"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
The misdemeanor outlaw, chased an' cheated by pursuit
Jose Padilla was convicted yesterday, not for plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the U.S., as the Bush administration alleged -- and the media breathlessly reported -- when he was arrested in 2002, but of a conspiracy to aid terrorism abroad. During the five years between his arrest and conviction, Padilla -- a Brooklyn-born American citizen -- had been held for years without being charged, without having access to an attorney or to the outside world, subjected to interrogation techniques that have been described as torture, and, according to psychiatrists who have examined him, has been mentally broken.
All at the hands of his own government -- the United States government.
There are few better reasons for having a free press than exposing potential government torture of its own citizens. And yet, after hyping the Bush administration's initial announcement of the arrest of the so-called "dirty bomber," the three major evening news broadcasts largely went silent about the government's treatment of Padilla.
In 2002, when Padilla's initial arrest was announced, ABC's coverage of the Bush administration's allegations was typical:
On June 10, 2002, World News Tonight aired a clip of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft claiming that Padilla was an "Al Qaeda operative and was exploring a plan to build and explode a radioactive dirty bomb." ABC's Pierre Thomas added, "By early May, law enforcement officials believed [Abdullah al-] Muhajir [an alias Padilla allegedly used] decided to come back to the U.S., looking for high-profile targets, including government buildings and monuments in Washington."
On June 11, World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings introduced another report about Padilla by announcing, "The man who is accused of planning to attack the U.S. with a so-called dirty bomb is now in military custody. Perhaps, he'll have a trial some day." Thomas went on to report that Padilla "was moved from the criminal justice system to a military prison yesterday. His lawyer, who has not been allowed to see him yet, says it was in violation of his constitutional rights. ... Government officials say their first priority is to get information from Muhajir [Padilla], not to prosecute him."
ABC's report included video clips of President Bush, Ashcroft, and then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. ABC did not, however, give any indication that anyone other than Padilla's attorney was concerned that he was being held without access to his lawyer and without being charged.
On June 12, World News Tonight again reported on Padilla's arrest, with Jennings announcing, "ABC News has learned that some officials in Washington believe the Attorney General John Ashcroft overstated the case. In the White House, some officials believe he was unnecessarily frightening the public." ABC's Jackie Judd concluded the segment: "If it turns out that Padilla, seen here in a 1991 court appearance, actually was very far from carrying out a bombing, critics say the administration may risk its credibility, first with the politicians, then with the public."
And with that, World News Tonight abruptly stopped reporting about Padilla, who remained in government custody, without being charged, and without access to an attorney. Other than a few passing mentions of Padilla, World News Tonight ignored Padilla for more than a year. Ignored the questions about whether he was "very far from carrying out a bombing," ignored the question of whether the Bush administration had overstated the case against him, omitted any substantive discussion of the implications of an American citizen being held without being charged, and without access to an attorney. And ignored the implications of the government's ominous suggestion that it wasn't interested in prosecuting him, but in getting information out of him.
In January 2003, The New York Times reported: "Last week, the government disclosed in a court filing that military personnel had been questioning Mr. Padilla for several months and that allowing a lawyer into the process could harm 'the military's efforts to develop a relationship of trust and dependency that is essential to effective interrogation.' That, the government added, could 'set back his interrogations by months, if not derail the process permanently.'"
Yet World News Tonight remained silent. How was Padilla -- an American citizen, held without being charged, without access to an attorney -- being treated? Even after the government said its intention was to get information out of Padilla, and referred to developing a feeling of "dependency" in Padilla as part of his "interrogation," the circumstances of Padilla's captivity were not addressed on World News Tonight.
Padilla was being held "incommunicado." The government had spoken of "interrogation" and "dependency." There was already a compelling case that his rights were being trampled -- he was, after all, being held without charge and without access to an attorney. Yet the question of what, exactly, was being done to Padilla was completely ignored by ABC's flagship news broadcast.
Finally, in September 2003 -- more than a year after Padilla's arrest, and more than a year since it had last offered a substantive report about Padilla -- World News Tonight aired an interview with Ashcroft, in which Jennings asked about Padilla. Jennings asked Ashcroft why Padilla had not been charged or allowed to see an attorney. Jennings did not, however, ask Ashcroft how Padilla was being treated.
Then, World News Tonight again went silent, not mentioning Padilla -- not a word -- for the next three months, until a late December 2003 report about a federal court decision that Padilla must be transferred from military custody to the criminal justice system. ABC's Pierre Thomas noted that Padilla had "not seen his attorney or his family in more than a year." But still there was nothing about the way Padilla was being treated.
Throughout 2004 -- thanks, it should be said, to investigative reporting by a variety of news organizations -- Americans learned more and more about the way the Bush administration was treating captives. That spring, news of the horrific prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib sparked a national discussion about torture. In June 2004, The Washington Post reported that the Bush Justice Department had advised the White House that "international laws against torture 'may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations' conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism."
At that time, Jose Padilla -- an American citizen had been held "incommunicado," without being charged, without access to a lawyer, for two years. Did his "interrogation" -- which, according to the government, involved creating a feeling of dependency in him -- involve torture?
What was the nature of Padilla's interrogation? What were the conditions in which he was confined? World News Tonight didn't even raise the question.
In November 2005, World News Tonight aired a report indicating that Padilla was not charged with plotting to set off a dirty bomb because the evidence against him may have been obtained by torturing two members of Al Qaeda. ABC's Pierre Thomas reported "some officials admit that if Padilla went to trial as the alleged dirty bomber, there would be serious questions about the way the two men were interrogated." And, Thomas noted, "Another problem for the government may be the way it got Padilla to confess to the alleged dirty bomb plot." But Thomas was speaking only of the fact that Padilla was held without access to an attorney. Deputy Attorney General James Comey was then shown saying, "We can't use any of the statements he's made in military custody. I don't believe that we could use this information in a criminal case because we deprived him of access to his counsel. And questioned him in the absence of counsel."
How was Padilla questioned "in the absence of counsel"? Even in the middle of a news report about the possibility of "torture" and "waterboarding" being used on other detainees, World News Tonight didn't raise so much as a question about the nature of the interrogation of Padilla or the conditions of his confinement.
Even after other news organizations began to report allegations that Padilla was being tortured, World News Tonight ignored the matter.
In November 2006, The Washington Post reported that "defense lawyers have made detailed allegations that Padilla was illegally tortured, threatened and perhaps even drugged during his detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina."
But even after Padilla's lawyers made these "detailed allegations" of illegal torture, World News Tonight ignored -- completely ignored -- the subject of Padilla's treatment.
