| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| DoJ Must Charge or Free Padilla |
| 2005-03-01 |
| WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration Monday to either charge terrorism suspect Jose Padilla with a crime or release him after more than 2 years in custody. U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd in Spartanburg, S.C., said the government can not hold Padilla indefinitely as an ``enemy combatant,'' a designation President Bush gave him in 2002. The government contends Padilla was planning an attack with a ``dirty bomb'' radiological device. ``The court finds that the president has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold petitioner as an enemy combatant,'' Floyd wrote in a 23-page opinion that was a stern rebuke to the government. Floyd, appointed by Bush in 2003, gave the administration 45 days to take action. ``We think that this is a wonderful decision,'' said Padilla's attorney, Andy Patel, as Padilla waited on another line. ``It is one of those moments that all Americans should be proud of.'' Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki said the government will appeal the decision. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, called Floyd's order a significant blow to the administration. ``It's a genuine limitation on the president's belief that he can do what he wants in the war on terror,'' said Ratner, whose group represents scores of detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The administration has said Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, sought to blow up hotels and apartment buildings in the United States in addition to planning an attack with a ``dirty bomb'' radiological device. Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002 after returning from Pakistan. The federal government has said he received weapons and explosives training from members of al-Qaida. ``If everything you say about Jose Padilla is true, prove it,'' said Denyse Williams, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in South Carolina, which has filed a brief in support of Padilla's attorneys. ``Everybody says the war on terror could last a lifetime. If they can do it to him, they can do it to others.'' David Salmons from the U.S. Solicitor General's Office countered at the time that the president has the right to detain any enemy combatant while the United States is fighting al-Qaida. But he added there's no risk that the president may round up citizens and detain them. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #38 Didn't Congress just sign a new law conerning class-action lawsuits like this one? Wonder if the federal court will throw it out? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-03-01 11:41:33 PM |
| #37 Great idea, Crazy. Unfortunately, the ACLU and all other Moonbat organizations would be filling all kinds of lawsuits. This seems to be their primary source of revenue these days. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-03-01 10:01:26 PM |
| #36 Fine, get all legal and everything. But we need to make a very-public statement that we will be following the Geneva convention to the letter - including summarily executing these non-uniformed illegal 'combatants' in the field - as specified in the geneva convention. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-03-01 9:53:17 PM |
| #35 How about considering different modes of release? I have some ideas... ;-) |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-03-01 9:46:38 PM |
| #34 I agree with you, too true, we seem to lack a good legal mechanism and precedent for this type of thing. My point was that Congress is unlikely to EVER suspend the writ. Congress would not even under the extreme circumstances of the War of the Rebellion and I'm not so certain that's entirely bad but the President DOES NOT have the constitutional authority do so. This is why the Vice-President under Buchannon, John C. Breckenridge, left Kentucky and fought as a General in the Confederate Army. Lincoln actually ordered his arrest for criticising Lincoln's suspension of the writ. If this is indeed what the President or members of his administration are trying to do, as much as I support the President on most issues, it is not a smart move. If there is not enough evidence to charge Mr. Padilla, as much as it pains me to say it, he must be released. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-03-01 9:43:18 PM |
| #33 Oh dear, I just realized itsy is going to call me a Pollyanna for that statement. Oh, well, it can't be helped, I suppose. Perhaps he's read the book by now, and knows Polly's story. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-03-01 9:34:59 PM |
| #32 Relax, Deacon. Take a deep breath, now. I'm sure the American Civil Liberties Union has no say in things that are happening under military purview outside this country during a time of war. So they are wasting their time and energy in the lawyer version of a temper tantrum. Those people are so blinkered that they probably don't even realize the larger effect of what they are doing -- typical of those who are over educated and under brained. So long as there are people like the Rantburgers around ... not to mention the 51%+ of this country that are Red Staters (a percentage that keeps growing as more of the 9/11 generation reaches voting age)... the Union will be protected against such nonsense. So go for a run, or do 100 sit-ups, or play some serious video games -- whatever you do to work off excess energy -- have a beer, and sleep the sleep of the just. God helps those who help themselves, it is said, and you're the one with the guns, right ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-03-01 9:32:50 PM |
| #31 I'm with Mrs. Davis on this, with deep reservations. With, because as Deacon Blues notes, habeous corpus has been suspended only once in our history. The GWOT and more generally, the instability we probably face for a decade or more, are going to go on for a long time. I'm not at all comfortable with suspending so basic a right that long and that broadly. OTOH, it bothers me a lot to realize that we lack good mechanisms and legal precedent to convict people who I believe really are trying to kill a lot of people and destroy this country economically. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-03-01 9:15:55 PM |
