-Caveat Lector- www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-

A black and white case of US injustice
Jose Padilla was a devout Muslim, born on the wrong side of the tracks. 
White, middle-class John Walker Lindh shared his religion but little else. 
Rupert Cornwell examines their unequal treatment before the law

27 April 2004

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=515684

The news burst upon America with almost as much impact as the use of the 
terrifying weapon that was alleged to be involved would have caused. It was 
mid-morning Washington time on Monday, 10 June 2002, when the cable 
television networks and radio stations cut into their schedules to show a 
press conference by the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, that had been 
called routinely after a working visit to Moscow.

Mr Ashcroft informed his startled and fearful countrymen 5,000 miles away 
that a month earlier the FBI, of which he is ultimately the head, had 
arrested a suspected dirty bomber as he entered the US, apparently bent on 
sowing mayhem and destruction by exploding a radioactive device in a large 
American city.

Suspicions that the Attorney General - never one to hide his law 
enforcement light under a bushel - might be overstating matters were soon 
kindled, however, when Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, said 
that the suspect apparently had no specific target. There was "no actual 
plan", Mr Wolfowitz said, although he had indicated "some knowledge of the 
Washington DC area".

The suspect in question was Jose Padilla, an American citizen who had 
converted to Islam, moved to the Middle East, and who was identified as 
being an "al-Qa'ida operative" named Abdullah al-Mujahir. For the 
government, that was that. Mr Padilla was sent to a military prison where 
he remains to this day. All efforts to bring him into the judicial 
mainstream have thus far failed.

But Mr Padilla has become a cause c�l�bre - the most extreme example, civil 
liberties groups say, of how the Bush administration has brushed aside the 
very rudiments of justice and civil rights in its pursuit of the "war on 
terror".

Tomorrow, belatedly, Mr Padilla has his day in the legal sun. The Supreme 
Court will hear oral arguments resulting from the most serious effort yet 
to free him.

The docket, No. 03-1027, bears the title "Rumsfeld vs Padilla". It may just 
be the most important case of its kind in half a century, in setting the 
limits of presidential power, and determining whether an American citizen 
can be denied justice in his own country.

"An American citizen" are the three words that are the very heart of the 
controversy over Mr Padilla. Much has been written about the plight of the 
600-plus detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, like him held without lawyers 
and without charge. But almost without exception they are foreign 
nationals, captured outside the US.

Mr Padilla was not captured on a foreign battlefield in the service of an 
enemy power, but as he stepped unsuspectingly off a commercial jet at 
Chicago's O'Hare Airport, returning to the US to visit his American mother 
in Florida and his 12-year-old son. He was arrested not by the military, 
but by civilian law enforcement officers of the FBI.

Some six months earlier, John Walker Lindh, another American citizen had 
been captured in the war against terrorism, dragged from a fortress in 
Afghanistan where his fellow Taliban fighters were engaged in a bloody 
battle with Afghan foes and US special forces. Lindh, like Mr Padilla, had 
converted to Islam, and gone to live in the Muslim world. He chose 
Afghanistan, while Mr Padilla settled in Egypt, where he remarried and had 
two further children.

The treatment they received at the hands of American justice was, however, 
very different. Throughout, Lindh enjoyed proper representation. Ultimately 
he was sentenced to 20 years in jail, after a plea bargain by which 
prosecutors dropped the most serious charge against him, of conspiracy to 
kill US nationals.

There was even a certain condescending sympathy for him. A "poor, misguided 
Marin County hot-tubber," was the almost kindly description of Lindh by the 
former President Bush to the famously liberal district just north of San 
Francisco where Lindh grew up.

Mr Padilla has been less fortunate, even though he was no less a US 
citizen. His background is not salubrious: he is from working-class 
Chicago, where he mingled with street gangs and was placed in juvenile 
detention at the age of 14, when a robbery attempt in which he was involved 
turned into murder.

His mother, Estela Ortega Lebron, is furious at the unequal treatment. 
"That John Walker Lindh, they didn't make him disappear, take away his 
rights," she told The New York Times, "I guess maybe because his father's a 
lawyer - he's white, whatever."

At least an equal reason, however, may be the exasperation of the Bush 
administration at the inconvenient complexities of the civil judicial 
system. The Lindh case had proved tricky to prosecute. That summer of 2002 
was also when the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui, originally supposed to have 
been the missing "20th hijacker" of 11 September, was tying the US legal 
system into knots (a situation in which it remains today) with his demand 
to have captured al-Qa'ida operatives testify in his defence.

How much simpler, then, to declare Mr Padilla an enemy combatant like the 
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, thus dispensing with the niceties of defence 
lawyers, trials and witnesses who might give away US intelligence secrets.

After his arrest Mr Padilla was shipped from Chicago to a high-security 
detention centre in New York City, where he was held as a material witness 
- a category enabling a suspect to be held without charges, widely used by 
the US authorities in the war against terrorism.

In New York he was given a court-appointed lawyer, Donna Newman. At their 
first meeting Mr Padilla was brought out in the so-called "three-piece 
suit" of leg-irons, chains and a metal belt, suggesting he was a dangerous 
criminal. The affidavit provided by the FBI alleged that he was part of a 
plot, but that some of the informants were unreliable. No further evidence 
was immediately forthcoming. Ms Newman secured a hearing set for 12 June, 
2002, to demand Mr Padilla's release.

