/11 attacks. To successfully carry out terrorist attacks on America requires careful and exacting planning, as well as funding. For all any of us know, there may a plot--or several--in progress right now, with a target date at some time in the future for that plot (or plots) to be carried out.

On the other hand, to the extent our actions can or may have deterred subsequent additional attacks, it comes through legal intelligence gathering and policework, not through dragnet apprehension of masses of persons labeled "terrorist" and thrown away in secret prisons, barred from challenging their detention or the charges against them, or through our torture of them, in contravention of our laws and of all human decency.

If you're not a troll, Ugly American, you're surely a putz. An ugly one. Heck, even if you're a troll, you're a putz.
Robert1014 | 12.04.06 - 11:50 am | #

anonymoose,

So we have you on the record now that if there is another domestic terrorist attack, you will repudiate the Bush administration and it's strategy for fighting terrorism because it isn't working right?

I mean, it would be shocking if a well-reasoned and sane individual like yourself were to, say, use another terrorist attack as proof that we need to get even tougher on terrorists.

Because that's exactly the game conservatives play with crime. No matter how bad the crime problem gets, the solution is only ever longer sentences, more prisons and more executions. Damn the facts, full torture ahead.
Dan D | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:53 am | #

"I don't read digby or the others to whom Glenn links."

You really should read Digby. Glenn is peerless in laying out an issue and covering it in depth with precision and passion. When you read Digby you'll find yourself marveling how effortlessly he paints the essence of an issue. Digby too, is peerless.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 11:57 am | #

Digby too, is peerless.

I agree. And "peerless" is a word I would use very, very sparingly.

That doesn't mean I agree with everything Digby says. I don't. But the level of analysis, original thought, insight and writing is just its own unique force.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.04.06 - 12:07 pm | #

Digby, Billmon, Holden at First Draft, many others... all Atrios alums. But Atrios is just a dirty fucking hippie!
LWM | 12.04.06 - 12:14 pm | #

The most salient reason for treating domestic terrorists very harshly is to deter future terrorism. There is very good reason to believe that this policy is working well: to wit there haven't been any major domestic terrorist incidents since the fall of 2001. To boil it down to a bumper sticker: Terrorize the Terrorists!
anonymoose

It worked so well for P.W. Botha and the South African apartheid... It causeda confirmed non-violent activist Nelson Mandela to endorse violence and armed resistance. You are too stupid for words.
LWM | 12.04.06 - 12:19 pm | #

selise

thanks for posting the podcasts.
AJ | 12.04.06 - 12:24 pm | #

Glenn,

Was gnomes "banned before" using that name or another name?
.
Eyes Wide Open | 12.04.06 - 12:34 pm | #

Was gnomes "banned before" using that name or another name?

The latter.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.04.06 - 12:52 pm | #

Glenn quotes: "he became extremely passive and, a short time thereafter, was visibly broken.:.

And who says criminals and terrorists can't be rehabilitated. Seems like it worked just fine in this case. Hopefully it has worked with equal success on poor wittle Mwyster Padilla.

Says the "Dog"
junkyardlawdog | 12.04.06 - 12:54 pm | #

It looks like old Zack and Glenn himself can't tell a person who wants to get out of jury duty by saying I think the person is guilty during voir dire from their mindless preconceptions about people who don't believe in selling the country down the proverbial creek without a paddle.

The judge appears to have known what the woman wanted (to be dismissed from jury duty) which is why he didn't let her leave the courtroom. Come on old Zack get off the high horse and develop some perceptive abilities not so wrongful colored by your own prejudices and stereotypes about others not like you.

Says the "Dog" And Glenn actually quotes Zack in a update as though he has something insightful to say. SHEEEESSSHHH.
junkyardlawdog | 12.04.06 - 12:59 pm | #

And who says criminals and terrorists can't be rehabilitated

Of course, if it turns out that he didn't do any of the crap BushCo have tried to pin on him (and this looks extremely likely), then they did not "rehabilitate" a criminal, they have totally destroyed an innocent man. But somehow I doubt that you could bring yourself to even pretend to care.

Dog, you are beyond all doubt an absolutely miserable, utterly reprehensible excuse for a human being. You display a complete lack of empathy and an appalling amount of sadism, and exhibit what I can only describe as group solipsism.
Jared | 12.04.06 - 1:01 pm | #

Dog, you are beyond all doubt an absolutely miserable, utterly reprehensible excuse for a human being. You display a complete lack of empathy and an appalling amount of sadism, and exhibit what I can only describe as group solipsism.