A month later, in December 2006, The New York Times reported, "Now lawyers for Mr. Padilla, 36, suggest that he is unfit to stand trial. They argue that he has been so damaged by his interrogations and prolonged isolation that he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to assist in his own defense. His interrogations, they say, included hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of 'truth serums.' " The Times further reported that, according to Padilla's lawyers and a forensic psychiatrist who examined him, Padilla was uncertain whether his attorneys actually represented him or were part of the government's interrogation tactics, refused to review video recordings of his interrogations, and was reluctant to discuss what happened to him in the brig for fear of being sent back. According to one attorney, "During questioning, he often exhibits facial tics, unusual eye movements and contortions of his body. ... The contortions are particularly poignant since he is usually manacled and bound by a belly chain when he has meetings with counsel."
Still, World News Tonight didn't report a word about Padilla's treatment. In fact, after the November 2005 report, the next time the program made more than passing mention of Padilla, according to the Nexis database, was a May 13, 2007, report that Padilla's trial was about to begin. For the first time, viewers of ABC's signature news program (which had, in the interim, changed anchors and its name, now called World News) were given an indication that Padilla may have been abused:
GIGI STONE (ABC News correspondent): But the charges Padilla will face in Miami tomorrow accuse him only of conspiring with terrorists. They make no mention of dirty bombs. And Padilla's attorneys will not be able to present the argument that he was abused by American interrogators.
WALTER DELLINGER (professor, Duke University School of Law): That may be the reason why the government has dropped the charges about his planning to set off a dirty bomb because it's, his alleged admission may have been the product of his alleged abusive treatment.
That was it.
And that is still it. To date, that remains the most detail ABC's World News has ever provided about the conditions of Padilla's confinement or the nature of his interrogation.
Since then, World News has aired only one Padilla report: last night, upon news of his conviction. During that 30-second report, anchor Charlie Gibson falsely suggested Padilla had been charged for the alleged "dirty bomb" plot, omitted any mention of the fact that he was held for years without being charged or having access to an attorney, and omitted any mention of the way Padilla was treated.
Salon.com's Alex Koppelman wrote of Padilla's conviction:
Actually, according to the [Christian Science] Monitor, today's verdict may have come as happy news to Padilla. He was terrified that if he were acquitted, President Bush would declare him an enemy combatant again and move him back to the brig. Angela Hegarty, a forensic psychiatrist who examined Padilla, told the paper that "there is no question in my mind that his first and most important priority is to not go back to the brig. This is what leaves me chilled, if one were to offer him a long prison term or return to the brig, he would take prison, in a heartbeat ... He told me more than once that if he went back to the brig he knew what he had to do." What he "had to do," Hegarty said, is commit suicide.
Just four days ago, The Christian Science Monitor reported that Padilla "had no history of mental illness when President Bush ordered him detained in 2002 as a suspected Al Qaeda operative. But he does now. The Muslim convert was subjected to prison conditions and interrogation techniques that took him past the breaking point, mental health experts say. Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who conducted detailed personal examinations of Mr. Padilla on behalf of his defense lawyers say his extended detention and interrogation at the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., left him with severe mental disabilities. All three say he may never recover."
The Monitor continued:
Beyond the outcome of his Miami trial, larger issues loom. Chief among them, legal scholars say, is whether Mr. Bush acted within his constitutional authority when he ordered Padilla, a United States citizen, held without charge as an enemy combatant at the brig for three years and seven months.
Padilla's treatment in the brig raises another issue, these scholars say: whether the Constitution ever permits the government to force a man to confess to involvement in terrorist plots and, in doing so, risk destruction of a portion of his mind.
Those issues, however, went entirely unexplored by ABC's World News in its report about Padilla's conviction.
Nor have the other networks done any better.
In its report on his conviction, the CBS Evening News noted that Padilla was "locked up in a military prison and labeled an enemy combatant for three and a half years" -- but made no mention of the possibility that he was tortured, or even that he was held without being charged or given access to a lawyer. No surprise there; the CBS Evening News has never reported a single word about allegations that Padilla was tortured or otherwise abused, not a single word about the conditions in which he was held.
Similarly, NBC's Nightly News omitted from its report on Padilla's conviction any mention of the fact that he had been denied access to a lawyer, only hinted that he was held for years without being charged, and said not a word about the possibility that he was abused. The only time Nightly News has ever reported a word about the nature of Padilla's detention came last December:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): Now to the first-ever pictures of terrorism suspect Jose Padilla while in custody. Padilla, an American who was declared an enemy combatant and held at a Navy brig at Charleston, South Carolina, is shown being readied to be taken to the dentist. His hands and feet were slipped through slots in the door so he could be shackled, and he was forced to wear noise-blocking headphones and blacked-out goggles. Padilla's lawyer say the pictures shows harsh treatment he was subjected to, treatment the Pentagon today called "humane."
That was the entire report -- one of only five Nightly News reports to so much as mention Padilla's name in the past three years.
Whether or not Jose Padilla committed conspiracy to aide terrorism abroad may ultimately be of less significance than whether our own government, in its treatment of Padilla, did greater damage to the values and principles that define America than he ever could have done himself.
A functional democracy requires a vigilant press watching out for such things, standing guard to make sure our freedoms are not cheated by pursuit of that which threatens them.
The flagship news broadcasts of the three major broadcast networks have failed in that responsibility, and failed badly.
***
Further reading:
- The Christian Science Monitor's August 13 report about Padilla's interrogation can be found here.
- Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald has long been critical of media coverage of the Padilla case. Greenwald's take on the verdict, with links to his earlier writing on the topic, is here.
Good for continuing to cover the Padilla story.
the thing to remember is that from the very beginning the bush administration claimed that they could hold padilla as long as they wanted and not charge him.
Greenwald, at the link provided above, does a good job of pointing out that the Padilla verdict reveals that the Bush administration's reasons for not trying him in the first place were complete b.s. As Greenwald writes, they unlawfully detained him for no reason whatsoever. It was simply a pointless abuse of power.
Well, you hit the nail on the head, Clams, rather tepidly -- "complete b.s.," "abuse of power" -- stating the war crimes, crimes against humanity, civil rights violations, and unconstitutional and illegitimate policies and acts of this administration have convened discussion and begun proceedings toward bringing them charged with treason and other capital offenses, to be tried before a second 'Nuremberg' court in international jurisdiction, and federal court in the US.
Quite a stark contrast over the next (tattoo-numbered) commenter, saying -- no, raving racist nazi nonsense so brazen in incivil incitements and promoting and fear-fuming public distress -- in a word: sedition -- as to detain him or her in the same docket and courts along with traitorous administration figures.
This character, (below), is a flaming fascist. Just look at the sad dementia in this sick faction. A paid troll goon, apparently.
The thing to remember is that Padilla, a convicted felon [aggravated battery, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, using a firearm in the commission of a felony, carrying a concealed firearm], emigrated from the United States to the Middle East in 1998, and in the 4 years prior to his attempt to return in 2002, attended an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. As a portion of this camp, he swore allegiance to the cause of Islamic Jihad. Later, he is thought to have received further training from Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan in the manufacture of IEDs.