| #30 The ACLU today filed 2 lawsuits against Donald Rumsfeld for the "prisoner abuse" in Iraq, Afganistan, and Guantanamo Bay. I honestly cannot fathom the reasoning behind their actions except to completely destroy this country. I am so worked up over this I probably won't sleep well. With organizations like this activily working to destroy this administration I really fear for the continued existance of our way of life. As for the writ of habeous corpus, Abraham Lincoln was, to my limited knowledge, the only President to suspend that particular part of the Constitution. Incidently, the President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do that, only Congress does. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-03-01 9:05:35 PM |
| #29 The beautiful thing about that obtuse language is that it allows the Congresscowards to let folks like mhw to think we are not at war. Yes, and why the Demofarts chose Dr. Deanento as DNC chair... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-01 7:31:53 PM |
| #28 The beautiful thing about that obtuse language is that it allows the Congresscowards to let folks like mhw to think we are not at war. That kind of deceptive hypocrisy is a large part of what is wrong with this country. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-01 6:00:21 PM |
| #27 Senate Joint Resolution 23 [Sept 01] SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. We are in a state of war. |
| Posted by: Sholung Ulolutle1664 2005-03-01 5:35:33 PM |
| #26 Frank, that should get its own post. I sure hope they Mirandized him real good. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-01 5:27:12 PM |
| #25 Drudge links ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A Virginia man accused of plotting with al-Qaida to assassinate President Bush has admitted his guilt on numerous occasions, an FBI agent testified Tuesday. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 23, admitted "multiple times" that he joined al-Qaida while studying overseas in Saudi Arabia and discussed plans with the terrorist network to assassinate President Bush, FBI agent Barry Cole said. The agent also said the suspect talked about plans for a Sept. 11-type attack in which "hijackers would board planes in Great Britain and Australia ... so they did not have to have U.S. visas." "Once into U.S. territories they would fly into designated targets," he said. Abu Ali also discussed killing U.S. congressmen, soldiers and blowing up naval ships in American ports, Cole said. He said Abu Ali's confessions are corroborated by the admissions of an al-Qaida cell leader in Saudi Arabia who surrendered to authorities. Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen who grew up in Falls Church, is charged with conspiring with al-Qaida to kill the president in a plan that prosecutors said was hatched while he studied in Saudi Arabia in 2002 and 2003. Cole said that the al-Qaida leaders gave Abu Ali two options: He could either become part of a martyr operation or he could establish a cell in the United States and he would "marry a Christian woman, assimilate into the community and he would be provided operatives." Cole also said that Abu Ali was hostile to his Saudi captors and that he would hurl insults at them, such as "Jew scum." Cole testified at a pretrial hearing at which prosecutors are seeking to have Abu Ali detained prior to trial. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-01 5:25:08 PM |
| #24 RC, "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." The definition does assume Enemies which assumes War, except for actually levying War against the U. S., so I think the definition does assume a state of war exist for Treason to be charged. IANAL, but this is a relatively narrow definition of treason, mainly because the English monarchs used the charge of Treason pretty liberally to eliminate domestic enemies. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-01 5:16:48 PM |
| #23 2. No war has been formally declared, thus you can't try him for treason. There's nothing in the Constitution's definition of treason that requires a state of war. Even if it were, as Mrs. Davis pointed out, war was declared, if not in so many words. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-03-01 5:08:48 PM |
| #22 mhw: Padilla is an American citizen so you can't treat him as you would the ununiformed Germans in WWII. The German saboteurs caught on American soil and executed without appeal were American citizens. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-03-01 5:04:36 PM |
| #21 War has been formally declared. It is not difficult to use classified evidence at a trial. It is difficult to keep it classified and to avoid answering questions about sources and methods. Why is it a problem that Padilla can depose witnesses? They need not be believed. There is a simple answer. Charge him and give him the same speedy trial we are all guaranteed or release him. It really is very simple. The man's rights as an American are being denied and that is wrong. He will probably walk. Then we will spend a million dollars a year following him everywhere. That's not a great outcome either, but if the government can't prove a case in court, they should release him. If they can prove it, they should do so. Anyone who thinks it's not that simple doesn't think much of the rights of Americans. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-01 4:46:22 PM |
| #20 Padilla is a self-selected terrorist. Convert to Wahibism, gone to Pak and Afghan for "religious training" Used his US citizenship to become an under-the-radar terrorist. And now he wants to use it to protect himself. Show me someone who's been to camps in Pak/Afghan or wherever, and I'll show you a guy who has given up his rights. Right, habeus corpus applies to folks who star on "Cops", not Padilla scum. The judge, according to Limbaugh, was nominated by Lindsey Graham and Bush OK'd it. Thanks, Lindsey. Don't know much about the senator except he was active in getting Bill impeached, but he sure pouted with indignity like a spoiled kid as he and his committee investigated Abu Grab. I got no respect for you now, Mr. Senator. |
| Posted by: chicago mike 2005-03-01 4:42:19 PM |