You beat me to it, Jared; I second.
Nick | 12.04.06 - 1:03 pm | #

shoot... just started listening to a third podcast from stanford and it is really good too.

i know that few people will be interested in listening to something close to 6 hours of podcasts... but this is too good, and very much on topic, for me not to post - just in case there is one of you who might be interested.

all the podcasts are from a 2-day event at stanford in late october (the podcasts were just recently posted) described in this article from "the staford daily":

"Journalists, lawyers and psychologists spent Friday detailing alleged abuses of power in Iraqi prisons and discussing recent legislation decriminalizing abuses as part of the conference “Thinking Humanity after Abu Ghraib.”

Psychology prof. Philip Zimbardo, New Yorker reporter Mark Danner, visiting Law Prof. David Luban, Law Prof. Jenny Martinez, psychotherapist Gerald Grey and UC Berkeley Rhetoric Professor Judith Butler gave the audience a crash course in human rights, the Bush Administration’s efforts to escape legal and political criticism and the Senate’s recent legalization of torture."

in addition to the speakers listed above, sy hersh also gave a talk.

all of the talks are available from this feed, although you will have to scroll down to look for each speaker (there doesn't seem to be any logical order).
selise | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 1:08 pm | #

Since Crittenden is mentioned here, and since Customs and Border Protection has also been a recent topic of this blog, here's a story:

In 2003 Crittenden was hanging around soldiers in Kuwait and Iraq. He and his self-aggrandizing columns - he's a "legend in his own mind," as the phrase goes - managed to piss off some soldiers who called the Customs hotline and tipped them off. I heard this from a soldier who knew about the incident.

Here's the story.

The stuff was pretty innocuous, and most of it was returned, but the thing is that Crittenden is such an asshole that he motivated soldiers to call a hotline to hassle him.
Hello Kitty | 12.04.06 - 1:12 pm | #

A junkyard dog with no bite, how pathetic. How do you advertise your practice on Craigslist, or in the Recycler?
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 1:14 pm | #

AJ @ 12:24 pm - you're welcome. i was worried that the podcast posts were just interupting the flow of the conversation... and was hesitant to do so. very glad to know that wasn't necessarily the case.
selise | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 1:15 pm | #

Everybody should just approach these webs sites and renounce bias...It's easy to understand if we sop up the best-of-peer thought and be of equal worth-sponges at day's end.

At least come to the site dry. If we miss getting today's lesson; we lose our teeth and just be same-same gum-mouthpuppits, nothing to chop into, and mumbling dripping nonsense like we are always 'right.' The affliction must soon get'over. fanciful illusions won't fill soul/tummies or our posterity.

I enjoyed the post. I'm telling the hostile crowd that. It's like a free soup lineup of good guest...A free feast. Open mike. I advocate freedom. Real freedom. join the throng of humanity. Stop ill-brooding, poor breeding, and if not vegetarian, pluck the dying damn-rooster and toss him in the cook-pot. the best medicine is truth. the larger the dose, the quicker the nation will heal.
brotherbruz | 12.04.06 - 1:15 pm | #

to wit there haven't been any major domestic terrorist incidents since the fall of 2001.

Anthrax, dumbass.
Kimmitt | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 2:19 pm | #

The truth is apparent about Padilla:
Notwithstanding anything he may have done, he is the victim of torture, torture is illegal.

Bush, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, and everyone from the top to the bottom in the treatment of Padilla are criminals and should be jailed for felony torture.

It's just that simple, the treatment is criminal and the crime should be prosecuted and the perpetrators punished.
Nobody | 12.04.06 - 2:41 pm | #

Jared, if only you and those like you here would get as upset at the "enemy" as you do with fellow citizens who don't share your ideology.

If only you'd fight those who wish to murder our children as hard as you fight conservatives.

Padilla was picked up coming back from an enemy battlefield location. That's just about all the proof I and most need.

Your analysis of the kind of person I am is as accurate as the rest of the crap that passes around here for critical thought.

Says the "Dog"
junkyardlawdog | 12.04.06 - 2:46 pm | #

Nobody, a little college hazing treatment isn't torture. Our own military recruits go through far worse during bootcamp.

