----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 2:15 PM Subject: RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
> > >> -----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. Heh! He was born in Brooklyn and his parents were 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. You may or may not recall me ranting at that time that Padilla strikingly resembles "John Doe #2" as he was rendered in artist sketches after the OKC bombing. That potentially opens up a whole new can of worms. But yes, Padilla was arrested at O'Hare airport after visiting Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Considering that he was friends with Adham Amin Hassoun (An accused AlQuaeda conspirator), his trip was justifiably reason for suspicion. > >> 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... Perhaps we interpret the governments actions in regard to this case differently, but we agree that they are quite disturbing. What I believe I am seeing is an attempt to suspend habeas corpus by force of will and afterwards seeking a legal justification in existing law and changes in law where such changes can be (if only temporarily) induced. Though I doubt much will come of it, I expect such attempts to evade the strictures of the constitution will be viewed by some as grounds for impeachment or (in the case of extreme hard liners) charges for treason. Reading around on the blogosphere one can already see such sentiment brewing. I expect that we are undergoing some minor sort of constitutional crisis here (and in the areas where torture may have become policy [ref art 6 of the constitution]). > > 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. Nor I. > > In the Jose Padilla case, the government bailed out of a Supreme > Court test > of their claim. Because they knew they were going to lose their argument......badly. > 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. Beyond qualms of the SC moving so rightward so quickly, yes, it is good to see the system working as intended. > > 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. I agree, but I see that it could also be interpreted as a cynical attempt to evade the Supreme Law Of the Land (Art 6 again). The administration seems to want to hold people indefinately (and I mean that in the sense of an eternal indefinately) and then make a case against them whenever they damn-well-please. But the strength of our constitution will not allow for it without breaking, hence a minor crisis. If the administration is proven to have secret bases where torture is used and rights of habeas corpus denied, we may well have a major constitutional crisis and actual charges of treason. (ATM Europe is considering the arrest and trial of US CIA agents WRT such, and this is something of a diplomatic crisis with growth potential [if you catch my meaning]) > > 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. > Agreed! xponent A Minor Sense Of Crisis Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
