An excellent editorial from the NY Times regarding the problems with trying Padilla in court:
The Rule of Law and the War on Terror
By RUTH WEDGWOOD
Published: December 23, 2003
ASHINGTON — In the ongoing war with Al Qaeda, America's civic ideals should not frustrate an effective defense. What is the government to do, for example, when it knows of catastrophic threats or dangers to Americans through intelligence sources, yet is unable to prove its case in a criminal trial against those planning such attacks?
Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who the government says was working for Al Qaeda in a radioactive bomb plot. The government's main informants about Mr. Padilla are still sequestered abroad. Without these senior Qaeda members available to appear in court, Mr. Padilla cannot be charged with a crime. So shortly after returning to America from abroad in May 2002, he was designated an "enemy combatant" and taken into government custody. Last week a federal appeals court ordered him released within 30 days.
According to government accounts, Mr. Padilla moved abroad in 1998, traveling to Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. He wasn't traveling to see the wonders of the world. In 2001, the government says, Mr. Padilla met in Afghanistan with Abu Zubaydah, a senior Qaeda planner. Mr. Padilla offered to detonate a radioactive bomb in an American city, and Mr. Zubaydah sent him to Pakistan to learn about making bombs.
In 2002, according to a government affidavit filed in open court, Mr. Padilla discussed how to attack the United States in terrorist operations with other operatives of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, again with Abu Zubaydah's approval. Plans included a "dirty bomb" attack and bombings of American hotels and train stations.
All of these schemes might seem beyond the capacity of a street gang graduate. But one of Al Qaeda's hallmarks has been attracting and teaching local jihadists, marrying Al Qaeda's perverse set of skills to the moral naïveté of a young recruit.
Mr. Padilla was told to return to the United States to carry out reconnaissance, the government says, or to conduct attacks on American sites. On May 8, 2002, he flew from Pakistan to Switzerland, and then to Chicago. Meanwhile, in March 2002, Abu Zubaydah was taken into custody by intelligence agents in Pakistan, and may have spilled the beans on Mr. Padilla's involvement.
The government faced an extraordinary dilemma upon Mr. Padilla's return to the United States. Federal rules of evidence do not permit the consideration of intelligence reports as proof for criminal convictions, no matter how reliable the informant. And any effort to hold Mr. Padilla as a grand jury witness was bound to be temporary, since he could not be forced to testify without immunity.
Hence, President Bush invoked the wartime power delegated by Congress. In response to 9/11, Congress's joint resolution, dated Sept. 18, 2001, authorized the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "those organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001" in order to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" (emphasis added).
This Congressional action, together with the president's constitutional responsibility as commander in chief to protect the United States against attacks, authorized the American military campaign against the Taliban and Qaeda members around the world. Congress surely intended that Qaeda operatives who are planning direct attacks against American targets should also be restrained, at least when no other legal method is available. Mr. Padilla was caught in hot pursuit returning from Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has now concluded otherwise. Congress apparently meant no such thing. Though a lower court judge upheld the president's power to intercept incipient attacks, subject to suitable habeas corpus review, the appeals panel has supposed that Congress provided no means to stop Al Qaeda operatives like Mr. Padilla from entering the United States to carry out attacks — except by means of a criminal prosecution. An operative of Al Qaeda must be caught carrying "weapons or explosives," the judges said, in order to be seen as "actively engaged in armed conflict against the United States."
This sanguine view overlooks the Eichmann-like division of labor common in Qaeda operations. Target-spotting missions and trips to acquire munitions are part of armed conflict. And the government says Jose Padilla volunteered to carry out the stateside attacks directly.
The appellate court supposes, without any basis in the record, that there was no "imminent danger" of attack, because a grand jury warrant kept Mr. Padilla at a Manhattan correctional center for four weeks. But what the court did not say is that had Mr. Padilla been let go after the warrant expired, he would have been free to continue his martial tasks.
The judges appropriately considered a little-known but important guarantee called the "Non-Detention Act" — passed in 1971. It says that "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress." The puzzle is why the judges are so cocksure that Congress's nearly unanimous vote to go to war against Al Qaeda doesn't qualify as an authorizing act of Congress.
Of course, it would be preferable to know everything that is important in life by standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt." But imagine if the intelligence dots had been replete and connected on Sept. 10, 2001. What if we knew, from out-of-court sources, the names of Qaeda operatives who were planning to hijack the jet-fueled airplanes for attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?