Says the "Dog"
junkyardlawdog | 12.04.06 - 2:47 pm | #

So, "Dog," were you to be coming back from an "enemy battlefield location" (designated as such by someone else) and were thusly picked up and subjected to "a little college hazing treatment" (a disgusting minimalization of actual torture), you would have absolutely no problem with that, am I correct?
Nick | 12.04.06 - 2:51 pm | #

These are the kinds of activities that put Bush in a category by hemself as a failed POTUS. For those with the moral capability to categorize this behavior properly, it's hard to understand that others could possibly fail to see the immorality of what's happening here. But the couple rightwingers here show that they'll always be among us. All we can do is make sure they're kept as far away from power as our system allows.

I also blame the media for failing to inform the public that these things are happening. I know the majority of Americans would react with outrage if they really understood what is going on here. The few loyal cultists who still cling to fantasies about Bush being a "war president," are now so few that they don't have the capacity to uphold this freakshow behavior if it were exposed to the light. That and Bush's incompetence have set the table for the taking back of our country.

This is so outrageous that it turns my anger at the Bush admin to seething rage. If it weren't for the fact that I don't believe anybody should be treated this way, even if they are eventually proven guilty, I'd prescribe a course of this kind of punishment for the Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, the legal team, most of the Cabinet, and the RWers here who seem to think it's acceptable. Of course I'd first make sure they were officially accused and all that. Even they understand we have to have process
armagednoutahere | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 2:52 pm | #

Junkyardlawdog:

A fraternity pledge volunteers for a few days hazing in exchange for initiation into a fraternity. A military recruit volunteers for a few months boot camp in exchange for initiation into the military. Jose Padilla was seized, subjected to "hazing" without his consent for years, and saw no prospect of it ever coming to an end, let alone receiving any reward for it.

Do you really fail to see the distinction here?
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 3:01 pm | #

Glenn,
Please remind people of Yaser Esam Hamdi. He's was the other U.S. citizen who was declared to be an enemy combatant and held without charges and who went all the way to the Supreme Court (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld). The Bush Administration had maintained that he was so dangerous that he should be held indefinitely w/o charges and with no access to the courts. When the Supreme Court ruled that he had to be tried, the US just quietly released him to Saudi Arabia where he grew up. If he was so dangerous, why would he be released to go free in Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 9/11 hijackers? The answer is that the evidence against Hamdi was most likely very flimsy or non-existent and would never hold up in court. When the US had to actually charge and try Hamdi, the US said "Oops, Nevermind" and let him go after he signed a release agreeing not to sue the US for his unconstitutional detention for 3 years. The US can't do that with Jose Padilla because he was born and raised here and he cannot be shipped off to another country.
Rosali | 12.04.06 - 3:10 pm | #

Why don't most americans care about this? It's because they don't ever think it will happen to them. They haven't done anything wrong, so they feel no need to fear. Only the "bad people" should be afraid. The idea that someone could make a mistake, like in the Maher Arar case, never occurs to them. Maher Arar was a canadian citizen our country kidnapped and sent to Syria where he was tortured for 10 months. He was innocent but that didn't stop him from being tortured. Richard Dreyfuss is calling for the renewed teaching of civics in american high schools. I think he's right, most americans don't know what the constitution is or what it does. Since so many people don't understand what rights are, they are easily persuaded to support policies that are against our constitution. Take for instance the separation of church in state. So many people can't see what is wrong with having organized prayer in our schools. Since they don't understand that our constitution prohibits it, they blame "activist judges" for not allowing it. The right-wing capitalizes on people's ignorance of our government and constitution.
Conservative Slayer | 12.04.06 - 3:17 pm | #

Are military recruits paid? Yes.

Are they there voluntarily (in the absence of a draft or evidence to the contrary)? Yes.
Aaron G. Stock | 12.04.06 - 3:30 pm | #

Enlightened Layperson,

Please don't adopt the Right's malaprops. Hazing != Torture.

Fraternities do not submit pledges to months of unending solitary confinement with forced injection of psychedelic drugs.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 3:31 pm | #

"Padilla was picked up coming back from an enemy battlefield location."

Citation please.

The defense briefs indicate that the only government evidence of this was through tortured confession. Padilla has since retracted his confession when not being tortured. The prosecution has *nothing* else.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 3:35 pm | #

Padilla is not a convict sentenced to punishment. He is a person in pre-trial detention who is being held without any conviction or adjudication of guilt who has had his persoality destroyed by three years of a carefully and scientifically crafted a knowing and intentional psychological program designed to place Padilla in extreme psychological , disorientation, pain, and distress.