This is the same thing as joining the enemy army. SCOTUS held in 1942 [Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 ] in the case of Herbert Hans Haupt who had been a naturalized US citizen before joining the Nazis, that just such actions as Padilla's amounted to a renunciation of his US citizenship: He had joined the enemy cause.
"In June 2002, Abu Zabaydah, the senior deputy to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, was apprehended in Pakistan. Zabaydah divulged information about an American recruit to al Qaeda. Zabaydah stated he could not identify the American’s name but knew that he had planned to manufacture and detonate a radiological bomb in the United States. Zabaydah stated that he directed the American to operatives in Pakistan to help him carry out his attack."
The implication here is that Zabaydah had SEEN Padilla. he may not have known his name but he certainly knew who he was.
Who are you people going to defend as a victim of Bush tyranny next? Osama bin Laden?
At least Osama understands that he is an enemy of the United States. That is more than I can say for the lot of you.
So Padilla is a bad guy that means his rights are forfiet? At least Osama knows he hates, despises and is an enemy of our constitution, which is more than I can say about YOU.
Exactly. I am puzzled what NL207 is even getting at.
I wonder how he feels about John Adams successfully defending the Red Coats who killed American Colonists in the Boston Massacre. The Red Coats were equally despised at the time and Adams personally struggled due to people avoiding his law services. Thank God for people like Adams who didn't have one set of principles for the people he liked and another for the people he didn't like under the law. Conservatives with attitudes like NL207's are a complete joke and a mockery of democratic principles.
His rights are not those of a civilian citizen as defined by the US Constitution because he has joined the enemy cause. In doing so he has implicily reounced US citizenship. [Quirin]
His rights can be no more than those of an enemy soldier, the realm of the Geneva Conventions governing P.O.W.s, in this case, articles 3 or 4. Since he is a member of the enemy army, he is not protected by Article 3 which defines who are "non-combatants"
In point of fact, he attepted to re-enter this country as a sabotuer, out of uniform for the express purpose of waging war on the United States. This fact disqualifies him from treatment under Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions which require that he be "carrying arms openly" and "wearing a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance". He is therefore not a combatant.
According to the Geneva Conventions, IF Padilla actually qualified for POW treatment, President Bush is entirely within the law to order Padilla incarcerated without trial or recourse to he civilian courts for the duration of hostilities. But Padilla, by his own actions, does not even qualify as an article 4 POW. He is an illegal combatant. As such, he may be subjected to a military tribunal and summarily executed, as was the case with Haupt, et. al. in 1942.
You and the clowns here at Media Matters have successfully demanded this traitor be afforded the protections of a civilian citizen under the US Constitution, utterly overturning all prior legal precedents. According to this, the President and by extension, the US Military do not have the right to detain any enemy combatant without them having recourse in the US civilian courts.
You speak of John Adams defending redcoats acting under orders in uniform? I think Adams would roll over in his grave if he saw what a travesty the left has made of this. Recall Nathan Hale? Hale equals Padilla. The British HANGED Nathan hale after he was caught.
Now you are just cutting and pasting someone else's argument, not stating fact.
No court has ever ruled that Padilla forfeited his rights as a US citizen because he joined the enemy cause. Indeed, that argument would completely contradict the US constitution. I could be arrested and be completely innocent, and the US government could simply claim that I was an enemy combatant, and therefore deny me rights to a lawyer and the right to prove I was innocent.
Further, you are completely wrong about the Geneva conventions, which explicitly states Bush cannot do what he did, namely torture Padilla; and the Geneva conventions has no such term "illegal combatant." That term is made up by the Bush administration.
No court? The precedent is the Quirin case of 1942. Quirin & Haupt, both formerly naturalized US citizens, were executed as Nazi saboteurs by a Mlitary Tribunal. SCOTUS ruled they had forfeited their citizenship by their actions, which just incidentally were exactly the same actions taken by Padilla.
By this precedent, Padilla is not a US Citizen. He gave that right up when he tried to enter the US as an Al Qaeda operative. Period.
No the COURT RULED that is due process. Also Padilla was BORN here he is not naturalized. IF the court had ruled Padilla had forfieted his citizenship you would have a point, they didnt, you dont.
There is no difference in the rights of naturalized versus born citizens, is there?
Q.E.D.
You didn't address solon's point. You have failed to explain why it was okay to deny Padilla his Constitutional rights.
I dunno, He's ended posts with "period" and "Q.E.D.". I think that means he's right.
Of course there is a difference for instance a naturalized citizen cannot become president. The cases are not the same and Quirin GOT due process and you are trying to say that even though the cases are different Padilla SHOULDNT. It wont wash
naturalized citizens can be deported.
The Quirin case you cite doesn't say what you say it does. The court didn't address Haupt's citizenship claim, because, regardless of his citizenship, as an enemy combatant he still faced a military tribunal.
It took me about a minute to find that out. So what are you - lazy, stupid, or lying?
i wasn't sure if the quirin case was the case i remembered, but it was. all the defendants came here on german submarines, with explosives, and landed on beaches in new york and florida. they had an active plan to blow up u.s. sites. none of them were born here. not as "exactly" the same as you claim.
Maybe this will help you.
Haupt is in particular of interest. He was a boy of 10 when he was naturalized with his family. He returned later to Germany and swore fealty to the Nazi cause.
"All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war. Haupt came to this country with his parents when he was five years old; it is contended that he became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his minority and that he has not since lost his citizenship. The Government, however, takes the position that on attaining his majority he elected to maintain German allegiance and citizenship or in any case that he has by his conduct renounced or abandoned his United States citizenship."
The court refused to refute this contention, by default, allowing this part of the governments argumetation to stand by not rejecting it.
"For reasons presently to be stated we do not find it necessary to resolve these contentions"
A big difference is that the Nazi's were the government of Germany. Al Qaeda is an international criminal enterprise. It is like claiming being a member of the mafia is refuting your citizenship. Apples and oranges.
The court did not refute the government's contention. It determined that the contention was moot, because,
"Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war."
Because the Bush Administration has already argued that Al Qaeda doesn't represent a nationality and doesn't count as a belligerent nation according to the Geneva Conventions, it would seem impossible for them to claim that membership in such an international criminal organization would constitute a renunciation of citizenship implicitly in favor of citizenship with a non-country and non-beligerent nation.
They can't have it both ways here.
i really answered this before at 848pm, before you even posted this. i said then that if the cases were exactly the same as you claim, that bush would have been on "solid legal ground". i just don't see the same evidence, and if it really was there, why did bush just not stick to his position, instead of letting a civilian court try him? the germans, haupt included, wore german military garb which they buried on the beach and then changed into civilian clothes. i think haupt had obviously given up his citizenship, so i agree with that. i just don't see the same evidence here. and all this is beside the point that bush claimed he could hold padilla indefinitely.