Even then, we would likely have lacked admissible criminal proof. By the logic of last week's decision, the president could not have held the hijackers as combatants — even after they had entered the United States, even with habeas corpus review of the president's decision, until the moment they appeared at Logan Airport with box cutters.
Perhaps, unconsciously, we think the war is over. The Al Qaeda network's recent bombings in Kenya and Turkey argue the opposite. Osama bin Laden's "spider hole" has not yet been found. The muttered warnings of his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were broadcast last week, just before the government's heightened terror alert: "We are still chasing the Americans and their allies everywhere, including their homeland."
One would prefer to think this was bluster. But the training camps of Osama bin Laden created a dangerous and far-flung network that criminal law alone may not suffice to vanquish.
Ruth Wedgwood, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, is professor of international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University.
The Rule of Law and the War on Terror
By RUTH WEDGWOOD
Published: December 23, 2003
ASHINGTON — In the ongoing war with Al Qaeda, America's civic ideals should not frustrate an effective defense. What is the government to do, for example, when it knows of catastrophic threats or dangers to Americans through intelligence sources, yet is unable to prove its case in a criminal trial against those planning such attacks?
Consider the case of Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who the government says was working for Al Qaeda in a radioactive bomb plot. The government's main informants about Mr. Padilla are still sequestered abroad. Without these senior Qaeda members available to appear in court, Mr. Padilla cannot be charged with a crime. So shortly after returning to America from abroad in May 2002, he was designated an "enemy combatant" and taken into government custody. Last week a federal appeals court ordered him released within 30 days.
According to government accounts, Mr. Padilla moved abroad in 1998, traveling to Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. He wasn't traveling to see the wonders of the world. In 2001, the government says, Mr. Padilla met in Afghanistan with Abu Zubaydah, a senior Qaeda planner. Mr. Padilla offered to detonate a radioactive bomb in an American city, and Mr. Zubaydah sent him to Pakistan to learn about making bombs.
In 2002, according to a government affidavit filed in open court, Mr. Padilla discussed how to attack the United States in terrorist operations with other operatives of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, again with Abu Zubaydah's approval. Plans included a "dirty bomb" attack and bombings of American hotels and train stations.
All of these schemes might seem beyond the capacity of a street gang graduate. But one of Al Qaeda's hallmarks has been attracting and teaching local jihadists, marrying Al Qaeda's perverse set of skills to the moral naïveté of a young recruit.
Mr. Padilla was told to return to the United States to carry out reconnaissance, the government says, or to conduct attacks on American sites. On May 8, 2002, he flew from Pakistan to Switzerland, and then to Chicago. Meanwhile, in March 2002, Abu Zubaydah was taken into custody by intelligence agents in Pakistan, and may have spilled the beans on Mr. Padilla's involvement.
The government faced an extraordinary dilemma upon Mr. Padilla's return to the United States. Federal rules of evidence do not permit the consideration of intelligence reports as proof for criminal convictions, no matter how reliable the informant. And any effort to hold Mr. Padilla as a grand jury witness was bound to be temporary, since he could not be forced to testify without immunity.
Hence, President Bush invoked the wartime power delegated by Congress. In response to 9/11, Congress's joint resolution, dated Sept. 18, 2001, authorized the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "those organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001" in order to "prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" (emphasis added).
This Congressional action, together with the president's constitutional responsibility as commander in chief to protect the United States against attacks, authorized the American military campaign against the Taliban and Qaeda members around the world. Congress surely intended that Qaeda operatives who are planning direct attacks against American targets should also be restrained, at least when no other legal method is available. Mr. Padilla was caught in hot pursuit returning from Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has now concluded otherwise. Congress apparently meant no such thing. Though a lower court judge upheld the president's power to intercept incipient attacks, subject to suitable habeas corpus review, the appeals panel has supposed that Congress provided no means to stop Al Qaeda operatives like Mr. Padilla from entering the United States to carry out attacks — except by means of a criminal prosecution. An operative of Al Qaeda must be caught carrying "weapons or explosives," the judges said, in order to be seen as "actively engaged in armed conflict against the United States."