How can anyone justify that. If they can, may they someday have the opportunigy to experience what Padilla has received.

This is not a little hazing or discomfort.

It's simply torture. It is unjustiabiable, and those who approved it, those who designed it, those who supervised it, and those who carried it out are all criminals.

All should be prosecuted, convicted, and punished.
Nobody | 12.04.06 - 3:43 pm | #

"Ask the average person if they have ever heard of Jose Padilla and most will say no." cathy | 12.04.06 - 9:44 am

And most of the remaining few who have heard of him will say, "oh yeah, you mean the Dirty Bomber?"

Our own military recruits go through far worse during bootcamp.
junkyardlawdog | 12.04.06 - 2:47 pm

Obviously you, like so many of the pantswetters on the right, have never served in the military. You actually believe this?

My Navy boot camp lasted 8 weeks, not 3.5 years.

I volunteered for it; nobody pulled me into it against my will.

I was always surrounded by friends (building comraderey was kind of the point of the whole exercise), not isolated from any human contact other than tormenters.

I was yelled at, but never with so much as a profane word.

I sure as hell was never beaten.

And I was constantly reminded that I had the right to quit and go home at any time.

Oh, yes. I was even given some free, much-needed dental care, with plenty of local anesthetic and a friendly, sympathetic dentist.

I was even relieved of exercising for a few days while I recovered from an injury sustained in training.

"Far worse" than Padilla's treatment? You're an idiot.

You could learn all this yourself, if you'd enlist.

Do it. Go save civilization from the existential threat you clearly believe exists.

Or just stfu.
RobW | 12.04.06 - 3:53 pm | #

The Dems need to have some hearings to determine the chain of command and perpetrators of the reign of torture carried out by our government--a Truth Commission-- or sorts.

Particularly, they need to spotlight the sadistic doctors, psychologists, and medical perpetrators that use their scientific training to design the torture programs. We need to know who our Mengele are so they can be shunned forever from all civil society and barred from all involvement in medicine in the future.
Nobody | 12.04.06 - 4:00 pm | #

Myrtle Parker:

Please don't adopt the Right's malaprops. Hazing != Torture.

Sorry, just trying to see if I could get the point across to Junk. Probably a waste of time anyhow.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 4:09 pm | #

I might as while point out, again, that 9/11 was an inside job. There simply is no doubt. You may deny it, but only if you don't want to look carefully at the evidence.
spooked | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 4:35 pm | #

If only you'd fight those who wish to murder our children as hard as you fight conservatives....junklawdog

Now, see here good man!
.
greenchilecheeseburger | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 4:51 pm | #

The Left appears to deliberately confuse domestic criminal law with international law and/or the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners, rights and trials. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the right of the government to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant in spite of his citizenship status, referring specifically to the AUMF and the Hamdi decision for support. It also specifically made the point that the availability of a criminal justice system for a trial does not necessitate its use over military detention. One goal of military detention is to prevent combatants from returning to the battlefield and one reason for holding them incommunicado is to prevent them from communicating with confederates (Call this the Lynne Stewart coda). Both these factors were cited by the Court in its reasoning.

That Court decision is still in effect as Glenn points out. Opinions as to the merits of the current Padilla case may vary, but the prosecution is free to include or exclude charges as they wish. This whole habeus corpus row is just a red herring raised by the left about a subject that has been settled law for generations. Foreign prisoners and spies may be detained without trial until the cessation of hostilities. If there is precedent otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it.
daleyrocks | 12.04.06 - 5:17 pm | #

selise -- the Danner podcast is well worth everyone's time.
AJ | 12.04.06 - 5:39 pm | #

The Left appears to deliberately confuse domestic criminal law with international law and/or the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners, rights and trials……One goal of military detention is to prevent combatants from returning to the battlefield

Oh, yes, of course. And just what was that foreign battlefield where this American citizen was apprehended? Ah, that would be O’hare airport. Well, sure, they do have international flights, so I guess that U.S. laws don’t apply in that part of Chicago. Oh, well. Too bad for him.

Thanks for clearing up that confusion for us.
zack | 12.04.06 - 5:42 pm | #

"His behavior changed palpably -- fundamentally -- and he became extremely passive and, a short time thereafter, was visibly broken. All of that occurred before he was convicted of any crime."