But at that point everything changed. On 10 June, President Bush signed a 
determination that Mr Padilla had been an enemy combatant when he arrived 
in Chicago a month earlier. It stated he was "closely associated with 
al-Qa'ida, an international terrorist organisation with which the US is at 
war". As an enemy combatant he could be held incommunicado as long as that 
war lasted.

Within minutes, Mr Ashcroft was popping up from Moscow with the bombshell 
news of an "unfolding plot" to explode a radioactive dirty bomb that could 
have caused "mass death and injury". The initial impression was that the 
FBI had foiled at the last minute a conspiracy to take out downtown 
Manhattan or Washington DC. Mr Padilla was handed over to the military and 
placed in solitary confinement in a brig in South Carolina, where he 
remains to this day.

Initially, some in Congress expressed public unease at how a US citizen 
could be denied the most elementary legal rights by his own country, but 
anxieties were soon quelled by Bush officials, who insisted that nothing 
could be allowed to interfere with the war on terror. The case, moreover, 
only seemed to confirm the worst nightmare of that war, that weapons of 
mass destruction might fall into the hands of terrorists.

Legal efforts to extricate Mr Padilla have been under way almost ever 
since, but to no avail. In early 2003 a federal judge conceded the 
government had the authority to hold a person, even a citizen, as an enemy 
combatant, but he ordered the Pentagon to give Mr Padilla access to 
lawyers. Again, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, refused, arguing 
the mere availability of a lawyer might make a detainee less willing to 
co-operate with interrogators.

The tussle continued throughout last year. In December 2003 a federal 
appeals panel of three judges ordered Mr Padilla to be freed within 30 days 
unless the government formally charged him with a crime. The ruling was by 
a 2-1 majority, but even the judge who sided with the government agreed Mr 
Padilla ought to be able to see a lawyer.

The Pentagon allowed that. It also relented by permitting the International 
Red Cross to visit him. The IRC has long been allowed to see notable 
prisoners of war - most recently Saddam Hussein - but this was the very 
first time it had been involved in the detention of an American citizen in 
the United States by the US government.

The session on 3 March with the lawyers was, however, anything but 
confidential, with a videocamera running and military officials present 
throughout. In the meantime the Pentagon lodged the appeal on which the 
nine justices of the Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow.

Even now, beyond the assurance of President Bush that Mr Padilla was "a bad 
guy," the Pentagon has given no detailed indication of the evidence it has 
against him. Almost two years after his arrest no charges have been 
brought, and the suspect maintains his innocence. "Do not believe what is 
being said about me in the news, it is untrue," he wrote in a postcard to 
his mother in mid-2003, the one communication that he has been permitted 
from military custody in South Carolina. His mother has not been able to 
see him since his arrest.

Whatever case there is primarily rests on visits Mr Padilla is said to have 
made in 2000 and 2001 from Egypt to Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In 
Afghanistan, US officials said when his arrest was made public, he met Abu 
Zubeida, one of the first senior al-Qa'ida operatives captured after the 
collapse of the Taliban in March 2002.

Abu Zubeida apparently co-operated with his US interrogators, and told them 
about the man he knew as Abdullah al-Mujahir, and their discussions of 
various plans for terrorist attacks, including a dirty bomb.

It is also claimed that phone intercepts and captured al- Qa'ida documents 
from Afghanistan implicate Mr Padilla. But basically, the Pentagon's 
argument boils down to the familiar, steadily less convincing refrain of 
"trust us, we know what we're doing and we know best".

Since January, as the clamour surrounding Mr Padilla has grown, senior Bush 
administration officials have attempted a defence of his continued 
detention, of kinds. Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel, told the 
American Bar Association that the administration had conducted a "careful, 
thorough and deliberative process" over Mr Padilla, and that people were 
not designated enemy combatants without very good reason.

The Defence Secretary himself invoked "the law of war" - "to keep the enemy 
off the battlefield so they can't kill more innocent people". Nothing that 
either Mr Rumsfeld or Mr Gonzales said, however, reduces the suspicion 
that, not for the first time, a secretive and highhanded administration may 
merely be unable to admit it has made a mistake.

Nor, civil rights specialists point out, does any law of war allow a person 
to be held for ever, without the most elementary rights. Almost two years 
on, whatever information Mr Padilla could provide would surely be largely 
worthless, either out of date or overtaken by events. If the Supreme Court 
agrees when it hands down a judgement later this year, legal history will 
be made.
    27 April 2004 20:45


� 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd



------------------------------------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should 
have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence 
from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own 
government.

--George Washington
-------------------------------------------------
Smash The State! mailing list home
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/smashthestate

Extropian Principles... the Future, Now
http://www.extropy.org/principles.htm
--- 



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
<FONT COLOR="#000099">Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or 
Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com.  Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
</FONT><A HREF="http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511";><B>Click Here!</B></A><FONT 
COLOR="#000099">
</FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/aQSolB/TM";><B>Click 
Here!</B></A>
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

----------------------------------
Smash The State WWW
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smashthestate 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smashthestate/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to