As others have pointed out, no court has ruled *Padilla* has forfeited his citizenship. None. Because the court ruled that Haupt lost his citizenship (under circumstances which I am not familiar with and don't care to know because it is irrelevant) does not mean Padilla loses his.
If the Bush admin thought that Padilla really forfeited his citizenship, then they should have brought the case before the courts.
They didn't. He was still a US citizen, and is still a US citizen, which is why he got a trial in a US court. So you are simply wrong to assert otherwise and pretend that some legal precedent makes Bush's actions legal.
The American Bar Association offers another view of what the Quirin case shows:
Wikipedia further notes:
Since the US adopted the Geneva convention *after* the Quirin case, its precedent--which does not seem to apply to the Padilla case anyway--may need to be looked at again.
In other words, it is exactly like I said. You believe the Quirin case shows one thing, but the courts have not established what you claim. The Quirin case does not give Bush the power you says it does. You are quoting conservative opinion, not precedent.
Good job.
Here is what the Geneva Convention actually says about "unlawful combatants:"
Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of the POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".
I said in the post above that there is no such term as "illegal combatant," but there is the term "unlawful combatant," which seems the same thing, so I was wrong there. My apologies.
But note how Bush neither gave Padilla a trial, nor allowed for a "competent tribunal" to determine Padilla's status, nor did it treat him humanely.
What you quoted above was the opinion of a conservative legal scholar, no more. It was not precedent, as you claimed. It was not a court ruling.
I referenced only a conservative legal scholear? Baloney. What is Quirin, 1942? This is a precedent setting decision by the US Supreme Court rendered in 1942.
Are all you libs as dense as you appear? This Jamison Foser opens his article with a blatant lie: "The misdemeanor outlaw, chased an' cheated by pursuit" Padilla is a serious criminal, a convicted armed robber. He is no 'midemeanor outlaw'.
Now you pretend to be totally unable to look up a Supreme Court ruling even when I give you the case title, year and docket number.
that may have been a precedent making decision, but it does not conform as much to the padilla case as you claim. if padilla had the evidence against him as was the situation in that case, the bush administration would have been on solid legal ground. they weren't, which is why they backed off their original position. they negate your argument, not anything said on here.
Maybe the administration did not want to call Zubaydah as a witness in a civilian trial? Could be?
If Padilla attended an Al Qaeda training camp and "graduated", a point none of you disputes, that by itself makes him a traitor, a turncoat. His subsequent actions after that fact, which none of you can credibly dispute, make him an unlawful, or illegal, combatant.
Maybe YOU didn't notice, but Quirin is an Ex-parte case. It was decided AFTER the defendents had already been executed by the Roosevelt administration after trial by a military tribunal.
And finally, by what law, US Constitution or otherwise, is an unlawful or illegal combatant entitled to a trial by jury in the US Civilian court system?
In what way is Padilla any different than Herbert Hans Haupt? None, unless you want to claim either (a) naturalized citizens have different rights than born citizens or (b) Padilla was not intending to commit sabotage.
The rest of the particulars are materially the same.
The difference between Haupt and Padilla is that Haupt had a trial by military comission, while Padilla was denied a trial for 3-1/2 years by the Bush administration.
that's pretty much it. bush made the claim that he could hold padilla for as long as he wanted with no review of any kind. and for the third time, i will repeat that if the two cases were the same, bush would be on "solid legal ground".
What says that military tribunals cannot be used against citizens? Milligan
http://journal.heinz.cmu.edu/articles/military-tribunals/
One such individual was Lambdin P. Milligan, who was charged with a variety of offenses including conspiracy against the U.S. government, affording aid and comfort to rebels, inciting insurrection, disloyal practices, and violation of the laws of war. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that a military tribunal was not the competent venue to try Milligan, since he was a citizen of the United States who was not connected with military service. Further, he was not a resident of any of the states in the rebellion and he was not captured while participating in hostile acts against the government. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that military tribunals should have no jurisdiction over U.S. citizens.
In what way was Padilla different than Milligan?
Another way they were different was that Haupt was considered as a German citizen yet there would be no such thing as an al Queda citizen. They would be different in all these ways.
Are all conservatives as stupid as you are? Quirin got due process. The Supreme Court HEARD HIS CASE. YOU are a moron. You have been shredded and are too stupid to know it. Give it up.
Yes, you did quote a conservative scholar, because I came upon the same reasoning, if not the same exact text, when I did my search.
You used Quentin as your precedent, but you got the argument from the conservative legal scholar. Your argumentation mirrored, if not exactly quoted, this legal opinion. You stated this legal opinion as if it were legal precedent, that is, the ruling of a judge, not of a lawyer.
And am I to believe that you are a lawyer, so versed that you knew the Quention case, or am I to believe you are using another source, that is, a conservative legal scholar.
Further, you didn't even bother to answer my argumens about how the Geneva Convention did apply to Padilla. So I assume I am right, and you are just repeating right wing nonsense about the Geneva Convention.
One last point destroys your argument. If Bush really thought he could treat Padilla as you say, then he would have detained him forever without any trial. But just before the case went to the Supreme Court, Bush changed his tactics and gave Padilla a trail after all. If Bush felt he could have kept Padilla in detention forever without a trail, he would have had the Supreme Court back him up. Bush obviously didn't believe this, which is why he did not let the Supreme Court decide.
You arent very bright are you? I noticed that the Supreme COURT ruled that the mans citizenship was forfiet. No such thing happened to Padilla. Nor was he EVER convicted of coming to the US as a sabateur. He was convicted of planning to kill people overseas. Associating with terrorists, now I am glad he is going to prison. You didnt really think that people with an actual functioning cerebral cortex would think it reasonable that YOU should be the guy to decide who is and isnt a citizen? That Bush should? That anyone OTHER than a court would have the authority to make such a finding? . Your stupidity seems to have you believe that because this administration ACCUSED him of planning sabotage against the US that it was up to YOU or Bush to decide he had no rights. The Sun has thankfully never dawned on the day some anonymous guy on a website NOR the executive branchgets to decide the citizenship of someone BORN IN THE US. NOR gets to decide who is and who isnt guilty of a crime WITHOUT A TRIAL. Your fascist tendencies are appalling
The fact that Padilla was just tried and sentenced by a federal jury completely invalidates your entire argument. Save yourself some time and don't bother cutting and pasting any more nonsense.
Unfortunately it seems even the authoritarians in the Bush Administration didn't think they could get away with such a shoddy argument as yours:
"he has implicily reounced US citizenship"--NL207
Lol. I would like to see someone try to argue that in a court of law. Too funny. That is a transparently self-serving argument in order to justify doing whatever you want to a criminal prisoner. You don't renounce your citizenship when you join an international criminal organization. Al Qaeda is not a noationality. Duh? Why is this stuff so hard for you guys? If that was true that you could renounce your citizenship by targeting our government, McVeigh didn't even need a trial. The mere accusation by the government would be good enough to take him out and shoot him according to your reasoning. Do you want to live in a country like that? On second thought, don't answer that. I think I already know the answer.