This sanguine view overlooks the Eichmann-like division of labor common in Qaeda operations. Target-spotting missions and trips to acquire munitions are part of armed conflict. And the government says Jose Padilla volunteered to carry out the stateside attacks directly.
The appellate court supposes, without any basis in the record, that there was no "imminent danger" of attack, because a grand jury warrant kept Mr. Padilla at a Manhattan correctional center for four weeks. But what the court did not say is that had Mr. Padilla been let go after the warrant expired, he would have been free to continue his martial tasks.
The judges appropriately considered a little-known but important guarantee called the "Non-Detention Act" — passed in 1971. It says that "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an act of Congress." The puzzle is why the judges are so cocksure that Congress's nearly unanimous vote to go to war against Al Qaeda doesn't qualify as an authorizing act of Congress.
Of course, it would be preferable to know everything that is important in life by standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt." But imagine if the intelligence dots had been replete and connected on Sept. 10, 2001. What if we knew, from out-of-court sources, the names of Qaeda operatives who were planning to hijack the jet-fueled airplanes for attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?
Even then, we would likely have lacked admissible criminal proof. By the logic of last week's decision, the president could not have held the hijackers as combatants — even after they had entered the United States, even with habeas corpus review of the president's decision, until the moment they appeared at Logan Airport with box cutters.
Perhaps, unconsciously, we think the war is over. The Al Qaeda network's recent bombings in Kenya and Turkey argue the opposite. Osama bin Laden's "spider hole" has not yet been found. The muttered warnings of his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were broadcast last week, just before the government's heightened terror alert: "We are still chasing the Americans and their allies everywhere, including their homeland."
One would prefer to think this was bluster. But the training camps of Osama bin Laden created a dangerous and far-flung network that criminal law alone may not suffice to vanquish.
Ruth Wedgwood, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, is professor of international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins University.
PMS,
I've answered you twice already. I sincerely appologize if you can digest an argument with reasoning beyond "cause I said so", but there's certainly no use in posting the same argument a thrid time so that you will, yet again, remain unable to comprehend my post.
Feel free to search and ask one of the adults to explain my deductions to you.
I've answered you twice already. I sincerely appologize if you can digest an argument with reasoning beyond "cause I said so", but there's certainly no use in posting the same argument a thrid time so that you will, yet again, remain unable to comprehend my post.
Feel free to search and ask one of the adults to explain my deductions to you.
I understand your post, the problem is that you didnt answer the question. You attempted to answer the question: "Are Iraqis free?"
Unfortunately, that is not the question that I asked. I asked the question, "Do Iraqis deserve freedom, even with casualties?"
If you dont feel like typing a response again, simply copy and paste the answer to THIS question, although a simple yes or no shouldn't take too much of your time.
Unfortunately, that is not the question that I asked. I asked the question, "Do Iraqis deserve freedom, even with casualties?"
If you dont feel like typing a response again, simply copy and paste the answer to THIS question, although a simple yes or no shouldn't take too much of your time.
The world isn't as simple as 'yes' or 'no'. Some things are in the grey area, others are irrelevant, and yet others are merely unanswerable due to the nature of the loaded question being posed.
For instance, answer this -- IgetPMS, since Bush is a failed leader and a traitorous president should you finally admit that he ought to be impeached?
Think about it.
If you answer 'yes' you're saying that he's a failed leader and traitorous president.
If you answer 'no' you implicitly accepting the premise of my loaded question as truth.
I answered your question. You will NOT get a yes or no, because you're whole premise on the cause/need for war is flawed.
For instance, answer this -- IgetPMS, since Bush is a failed leader and a traitorous president should you finally admit that he ought to be impeached?
Think about it.
If you answer 'yes' you're saying that he's a failed leader and traitorous president.
If you answer 'no' you implicitly accepting the premise of my loaded question as truth.
I answered your question. You will NOT get a yes or no, because you're whole premise on the cause/need for war is flawed.
Thats a BS cop out answer. Unlike your question, I didnt ask a question with multiple clauses, that requires an acceptance of the first one.
My question has one clause and one clause only. You either agree with it or you don't, regardless of anything else you believe about the war.
And for the record, there is no grey area when it comes to basic freedom. Here, I'll say it outright. I believe Iraqis deserve freedom, even with casualties.
There, that was pretty easy. Nothing too difficult about that.