Can there be any reasonable doubt that this amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment"?
And that it happened before conviction make it even more unconstitutional.
What's the constitution of the US of A good for in the 21st century? Toilet paper is more useful.
:-(
Gray | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 5:46 pm | #

daleyrocks,

Padilla was not a foreign prisoner.

He was a United States citizen picked up on United States soil via a material witness warrant issued by a United States court. At the time of his detention he was evincing no direct threat to anyone. It was only after his lawyers petitioned the court to vacate the warrant that the President of the United States ordered the military to detain him.

He was already behind bars and subject to the criminal justice system as a United States citizen when he was detained by the military.

"That Court decision is still in effect as Glenn points out."

Not with regard to Padilla. The government voluntarily granted Padilla the relief that he was seeking. His writ was thus granted.

"This whole habeus corpus row is just a red herring raised by the left about a subject that has been settled law for generations."

Bullshit. You only conclude this by erroneously conflating Jose Padilla with an foreign prisoner picked up on the battle field. Padilla's case differs with this in three material ways:

1. Padilla was not a foreigner.
2. Padilla was not on a battlefield.
3. Padilla did not evince any threat when he was picked up.

His petition for habeas corpus was voluntarily granted by the Government which feared a ruling from the Supremes.

Do you honestly believe that Dick Cheney would agree to give Jose Padilla the relief he was requesting and drop all the most serious accusations against him for anything other than fear that the Supremes would give the administration a rebuke? Oh yah, that's right, you guys do live in fantasy land...
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 5:54 pm | #

ZACK,

"Ah, that would be O'hare airport. Well, sure, they do have international flights, so I guess that U.S. laws don't apply in that part of Chicago."

Actually Zack, Padilla was not picked up by the military until after he was already behind bars on a material witness warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Thus the military had no credible reason to detain him for purposes of 'preventing him from returning to the battlefield' since he was already under lock and key and subject to the United States criminal justice system.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 5:59 pm | #

Myrtle - I don't think you read what I wrote very closely at all. I am aware of Jose's citizenship and circumstances of arrest. The government elected to try him in civilian court, did they actually change his status from enemy combatant Myrtle? That is not required based on my reading to try him in a civil court.

I suggest that you and Zack and others here read the Court of Appeals decision on Padilla. Even if ultimately retained or overturned it does provide a summary of the relevant law and precedents so you don't continue to comment on an uninformed or misinformed basis.

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=c...us&ct=clnk& cd=1
daleyrocks | 12.04.06 - 6:05 pm | #

Myrtle - You misread Glenn's piece on Padilla's appeal to the SC. His point is that the government's decision to indict and try Padilla in criminal court made Padilla's appeal to the SC moot, in effect dismissing it, because the relief requested had been granted. That does not necessarily invalidate the Court of Appeals decision regarding Padilla's status as an enemy combatant.
daleyrocks | 12.04.06 - 6:19 pm | #

The government elected to try him in civilian court

elected?

When Jose Padilla was arrested at O'Hare Airport in 2002 he was branded as an enemy combatant and held without any charges in a military jail. Only after a Supreme Court case and pressure on the administration was the one-time Chicago gangbanger indicted on terrorism charges and transferred to the criminal justice system.
zack | 12.04.06 - 6:22 pm | #

daleyrocks,

You are under a delusion it seems. Padilla is currently before a criminal court. This is not a civil case.

As to whether the President's order directing the military to release Padilla to the Attorney General also formally revoked the President's designation of him as an 'Enemy Combatant'... See this from Kennedy's letter on the request for the writ:

"Padilla responds that his case was not mooted by the Government's voluntary actions because there remains a possibility that he will be REDESIGNATED AND REDETAINED AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT." (emphasis mine)

In any case, whether he is formally still designated is immaterial. He is now subject to the criminal court and afforded all protections and rights normally granted to federal criminal defendants.

The point is, Padilla was granted the relief he sought with his request for a writ of habeas corpus.

Moreover, the Hamdi decision is absolutely crystal clear on how the court would have ruled if the Government hadn't voluntarily released Padilla from military custody. His petition for the writ would have been granted as all justices -- minus Thomas -- (EVEN SCALIA) concurred that as a citizen the Government either had to charge him or set him free. See Scalia's and Stevens dissent.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 6:28 pm | #

daleyrocks,

"That does not necessarily invalidate the Court of Appeals decision regarding Padilla's status as an enemy combatant."