"The implication here is that Zabaydah had SEEN Padilla. he may not have known his name but he certainly knew who he was."
Why do you believe Zabaydah is telling the truth?
What happened to Padilla could happen to you or I and the media did not report the facts. They fell into the fearmongering.
If they can do it to him, then they can do it to any of us.
All it will take is another terrorist attack and bye bye democracy.
If they can do it to him, then they can do it to any of us.
Yes they can. All you have to do is attend an Al Qaeda training camp, swear allegiance to Al Qaeda, declare jihad on the U.S. and attempt to execute a plan to detonate a dirty bomb on U.S. soil. Heaven forbid we should infringe on the constitutional rights of a person like this!! Have you Al Qaeda defenders lost your minds? You do realize that YOU are included in the group that the radicals like Padilla want to kill don’t you?
You don't know for sure that he's "someone like this" until you give him a trial. So you can't deprive someone their rights based on that, because you need to give them their rights to prove it.
Jamison -- two weeks since YearlyKos and two early posting times. Thank you very much from your admirer in Wyoming with the crutches. And, as usual, good article!
Gosh, where do people get the idea that Media Matters for Al Qaeda is pro-terrorist?
Um, Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly? Rush? Boortz? Melanie Morgan? Wait, I know, it's John Gibson, right?
there's a media matters for al qaeda?
Yes, but they weren't here until we declared the War on Gibson.
Lamenting the loss of our freedom is pro terrorists?
You're so turned around you don't know which side of the table you're sitting at.
They are ignorant, brainwashed morons who dont GET ideas and are TOLD what to believe. Like YOU.
I don't think normal people would infer that. Just brainwashed morons.
"Gosh, where do people get the idea that Media Matters for Al Qaeda is pro-terrorist?"
Well put. I say shut these constitution-appeasers down now, before it's too late to imprison & torture them for years without charges. They are the roadside bombers of the digital world. Also, anyone who has ever posted a question or comment gets the same fair and balanced treatment that Padilla got.
Kevin,
Why do you hate the Constitution? Are you from that conservative organization Constitutoin doesn't Matter for Americans?
It's a little over-the-top to characterize 'Media Matters for America' as "pro-terrorist"... but then that's the ridiculous way a lot of people argue:
They make absurd and strange exaggerations, and then smugly think themselves to have scored debate points...
"pro-terrorist"? As in finances and supports and promotes terrorism and terrorists, such as the attacks and attackers of September 11, 2001?
Get real and make sense. Making ridiculously exaggerated statements in a debate, is the mark of children fools and idiots... it's no point of pride being stupid, so you shouldn't smile or look so smug about it.
I'd say that in attempting to highlight the fantastic amount of rhetoric and misinformation and vague foolish talk about terrorism and terrorists, as you find daily (even hourly) in this worthless thing we call a "media"...
I say doing that could give 'Media Matters for America' the appearance of being "pro-terrorist" only to idiots...
...but could give them the sometime appearance of being an Anti-Defamation League of sorts, for Muslims and Arabs and occasionally terrorism suspects (when they are occasionally mentioned in the "media" by name).
Which is what this item seems like a little bit, to me:
An attempt to hold the "media" and the Bush administration accountable, in the matter and on the rheoric, of terror... and seeming in the process, to be standing up for some guy, who as best as I can tell, is plain crazy and insane and was in the wrong place at the wrong time and wound up as some kind of bogeyman to be used by the "media" and the Bush administration.
Mostly I'm of a mind that thinks "so what and who cares" on this matter.
But as to who is and who is not "pro-terrorist"...
Hey KEVIN1007...
I have a question for you:
"Is the saudi arabian 'royal family' pro-terrorist?"
I mean if you have the insight when it comes to MMFA, then you must have the answer also to:
"Is the saudi arabian 'royal family' pro-terrorist?"
And if you can answer that, then maybe you can answer:
"Is the Bush administration and the "media" pro-saudi 'royal family'?"
And if you get a big YES for both of those questions (as I do), then maybe you'll do the math (the algebra), and answer also a big YES to the question:
"Is the "media" and the Bush administration, by way of being so pro-saudi 'royal family', also pro-terrorist?"
...now if the guy had said instead, that MMFA were "pro-gay", and that they did sometimes appear to be an Anti-Defamation League of sorts, for gays...
Then I've have probably agreed with him, instead of disagreed.
Maybe this is why Tommy et al were so vociferous in their inane ramblings on the Gibson thread this afternoon. Even after being told by numerous people that it was not Padilla himself that we were siding with, but rather we were siding with the US Constitution and were against the Bush administration's abuse of their power, they continued to miss the point. They continued to pretend that they couldn't understand how the rights of any US citizen, even one who was willing to unleash terroristic attacks on others, need to be preserved. They pretended that it was about us calling Gibson a tool of the President, which MMfA wasn't doing. They pretended that it was about Gibson smearing Padilla, which it wasn't.
Protecting the rights of any American protects the rights of all Americans. Abusing the rights of any American abuses the rights of all Americans.
Tommy like Gibson is a big fan of the strawman. You can't argue with a cultic idiot...
True. Tommy was all strawmen today. He has mastered many other logical fallacies though. I think he is multi-faceted in that regard.
Thank you MMFA for all the hard work. I have some reading to do this weekend.
Also, why does anyone respond to Tommy at all? I apologize for anyone who thinks that he sometimes has a minute point on a tangental issue, but that is all Tommy writes. He is the best example of how to derail any "conversation" and is fed by well-meaning posters.
Although it is rare that I respond to this child, I will never respond again. If we can all agree to ignore him then maybe he will leave. I'm tired of sifting through his comments to get to the real discussion.
I dont want to see tommy go. While he can be stubborn so can many of us and I think he often makes a good contribution to the conversation. Reasonably making a good thoughtful conservative comment. I think we ought to encourage the reasonable conservatives how dont start all their posts with how evil the liberal agenda is. I think without Tommy, bruce, Wesley, and Jeter, we would be stuck with either preaching to the choir or NL, and autopsychotic doing their insane Weinerdog act and rhino thinking he is beings so pious telling explaining condescendingly how liberals hate God, country, family and apple pie and why are we so mean to him. That would get boring pretty quick. I understand your frustration but I disagree about Tommy.
I disagree about the "preaching to the choir" comment. To see what MMFA would be like without the tommy/wesley/aa/etc factor, just look at that Glenn Greenwald link. Greenwald's comment posters have always made a point of completely ignoring the brand of illogical/distractionary posts that our "reasonable" conservative posters traffic in, and the result is genuine intelligent and thoughtful conversation. Not preaching to the choir, but actual on-topic and substantial commentary. We don't actually need dishonest, nonsensical and logic-challenged conservative apologists and professional diversion artists to keep things interesting. They can be an entertaining distraction, but they are only distractions. Let's not pretend that Tommy and Jeter are the William F. Buckleys of MMFA.