My question has one clause and one clause only. You either agree with it or you don't, regardless of anything else you believe about the war.
And for the record, there is no grey area when it comes to basic freedom. Here, I'll say it outright. I believe Iraqis deserve freedom, even with casualties.
There, that was pretty easy. Nothing too difficult about that.
Your question is based on the premise that we are (and should be) at war to liberate Iraq.
That is the premise to the loaded question.
Sorry to burst your bubble, I know you probably thought for once in your meager existance that you stumbled upon something truly genius, but you havne't - you've stumbled onto what men have called premises since the days of the great ancient philosophers.
I applaud your efforts - they are quite political
That is the premise to the loaded question.
Sorry to burst your bubble, I know you probably thought for once in your meager existance that you stumbled upon something truly genius, but you havne't - you've stumbled onto what men have called premises since the days of the great ancient philosophers.
I applaud your efforts - they are quite political
I'll take that as a no.
Perhaps its not the question that is the problem. Perhaps its how answering yes, which most reasonable people would be able to say without hesitation, is incompatible with your anti-war stance.
So, in other words, being anti-war necesitates being against the idea of Iraqis receiving basic human rights, unless they can be achieved in another manner, which I have yet to hear from anyone.
"you've stumbled onto what men have called premises since the days of the great ancient philosophers."
The only thing I've stumbled upon is what a hypocrite you are for crying anytime you think your rights are taken away, which you feel a false sense of entitlement for, while others should suffer under a dictator for the rest of their lives.
So you can shove your specious concern for innocent Iraqi lives lost during the war and shove it up your ass.
Perhaps its not the question that is the problem. Perhaps its how answering yes, which most reasonable people would be able to say without hesitation, is incompatible with your anti-war stance.
So, in other words, being anti-war necesitates being against the idea of Iraqis receiving basic human rights, unless they can be achieved in another manner, which I have yet to hear from anyone.
"you've stumbled onto what men have called premises since the days of the great ancient philosophers."
The only thing I've stumbled upon is what a hypocrite you are for crying anytime you think your rights are taken away, which you feel a false sense of entitlement for, while others should suffer under a dictator for the rest of their lives.
So you can shove your specious concern for innocent Iraqi lives lost during the war and shove it up your ass.
You can take that as a "shove your loaded question and your flawed premise up your ass".
I've made my position VERY clear. If you can't comprehend since logic then you have bigger issues than the debate at hand. Regardless, it offers no excuse for your constant fabrication of my beliefs.
The fuking war WAS INITIALLY ABOUT WMD like your genocidal leader said. When that was shown to be a false premise (like most of yours) then he said it was about our defense. When it was appartent that they were no threat then he said it was about liberation.
Bullshit. PMS, did you buy the bridge from the Bushies too?
It's obvious that they are manufacturing consent or they'd have stuck to one "justification" and gone with it.
I'm not going to debate about how we are liberating Iraq when in fact that has nothing to do with the war. It's a flawed premise - what part can't your little brain comprehend?
Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden is out plotting attacks on the US.
Does that make you feel safe cronie boy?
I've made my position VERY clear. If you can't comprehend since logic then you have bigger issues than the debate at hand. Regardless, it offers no excuse for your constant fabrication of my beliefs.
The fuking war WAS INITIALLY ABOUT WMD like your genocidal leader said. When that was shown to be a false premise (like most of yours) then he said it was about our defense. When it was appartent that they were no threat then he said it was about liberation.
Bullshit. PMS, did you buy the bridge from the Bushies too?
It's obvious that they are manufacturing consent or they'd have stuck to one "justification" and gone with it.
I'm not going to debate about how we are liberating Iraq when in fact that has nothing to do with the war. It's a flawed premise - what part can't your little brain comprehend?
Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden is out plotting attacks on the US.
Does that make you feel safe cronie boy?
Why did we go to war on Germany in WW2, Lander?
Japan, of course, attacked us. Let's not even talk about all the theories that we let them do it so we could get involved.
But why Germany and Italy? They never attacked the US.
There are generally more reasons that just one for a situation like Iraq. Personally, I am fine with one neither of you have even mentioned...for YEARS they have played hopscotch with UN inspectors while under sanctions..sanctions that were backed by the threat of force. It finally came down to force being used. Good enough. All the other questions and benefits are, to me, sideline issues. Saddam thought he could thumb his nose forever, instead of falling in line. Now, he can...from inside a jail, if they don't execute him.