You seem to be completely confused. Whether Padilla is an 'Enemy Combatant' is up to the President as he decides the term. According to Kennedy's letter it would seem that the President revoked Padilla's status as an 'Enemy Combatant' when it decided to turn him over to the Attorney General. See above.

The Court of Appeals had nothing to do with this as this all took place *after* that decision while it was pending before the Supremes.

Either way it is immaterial. Like I said, Padilla is now subject to the criminal court and afforded all protections and rights normally granted to federal criminal defendants.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 6:32 pm | #

daleyrocks,

Please, have a read of Scalia's dissent wherein he argues that the other Justices rebuke of the President did not go far enough.

You'll find a stirring defense of the writ of habeas corpus. Without Scalia, the Government didn't stand a chance in Padilla's case before the Supremes and they very well knew it. That is why they released him from military custody.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cg...3- 6696#dissent1
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 6:50 pm | #

Daleyrocks:

The Left appears to deliberately confuse domestic criminal law with international law and/or the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners, rights and trials.

You appear not to have read either Glenn's post. The conditions it described clearly do not comply with international law and/or the Geneva Convention. You have also apparently not read his link, which makes clear that the way Jose Padilla was treated does not comply with accepted military law:

Mr. Padilla’s situation, as an American declared an enemy combatant and held without charges by his own government, was extraordinary and the conditions of his detention appear to have been unprecedented in the military justice system.

Philip D. Cave, a former judge advocate general for the Navy and now a lawyer specializing in military law, said, “There’s nothing comparable in terms of severity of confinement, in terms of how Padilla was held, especially considering that this was pretrial confinement.”

Padilla's Reply Brief on the Motion to Dismiss is available here (.pdf).
Mark Field | 12.04.06 - 7:04 pm | #

James Madison proposed that the advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of liberty.
Thank you for advancing substance and critical thought. The Padilla case reveals how they have embraced torture and clearly fostered such "outrages on human dignity." Heartbreaking and outrageous. Keep presenting it in the blogosphere. Keep the discussion of rights violations front and center...
Sleeping better since the midt | 12.04.06 - 7:07 pm | #

Several of the comments here have gotten me wondering:

Would it be possible for the Administration to RE-designate Padilla as an "Enemy Combatant", throw him back into solitary for another three years, and have this entire mess start from square one again?
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.04.06 - 8:02 pm | #

Iokanaan in the Well,

I wondered the same thing earlier, but the Supremes have made it crystal clear that if the administration tries this, Padilla would have a fast track to challenge with the Supremes themselves. See Kennedy here.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 8:06 pm | #

From Myrtle Parker at 8:06pm:

I wondered the same thing earlier, but the Supremes have made it crystal clear that if the administration tries this, Padilla would have a fast track to challenge with the Supremes themselves. See Kennedy here.

would this apply even if this 're-designation' were based on some new, super-secret 'intelligence' concerning Padilla?(which I wouldn't put past this gang of idiots to try)
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.04.06 - 8:26 pm | #

Iokanaan in the Well,

I'll let Kennedy speak for this:

"Were the Government to seek to change the status or conditions of Padilla's custody, that court would be in a position to rule quickly on any responsive filings submitted by Padilla. In such an event, the District Court, as well as other courts of competent jurisdiction, should act promptly to ensure that the office and purposes of the writ of habeas corpus are not compromised. Padilla, moreover, retains the option of seeking a writ of habeas corpus in this Court."

WRT Zack's comment, this is exactly what I would say if I was looking to get out of jury duty.
zsa | 12.04.06 - 9:00 pm | #

Attention Comrades,
Please visit http://ministryoflove.wordpress.com to learn about our creative protest of the Military Commissions Act.
Regards,
O'Brien
Comrade O'Brien | Homepage | 12.04.06 - 9:18 pm | #

From Myrtle Parker at 8:39pm:

I'll let Kennedy speak for this:

Thank you, Myrtle.
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.04.06 - 9:41 pm | #

Myrtle - I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but the ability to hold U.S. citizens as enemy combatants hasn't been tested by the SC yet, has it. Hamdi was remanded and then mooted. Padilla was mooted by the criminal indictment. The confusion I describe over habeus corpus and defense of it by Scalia you cite refers to domestic law, not international law. It is hopefully clear to everyone by now that the MCA does not apply to U.S. citizens, although Glenn was backtracking on this the other day. Foreign prisoners do not have habeus corpus rights under the laws of war and as I mentioned earlier, this has been established law for generations. Scalia even mentions it in his dissent to which you refer.
daleyrocks | 12.05.06 - 12:32 am | #

"Foreign prisoners do not have habeus corpus rights under the laws of war and as I mentioned earlier, this has been established law for generations. Scalia even mentions it in his dissent to which you refer."