I agree that for the most part tommy is good for this site - if for nothing more than to keep the rest of us on our toes. I suppose I am still a little bit raw about the trolling tommy did yesterday.
Everytime I am convinced that tommy is becoming more reasonable, he gets on a thread that reveals a tremendous amount of pigheaded irrationality.
I don't like to call anyone a troll or a coward, but tommy was both of those yesterday. I would not make such a claim if I couldn't back it up amply with examples. If anyone wants to see it for themselves I am refering to the Gibson thread and I will be glad to prove my point with copious examples from that thread.
The example I'd love to see is the one where Tommy is keeping someone on their toes. This is the bit of praise that people often throw out their for him, but I've never seen it. Unless by "keep us on our toes" you mean that he consistently provides us with perfect examples of nearly every logical fallacy in the book. He keeps us on our toes like a punching bag keeps a boxer on his toes.
Maybe that was too generous a phrase. He is more like a little clueless kid who by asking questions helps me organize my own basic ideas a little better. It is also good practice to recognize which logical fallacy he is employing at any given moment - although he heavily overuses the strawman IMO. Maybe that is putting it a little better.
Tommy enhances this site much the way a punching bag enhances a boxer.
I'm sorry to disagree, but by far the worst derailments are with Tommy. When he first started to post, I really thought he was a bored home-schooled student (note: I like home-schooling, but he has too much time on his hands). His arguments are vapid, weak, and my 12-yr-old daughter could out-argue him.
I watch as the threads cascade into pure nothingness, as Tommy uses the same poor tactics that are nothing but textbook examples of how NOT to discuss or argue.
I welcome real, genuine, intelligent arguments from the other side. Not Tommy. I have yet to read through an entire Tommy-derailed thread and felt as though I learned something.
MMFA, I apologize for the off-topic nature of my rant, and I applaud the fact that he can post here... he is not rude or vulgar. But he makes reading great posts harder to get to.
I agree with this analysis, as well as with Clams who says
"We don't actually need dishonest, nonsensical and logic-challenged conservative apologists and professional diversion artists to keep things interesting."
I can't add much to this comment. I once taught a class with a student who would just throw really dumb stuff out. When other students would challenge him, he would become a bit belligerent, and then throw up his hands and say something like "Yea, well, whatever, if you want to be some kook, fine."
I met one of the more thoughtful students outside of class who told me how much that blowhard angered everyone, stiffled conversation, and couldn't I do something about it?
It wasn't that the blowhard hand a contrary opinion. It was that he was so unserious about it, would make illogical arguments, and then kind of throw up his hands and say "It doesn't really matter to me." And then do the next thing the next class, and the next...
i have to go with the anti tommy crowd. it's not that he can't come up with some good arguments once in awhile. but his talking points are generally: "why is this here, how does this qualify as misinformation, this is mere joking on the part of..., if you really knew xyz to be true you would not worry about a contrary opinion, you should ignore it....etc.". what i tend to do sometimes is go back to his first post on a particular thread, and then point out that he is now saying something else during the same argument. the other day he threatened to "embarass" me unless i stopped answering him. which was like red meat....
sorry, embarrass
Thank you Solon. We have our disagreements and lively arguments, for sure - but I respect you and your opinions because you post honestly, with humor, and make your points without being nasty or gratuitously provocative.
However, the more the others stomp their feet and whine about my presence here......well, I find that very curious.
I could care less who posts here or who responds to whom. If that bothers or even concerns anyone else, then their reasons for wanting me ingorned or trying to discredit or minimize my opinions here only makes me realize they either feel threatened by them and/or theirs can't handle the scrutiny. It just makes me know I am on the right track. :)
Too bad they are so pitiful so as to worry and post about me when I haven't even been on this thread.
please tommy. "threatened" by you? the real problem is that some of us are immune to your sucking up, and point out your endless repetition of the same talking points. what, pray tell, is to be answered to your 200th comment that: "rush/hannity/etc may be wrong here, but discussing it only gives him more attention". and i really did not realize we had to notify you when there was something to be discussed. you seem to always find your way to what was said anyway, so you can drop the poor little victim routine.
Scooter,
Calm yourself, you sound ridiculous, not to mention a littttttttttttle paranoid. But thank you for making me want to stick around, because if I hit that many nerves around here then I am not just another parroted liberal, like you.
So please feel free to ignore or skip over my posts......your whining about how laborious it is to do that is a littttttttttttttle silly, however.
MM seems to be overlooking some very important facts -
1- While there were some allegations that Jose Padilla was "tortureed", the court found that Jose Padilla was fit to stand trial
2. The US decided to drop some of the charges against Jose Padilla because they could not risk revealing state secrets in a civilian court.
this link has a great summary of the case
Most Americans probably believe that Padilla deserves more punishment. I certainly do.
Spread your focus a bit NMB. Everybody's rights, ok not today. Can we work it in sometime?
Getting our own house in order does have a priority.
An end which does give means.
Bad week for the media, and its ignoring of the Padilla story.
Notes from Bizaro world...
This is the Padilla story as seen by Frontpage Magazine
Yesterday’s guilty verdict by no means settles the debate. But it decisively lays to rest one of the more elaborate myths of the Bush administration’s foes: that Padilla was the blameless victim of a “lawless” U.S. government. Specifically, Padilla has now been convicted of taking part in a conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, among other countries, in the years between 1993 to 2001..... ....Deplored though it is in certain political quarters, the ruling vindicates the wisdom of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism strategy. Since his 2002 arrest, the administration maintained that Padilla had ties to terrorism that required his continued detention. In that judgment it has been amply confirmed.
And remember, there is a group of our fellow Americans , probably the same ones who think that if a Democrat is elected President their shotguns will be confiscated, who are cheering on our press for being patriotic in not reporting the truth.
Spineless p*ssies who would give the government all the power it wants as long as they're told that they're "safer".
"lawless"? that is exactly the point. because the bush administration originally made all kinds of allegations that they later had to withdraw. the reason padilla was tried was that the court said he had to be charged or let go. if you happen to think that the government can hold an american citizen indefinitely, then you misunderstand the constitution and the country. that's all most wanted, a trial.
so, do we want this Jose dude free to roam?
Only if he's actually innocent. But either way he had a right to a trial, and that's all it's about.