Japan, of course, attacked us. Let's not even talk about all the theories that we let them do it so we could get involved.
But why Germany and Italy? They never attacked the US.
There are generally more reasons that just one for a situation like Iraq. Personally, I am fine with one neither of you have even mentioned...for YEARS they have played hopscotch with UN inspectors while under sanctions..sanctions that were backed by the threat of force. It finally came down to force being used. Good enough. All the other questions and benefits are, to me, sideline issues. Saddam thought he could thumb his nose forever, instead of falling in line. Now, he can...from inside a jail, if they don't execute him.
Tab,
Do you really think Iraq was preparing for world domination, despite losing to the US in a matter of months? Let me add, a matter of months in which none of the invisible WMD that George insist existed were used, discovered or ever shown to still exist.
Yeah, I can see the WWI/WWII similiarities
Talk about a stretttttttttttch
Do you really think Iraq was preparing for world domination, despite losing to the US in a matter of months? Let me add, a matter of months in which none of the invisible WMD that George insist existed were used, discovered or ever shown to still exist.
Yeah, I can see the WWI/WWII similiarities
Talk about a stretttttttttttch
WEll, stop trying to fit a big situation into a little box.
You have another thread around here saying the Bushes supplied WMD to Iraq. Yet in this one, you are screaming that there aren't any there.
The fact is, Saddam spent 11 years jacking inspectors around, at great cost to the people of Iraq. HE could have solved this years ago.
If we do not find any WMDs, well...I guess the Bush Senior administration didnt supply him with much, and you can figure you if you are happy or not about it.
And just to remind you: There have been US troops at risk on a daily basis in the Iraq since the Gulf War. Why have they been there? Because Saddam never would fully comply with UN inspectors. How long would you like to see a situation like that continue? How long will you let someone jerk YOU around for something that is not important, compared to this, which is important?
And yes, the direct parallels between the WWs and this situation are not good. However, ANY time you commit the US military to a fullfledged effort across the world, you should be thinking about how that works, and what it takes to provoke it. Airplane highjackings and terrorism? 11+ years of noncompliance after losing a very short war? Or just military action? This may not be known as WW3 in the future, but the war on terrorism is certainly global.
You have another thread around here saying the Bushes supplied WMD to Iraq. Yet in this one, you are screaming that there aren't any there.
The fact is, Saddam spent 11 years jacking inspectors around, at great cost to the people of Iraq. HE could have solved this years ago.
If we do not find any WMDs, well...I guess the Bush Senior administration didnt supply him with much, and you can figure you if you are happy or not about it.
And just to remind you: There have been US troops at risk on a daily basis in the Iraq since the Gulf War. Why have they been there? Because Saddam never would fully comply with UN inspectors. How long would you like to see a situation like that continue? How long will you let someone jerk YOU around for something that is not important, compared to this, which is important?
And yes, the direct parallels between the WWs and this situation are not good. However, ANY time you commit the US military to a fullfledged effort across the world, you should be thinking about how that works, and what it takes to provoke it. Airplane highjackings and terrorism? 11+ years of noncompliance after losing a very short war? Or just military action? This may not be known as WW3 in the future, but the war on terrorism is certainly global.
"You have another thread around here saying the Bushes supplied WMD to Iraq. Yet in this one, you are screaming that there aren't any there."
My statement is anything but hypocrytical as you imply in the leading statements of your argument. I'll debate the other bits later as I was just about to head out for the day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3158376/
... "'n a dozen interviews by MSNBC.com with former and current intelligence professionals, none felt that McGovern’s fears are warranted. But they agree that planting such evidence would not be too difficult from an evidentiary standpoint.
For one thing, most of Iraq’s supply of biological weaponry actually came from the United States: ordered and delivered to the Iraqis over the course of a decade starting in 1985 by the U.S. Army’s main biological laboratory in Frederick, Md., as easily as if Saddam Hussein were merely ordering a new mattress from Sears.
Over about a decade between the mid-1980s and 1996, when this unfathomable security flaw was discovered, Iraq ordered and received 24 different strains of biological samples from the Army, including the military-grade “Fort Detrick strain” of anthrax. The vast majority of biological agents found and destroyed after the first Gulf War by U.N. inspectors were “grown” from these American seeds.'