But this is *wrong*. The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld clearly speaks to this. Hamdan had filed for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the military commission was not a proper venue to try him. The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia sided with Hamdan and ruled that a military commission was an improper venue unless the Government certified that he was a prisoner of war ... which would trigger the applicability of Geneva Conventions conferred rights.

The Supreme Court in Hamdan clearly said that the Geneva Conventions *apply* to so-called 'Enemy Combatants'. It also said that the Geneva Conventions clearly foreclose the type of military commissions that the President had set up because the Conventions require that 'Enemy Combatants' be tried in 'regularly constituted court'.

So, the Geneva Conventions insofar as they are 'international laws' *do apply* and they require trial by a 'regularly constituted court' which satisfies the right of habeas corpus.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.05.06 - 11:21 am | #

Myrtle - Now you're being disingenuous. The fix to Hamdan was to have Congress pass legislation for the military court procedures. The SC's complaint was that Bush's tribunals were ad hoc.
daleyrocks | 12.05.06 - 12:33 pm | #

daleyrocks,

How so? You asserted that international law was not of concern or that the left was confusing the issue. However, the most recent case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, made clear use of international law as guidance for the decision. Truth be told, international law is very much relevant to these issues as the majority opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld makes clear.

You are right that the MCA was passed subsequently, but it has not been tested in court. When it does, we'll both be reading the decision, but how it plays out is anyones guess. I would say that it is clear the court (or at least Kennedy who is pivotal) will use the Geneva Conventions as guidance. Of course, who knows... perhaps the court will rule they lack jurisdiction and punt altogether.
Myrtle Parker | Homepage | 12.05.06 - 1:46 pm | #

I think it's important to acknowledge that longterm solitary confinement, especially in supermax prisons such as California's Pelican Bay, is routine, as is brutality that amounts to torture (e.g., the case of a Pelican Bay Prisoner who was punished by being held down in water so hot that his skin started peeling off). Padilla may have been subjected to more extreme punishment than is routine in most such prisons, but it's a difference in detail, not in kind. The war on crime and the war on terror share many of the same root impulses and methods and results. If we dehumaize anyone and place them beyond our concern and beyond the rights that the rest of us share, this is where it leads.
John Raymond | 12.05.06 - 6:53 pm | #

I would also add the case of a prisoner who for punishment, was strapped into a chair so that he could not move at all for three days, and died as a result.
John Raymond | 12.05.06 - 6:57 pm | #

The treatment of Padilla is wrong.
Bengt Larsson | 12.05.06 - 11:54 pm | #

There are punishments as bad as, and in some cases worse than, execution. It takes a truly authoritarian mind -- and a decisively un-American mentality -- to want to vest the power to mete out those punishments in a Leader unburdened by the need to prove guilt.

I wish to question one comment here - please demonstrate that this is an un-American mentality. From where I'm sitting, it seems very American, unusual only in that it now applies to de jure citizens.
Phoenician in a time of Romans | Homepage | 12.06.06 - 12:56 am | #

Padilla was picked up coming back from an enemy battlefield location. That's just about all the proof I and most need.

Your analysis of the kind of person I am is as accurate as the rest of the crap that passes around here for critical thought.

Says the "Dog"
junkyardlawdog | 12.04.06 - 2:46 pm |

"analysis"? You just *announced* what kind of person you are.

Padilla was arrested at O'Hare International Airport. What about everyone else who was on the same plane he was on -- they were coming back from the same place he was coming back from. Is that all the proof you need that they too should be detained and sensorily deprived for years, without trial or access to counsel? Is that what you call "critical thought"? Is that what you call "conservative"? You resemble a parody of some vigilante from a B Western movie -- "That's all the proof I need! Let's string 'em up!" Apparently you got confused as a child and thought those dumbfuck hicks were the good guys.
truth machine | 12.06.06 - 5:09 pm | #