I'm in 100% agreement, the Padilla case is a travesty of justice. The fact he's still alive is a harrowing testament to how our justice system has failed us. Anyone who would willing participate in terrorist training camps and aid the enemy should be eliminated immediately as if they were the enemy themselves because quite frankly, they are. To your questions on whether or not some of his rights should be forfeit the answer is an emphatic YES. By choosing to ally himself with the enemy he has esentially become an enemy agent and to that end should forfeit his American rights. In a time of war some people must lose their constitutional rights in order to protect the nation. Lincoln understood this, Roosevelt understood this, Bush understands this. While I don't think we should intern an entire group of people like Roosevelt did (he was a dem wasn't he?) when someone picks the side of an enemy which kills innocent Americans without reservation that someone should lose his rights at least until he or she can be investigated and if found to be an enemy to the United States and it's citizens ie, your children, friends and family, should be given an express ticket to his 70 virgins.
"I'm in 100% agreement, the Padilla case is a travesty of justice. The fact he's still alive is a harrowing testament to how our justice system has failed us. Anyone who would willing participate in terrorist training camps and aid the enemy should be eliminated immediately as if they were the enemy themselves because quite frankly, they are."
So you're saying that anyone even thought to be a terrorist should be summarily executed without trial?
"To your questions on whether or not some of his rights should be forfeit the answer is an emphatic YES. By choosing to ally himself with the enemy he has esentially become an enemy agent and to that end should forfeit his American rights. In a time of war some people must lose their constitutional rights in order to protect the nation."
You keep talking about someone allying with the enemy. It's called treason and it's mentioned in the Constitution too. Guess what that means. That's right, we already have laws for trying traitors and they don't involve holding them indefinitely with no legal counsel all the while torturing them. People are innocent until proven guilty. But it seems in your neocon world it's guilty and imprisoned and tortured until we find something, anything to execute you for.
"Lincoln understood this, Roosevelt understood this, Bush understands this. While I don't think we should intern an entire group of people like Roosevelt did (he was a dem wasn't he?) when someone picks the side of an enemy which kills innocent Americans without reservation that someone should lose his rights at least until he or she can be investigated and if found to be an enemy to the United States and it's citizens ie, your children, friends and family, should be given an express ticket to his 70 virgins."
I doubt Bush understands how to tie his shoes. And you cite the internment of Japanese-Americans to prove your point? Most people look at that as a big embarrassment in our past, not a great precedent to do it again. And I see you admitting that you believe that people (American citizens in this case) are guilty until proven innocent. Actually you don't even go there. You go with "guilty until proven guiltier."
I think you need to go back and take a high school government class. You seem to have slept through it the first time.
So you're saying that anyone even thought to be a terrorist should be summarily executed without trial? - YOU
Apparently you can't read since I said that if he's found to be an enemy of the U.S., for example in court like he just was THEN he should be sentenced to death. I also stated that the Japanese internment was not a good thing, my point about Roosevelt dealt more with his restricting free press not the internment. I'm aware that we have treason laws (don't they call for execution?) but the constitution is a LIVING document. I'm guessing the founding fathers never imagined a world were religious nutcases flew planes into skyscrapers. This is why people who law enforcement deems as potentially the same type of individual should lose some rights until they are investigated. Bush is not the first and probably won't be the last president to infringe on a citizens rights.
For one thing, the courts disagree with you. Remember that Bush decided to give Padilla a trial right before the case went to the Supreme Court, showing he thought he would lose the case.
You also contradict yourself. In this post you say that Padilla should be given a fair trial, but in the previous one you stated he loses his rights as a US citizen.
someone should lose his rights at least until he or she can be investigated and if found to be an enemy to the United States - Me
In other words found to be an enemy of the United states in court. I didn't contradict myself I just didn't know you wouldn't realize that meant found by a court. We are in a time of war, I don't know if you actually know this since you seem to be so concerned with people like Padilla (who was found guilty). I'm not a Bush fan but he does deserve at least a little credit (which I'm sure he won't get) that we haven't been hit again since 9/11. It is tactics like those used with Padilla, the Patriot act, wire tapping, etc. that have saved American lives during the most difficult presidency since FDR, who by all measures wiped his @$$ with the constitution even more often than Bush
Um, then if you think Padilla should be found to be a combatant in court, you think Padilla should have a trial. That is exactly what MMFA and we leftists want.
Instead of a trial, he was held without a trial and tortured. If he is found guilty by a trial, then he can be put in prison forever where he can't do any more harm. No one has a problem with that.
Sorry, but I forgot to respond to your false assertion that wire tapping, etc. have saved us from another terrorist attack.
You have zero proof of this. In fact, because of the war in Iraq, there are more terrorists than ever, according to the CIA. So Bush hasn't made us safer.
Bush could also wire tap all he wanted. He just has to do it in a legal way that assures he doesn't violated the constitution. Getting a court order would in no way inhibit his ability to wire tap. (Under the law he can wire tap without a warrant if he needs to and then ask for one from the court later.)
"someone should lose his rights at least until he or she can be investigated and if found to be an enemy to the United States - Me
In other words found to be an enemy of the United states in court." --ss
You are obviously confused here. As Padilla's due process rights were denied for over 3 years, how could not having those rights ever lead to a trial to determine his guilt as there couldn't be a trial because Padilla had no due process rights? You are egaging in what is called circular reasoning. It is a formal argumentative fallacy. Your conclusion refers to your premise and then back to your conclusion and on and on.
"FDR, who by all measures wiped his @$$ with the constitution even more often than Bush"--ss
If you are referring to the confinement of the Japanese to internment camps on the west coast, me, the ACLU and most liberals would agree. Michelle Malkin and most conservatives would disagree with you. I think your blanket statements of liberals here are quite odd considering you really seem to agree with us on this issue more than the conservatives - perhaps you are just unaware of the real liberal positions as opposed to the strawmen the conservatives are spoon feeding everyone.
A few more comments. The founding fathers did know that there would be enemies to the US. John Adams actually defended the Red Coats, literally enemies, in court! He did not call for indeterminate detention without trial.
Second, I don't see how you can compare Roosevelt's restriction of the press--which he didn't do in the later part of the war, if I understand things right--the same as torturing a US citizen.
In my mind, Lincoln is less of a great president for suspending habeus corpus. It is one of the worst things he did as president.
No you didnt say ANYTHING about a trial you said THIS
Anyone who would willing participate in terrorist training camps and aid the enemy should be eliminated.
You went on to say his rights should be forfiet. Nothing even HINTING about a trial. In fact by saying both immediatly and then going on to say his rights should be forfiet sounds very much like an argument AGAINST having a trial. If you are NOT arguing against a trial then we have only minor disagreements. As has already been pointed out there are already laws which allow the death penalty for treason. I notice Bush didnt ACCUSE him of treason so he has still not been found guilty of treason yet you said he should already be dead though his trial just ended days ago. IF you really wanted to see a trial your post was a mishmash of illogic and you have no argument with us. IF you dont you are a fascist and a danger to our civil liberties and a fascist.
"Apparently you can't read since I said that if he's found to be an enemy of the U.S., for example in court like he just was"--ss
But you seem to miss the most important point of all. The Bush Administration never wanted Padilla to have his day in court. They denied him his due process rights until it became obvious the courts were going to address the issue.