| #19 This will go to the 4th circuit court. There are some things to ponder here: 1. Padilla is an American citizen so you can't treat him as you would the ununiformed Germans in WWII. 2. No war has been formally declared, thus you can't try him for treason. 3. It difficult to use classified evidence in a non military trial. Padilla could also request to depose witnesses that the US is holding at GITMO or elsewhere -- which brings up another problem. 4. Padilla may be held for reasons other than being an enemy combatant. If the US can prove that he possesses information crucial to prosecution of another crime he had be held (although not indefinitely). Some people think Padilla was involved in the OK city bombing (he bears some physical resemblence to someone identified in one of meetings with McV). To be sure, our society is still struggling with how to legally deal with a war declared on our country (actually on civilization) by a non governmental organization (really a number of such organizations) whose agents are willing to die to inflict death on us. Anyone who says they have a simple answer for this is, imo, lying or ignorant. |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-03-01 4:38:38 PM |
| #18 Nope, problem is this guy is an american citizen iirc. So he does deserve all constitutional protections etc. So int law does not apply, nor geneva crapola. They are trying to decide what charges to slap on him. |
| Posted by: Jimbo19 2005-03-01 4:38:00 PM |
| #17 Just charge him with treason, then play games with his trial date. Same effect, different approach. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-03-01 4:00:11 PM |
| #16 The bottom line of what the Sarge and the other ed are concerned about is what happens if one of the enemy combatants gets freed on an order of a judge, and Padilla, e.g., does something like use a dirty bomb on Washington. Appointed for life judges often lose sight of the total picture, in favor of thier own newfound power. Habeus corpus, Mrs Davis? Do YOU want him out? Leave things as they are for awhile. RWV said it well,"I think it is a tribute to our prison system that Padilla is still alive." Of course, if he is ordered out, perhaps some prison guard will set up a situation and be looking the other way when Padilla suffers the same fate as that child-molesting priest did in prison a couple of years ago. Another example of this "I see nothing" would be the case of Jeffrey Dahmer... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-01 3:11:50 PM |
| #15 I think all of them should be turned over to the appropriate newly-elected Afghan or Iraqi government, after we spend a few weeks training those governments in Bangladesh "crossfire" measures. Problem solved: they've been returned to the area where they were arrested, to the lawful government of the area, for whatever legal action that government deems appropriate. If it's lining them up against a wall and shooting them, then it's THEIR justice system that did it, and we can accept that. After all, we DID win the war so they could make their own decisions about how they will govern their nation. Now let them do so. Oh, and if any LLL ACLU lawyers wish to accompany them, that's fine - they can also accept the same fate. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-03-01 2:57:21 PM |
| #14 Yessss....international law.... Aren't partisans "out of uniform" per the Geneva Convention? But then the government would be rounding up and executing anybody who disagreed....Wait a minute! Would that include Leftwing Liberal Losers? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-03-01 2:33:28 PM |
| #13 CyberSarge, unfortunately the ACLU is full of LLSFs who get off on this sort of thing. That's why they support NAMBLA, attack the Boy Scouts, and try to get crosses removed from public cemetaries (San Diego thing). I think it is a tribute to our prison system that Padilla is still alive. |
| Posted by: RWV 2005-03-01 12:58:40 PM |
| #12 AMEN ED! Seems to me that the Bush administration has been dragging it's feet with respect to "International Law." It's about time we 'discharged' our international duties and stop this cruel practice of keeping them alive. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-03-01 11:21:36 AM |
| #11 If they were not in uniform when they were captured then they should have been shot. They do not deserve rights. |
| Posted by: daj 2005-03-01 11:21:09 AM |
| #10 Apply the criteria used during WW2 (the Good War to you leftists). If jihadis are caught not in uniform of a recognized belligerant, then field try them, line them up against a wall, and shoot them. Start with Padilla, move onto shoebomber Reed, work throught the Gitmo list and keep going. International law demands it. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-03-01 10:20:59 AM |
| #9 jurisegs trolled yesterday as well, under several names - right, tractor? button4u?.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-01 10:14:07 AM |
| #8 "cyber sarge will be jailed for this immoral speech in the new amerika he wants." No I just don't see any purpose in releasing someone who is hell bent on killing me or my family, speech has nothing to do with it. I doubt there are few people who cry over the few Islamofacists that we have detained in the name of National Security. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-03-01 10:05:32 AM |
| #7 Pinging juriseqs as a troll ... |
| Posted by: Omurong Spung8918 2005-03-01 10:01:46 AM |
| #6 cyber sarge will be jailed for this immoral speech in the new amerika he wants. no way out of jail either. no consitution. no bill of rights. just lock em up if any president says so. Even Fawell. |
| Posted by: juriseqs 2005-03-01 9:21:39 AM |
| #5 just charge him and let it drag out for 20 years like saddams and milosevic trials are and will be |
| Posted by: Thraing Hupoluper1864 2005-03-01 8:35:11 AM |
| #4 I think the government should put up or shut up. If they want martial law, declare it. If not, observe habeus corpus. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-01 6:51:33 AM |
| #3 It all looks good to me, if you all can't handle the dangers that come with a free society based on liberty then move to france. They'll love to have you. |
| Posted by: Dcreeper 2005-03-01 6:47:48 AM |
| #2 If I were Jose I would not start packing my bags just yet. And i have to ask what LOW LIFE SCUM FUCK would actually go to court and try to get this racid piece of shit out of prison? What next a ruling to allow Al Queda free passage of US flagged carriers? This is a shining example of how OUT OF WHACK our Judisary has become. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-03-01 12:43:39 AM |
| #1 "...the war on terror could last a lifetime. If they can do it to him, they can do it to other And the problem is...? |
| Posted by: Sobiesky 2005-03-01 12:14:36 AM |