> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 1:25 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid > > Jose Padilla, the man in question, was arrested in Chicago on May 8, > 2002, and remains in detention in a military prison. For the first > three years of his detention he was held without charge; he is now > charged with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people overseas". > These charges have appx. zero to do with the reasons stated at the > time of his arrest.
OK, I misremembered one of the particulars of that case...I thought he was a legal alien, not a citizen...maybe I did read that because he was from Puerto Rico (the residents of which are US citizens but don't pay income taxes or vote for Congress, Senators, or the President) and the author misunderstood the status of folks from Puerto Rico. Now, what I know of that case is that it was a rather peculiar case. In particular, while he was arrested in Chicago, IIRC, technically he was arrested outside the US because he had yet to clear customs. He was arrested there on a material witness warrant (giving the government the right to hold someone for a limited time without charges) and then called an enemy combatant. > My personal opinion is that Padilla likely deserves to be imprisoned, > but that he should have been tried and convicted long long ago (and > that he might be John Doe #2 from the OKC bombing in 94). His habeas > corpus rights have been quite obviously violated and he *is* an > American citizen. That he is a complete scumbag is irrelevant. The time it took to get to the Supreme Court with this case is disturbing. But, from the Bush's indictment on separate charges just before this case made it the Supreme court and the Supreme Court's actions in this case and in another, that there will be a line drawn caught on battlefield/not caught on battlefield. One source on this, from the Cato Institute, is http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html The US government chose the latter... After this was done, the Supreme Court declined to decide on whether the Bush administration had the right to hold him as an enemy combatant, but at the same time as Wikpedia states: 'Chief Justice John Roberts and other key justices said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."' I think this fits with my pushing boundaries idea. We do have two cases in which US citizens were declared enemy combatants. In one, the Supreme Court ruled that someone captured on a battlefield fighting Americans could be treated as an enemy combatant. That's not problematic for me. In the Jose Padilla case, the government bailed out of a Supreme Court test of their claim. It appears that they bailed out just in time....since several justices wanted to hear the appeal after the bailout, and several of those who didn't (including the Chief Justice) indicated that they will be watching the administration. I see a line being drawn here...close to where I think it should be drawn. I really don't have a problem with someone caught on the battlefield fighting the US being treated like the other soldiers captured there. I do have a problem with an American citizen not captured on a battlefield being held without habaus corpus right. My read is that the Bush administration successfully argued for the former and knew it would lose the latter...and thus bailed out. I would have preferred that they didn't bail out, so we'd have a definitive argument, but I think their bailing out is the result of checks and balances working. But, in this particular case, we agree on what should have happened. He should have been processed through the regular judicial system and convicted that way. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