My statement is anything but hypocrytical as you imply in the leading statements of your argument. I'll debate the other bits later as I was just about to head out for the day.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3158376/
... "'n a dozen interviews by MSNBC.com with former and current intelligence professionals, none felt that McGovern’s fears are warranted. But they agree that planting such evidence would not be too difficult from an evidentiary standpoint.
For one thing, most of Iraq’s supply of biological weaponry actually came from the United States: ordered and delivered to the Iraqis over the course of a decade starting in 1985 by the U.S. Army’s main biological laboratory in Frederick, Md., as easily as if Saddam Hussein were merely ordering a new mattress from Sears.
Over about a decade between the mid-1980s and 1996, when this unfathomable security flaw was discovered, Iraq ordered and received 24 different strains of biological samples from the Army, including the military-grade “Fort Detrick strain” of anthrax. The vast majority of biological agents found and destroyed after the first Gulf War by U.N. inspectors were “grown” from these American seeds.'
U.S. to Give Information in Padilla Dirty Bomb Case
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday is expected to release more information about Jose Padilla, suspected of plotting with al Qaeda to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.
One law enforcement official said a news conference, with Deputy Attorney General James Comey and scheduled for 12:45 p.m., would involve releasing newly declassified information about Padilla. The official declined to give any details.
Padilla, who has not been changed with any crime and whose case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, has been confined in a military prison in South Carolina for about two years without any of the customary protections of the U.S. legal system.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June whether American citizens like Padilla who are deemed "enemy combatants," can be held indefinitely in U.S. military jails without any of the traditional legal rights.
Padilla, a convert to Islam, was arrested by the FBI at Chicago's O'Hare International airport on May 8, 2002, on a flight from Pakistan.
He initially was held as a "material witness" for a federal grand jury investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. But on June 9, 2002, President Bush invoked his power as commander in chief and declared Padilla an enemy combatant. He was sent to a military jail.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday is expected to release more information about Jose Padilla, suspected of plotting with al Qaeda to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.
One law enforcement official said a news conference, with Deputy Attorney General James Comey and scheduled for 12:45 p.m., would involve releasing newly declassified information about Padilla. The official declined to give any details.
Padilla, who has not been changed with any crime and whose case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, has been confined in a military prison in South Carolina for about two years without any of the customary protections of the U.S. legal system.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June whether American citizens like Padilla who are deemed "enemy combatants," can be held indefinitely in U.S. military jails without any of the traditional legal rights.
Padilla, a convert to Islam, was arrested by the FBI at Chicago's O'Hare International airport on May 8, 2002, on a flight from Pakistan.
He initially was held as a "material witness" for a federal grand jury investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. But on June 9, 2002, President Bush invoked his power as commander in chief and declared Padilla an enemy combatant. He was sent to a military jail.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sphincter:
phaedrus,i enjoy your posts,but,i think most people are more concerned with keeping the jose aka" abdullah al-mujahr" padilla`s out of of our hair than their due process.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You gotta be kidding! Due process is one of the foundations of this country! It is at the core of why this is so precious to its citizens, freedom. The ability to address and cross-exam your accusers.
The Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights are perhaps the two greatest documents ever produced by humanity. Now, you say sure lets throw out the Bill of Rights, and fuk the guarantees of the Constitution (for its CITIZENS)? All for some illusion of impenetrable security provided by the very liars that want to you to beleive they are capable stewards, yet can't tell the truth about why we invaded Iraq!
That is just about as reckless and irresponsible as it gets.
_________________________
Sure could use a trim
phaedrus,i enjoy your posts,but,i think most people are more concerned with keeping the jose aka" abdullah al-mujahr" padilla`s out of of our hair than their due process.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You gotta be kidding! Due process is one of the foundations of this country! It is at the core of why this is so precious to its citizens, freedom. The ability to address and cross-exam your accusers.
The Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights are perhaps the two greatest documents ever produced by humanity. Now, you say sure lets throw out the Bill of Rights, and fuk the guarantees of the Constitution (for its CITIZENS)? All for some illusion of impenetrable security provided by the very liars that want to you to beleive they are capable stewards, yet can't tell the truth about why we invaded Iraq!
That is just about as reckless and irresponsible as it gets.
_________________________
Sure could use a trim