I fail to see any genuine disagreement as you already concede the courts have a role here at all. You are agreeing with liberals about this because the Bush Administration faught any court intervention tooth and nail.
That is the extent of liberal objections here. You can dwell on your strawmen, but you are just deluding yourself here.
WOW. I should print your post out for the next time someone tells me there are no fascists in the US. Both suspension of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln AND the internment of the Japanese are now seen by history as having been mistakes. The government not only formally appologized to the Japanese they paid them reparations. Benjamin Franklin was right those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither and that is YOU who deserves NEITHER freedom nor security. While you are hiding shivering under your bed trying to give up YOUR Bill of Rights see if you can figure a way to surrender YOUR rights to your fear and leave MINE intact if you can do that feel free. As for me I would rather die on my feet that live cowering under my bed or on my knees. THAT is the American way not begging the government to gut the Bill of Rights.
Although Jose Padilla's attorneys have alleged that he was "tortured", my understanding is that the court ruled that Padilla was fit to stand trial.
Wikipedia -
Mental competency hearingIn cross examination Federal prosecutor John Shipley pointed out that Padilla had a score of zero on Hegarty's post-traumatic stress disorder test and pointed out that this information was omitted in her final report. Hegarty responded that this omission was an error on her part.[29] Another psychiatrist hired by the defense testified along the same lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the lesson here is that we should be just as skeptical of both sides in this case.
That is generally correct. The only problem is the state is the one holding all of the chips here. It is their burden to ensure the courts act independently, fairly and objectively on this matter. When the state interferes with normal due process the credibility of the entire system becomes suspect. Do we really want that?
"In a time of war some people must lose their constitutional rights in order to protect the nation. "
When "some" lose rights, the rest of us -including you- are a step closer to losing ours as well.
So you're worried about losing your rights now? How many al queda training camps have you been to? If you have links to terrorist organizations as Padilla did I sincerely hope that you or anyone else who has dealings with any terrorist organization is held until it can be determined whether or not they are a member or contributer to a group of people who wish us to be dead. I'm not worried about "losing my rights" because I've never had any dealings with the same kind of individuals as people like padilla. And don't give me the "slippery slope" crap. I think it's funny that cons so often try to say "If we let homosexuals get married next thing people will marry goats and kids and blah, blah, blah". This argument is not accepted by libs because they realize that society has deemed that consentual adult activity is a right but would not allow the mistreatment of animals or children, in otherwords there is a limit. However, libs use the same argument when faced with matters of national security as most cons use with issues such as gay marriage. You claim that if we start to infringe on the rights of people who have dealings with terrorists the "slippery slope" will somehow lead to complete forfeiture of rights to all Americans. This argument is just as absurd as the "gay marriage = man/goat love" in that in both circumstances American society has deemed how far it will bend on these issues. People like Padilla should be removed from society until they can be investigated thouroughly and found to be no threat. America in general understands this concept. We seem to be comming to terms that the slope doesn't have to lead all the way to the extreme. Libs understand when it comes to gay marriage (which should be legal) but don't get it on matters of national defense. Cons get it on national defense but not on social issues such as Gay marriage. Both use the asinine "slippery slope" line to back up their argument but then when the other side uses it they cry foul. Quite simply the American public has a breaking point of what is and isn't allowable. In other words many Americans have and are comming to terms with gay marriage but would not allow the issue to devolve into wht some cons think it would (beastiality, pedophillia, etc.) while even more Americans agree that people like Padilla who have potential ties to the same people who killed well over 3,000 fellow citizens should be investigated but society would not accept a rogue government to just arbitrarialy arrest anyone they wanted. The slippery slope argument simply does not work.
God, what a rant!
As I have stated above, the Supreme Court apparently disagrees with you. You know, that part of our country and our constitution that you supposedly love--that Supreme Court?
Your argument contains the one fallacious argument that knee jerk authoritarians like you, who are so busy wetting their beds at night worried about Al Quaida, never can get around. How the heck do we know if a suspect is actually really guilty of what the government says he is? The answer is only by a fair trial, which is exactly what we leftists want, no more and no less.
Which is what he got and was found guilty. However leftists like yourself would've let him roam free and allowed him to keep contributing to the enemy and possibly attack us and then if it happened the left would say "LOOK WHAT BUSH DID!"
Good grief! What an absurd strawman argument!
We leftist would have let him roam free? Really? And exactly why do you believe that?
You are flat out contradicting yourself. We leftist, and for that matter true conservatives who believe in the constitution and the rule of law, wanted a fair trial for Padilla, the right of every US citizen, what should be the right of everyone in the world.
He wasn't given one. He was tortured. He was denied a lawyer. The charges he was supposedly guilty of were dropped.
His not getting a trial and his torture are what we are against.
Talk about backpeddling yourself into complete incoherence. You began by arguing that Padilla didn't deserve a trial, since he (according to nobody but you) forfeited his rights as a U.S. citizen. You quickly backed away from that overtly facist position by saying that he should have had a trial, which of course is what all of us crazy traitorous liberals have been saying from the start. So in order to keep arguing you have to pretend that liberals have been arguing for his release, which is completely false. I've not seen a single person, anywhere, argue for his release.
Rights are not a slippery slope. They are either RIGHTS or they arent if they can be taken from ANYONE without due process than no one has them. If they can be taken they are not RIGHTS they are priveleges. Either everyone has rights or no one does. Your rant pretending that only YOU are concerned with terrorism is ludicrous. The question is about whether giving up our rights to have a trial are necessary to fight terrorism not whether it should be fought that strawman is tired and dumb. I dont think we need to either you do or you dont. If you dont you have no argument with us if you do say so. Come right out with the fascist statement that American citizens dont have a right to their day in court. No one here has said that Padilla has a right to be treasonous. Find him guilty of a crime and he should be punished find him guilty of treason you can execute him. No one here has said that cant happen. So I dont even know what your problem is. That we are defending the rights of a dispicable criminal? OF COURSE WE ARE. That is because we understand what is at stake do YOU? Sir Thomas Moore in A Man For All Seasons said it better than I can in this dialogue from the movie
"Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
That is my favorite dialogue from "Man from all Seasons," and so to the point.
Thanks, Solon.
I appreciate that Mary, I love that movie.
"So you're worried about losing your rights now? How many al queda training camps have you been to?"--ss
You are missing the point from the first line. Guilt in such matters is determined by a court or in some cases a tribunal. The Bush Administration did not do that until they were forced to.
When you are picked up, such determinations are accusations. They are not facts or determinations until a court addresses them. Inbetween being picked up and tried, there is a natural presumption of innocence as the facts have not yet been determined. Your arguments pre-suppose the determination of guilt as a fact from the get-go before a trial can even be conducted.
Assuming everyone who is arrested is believed to be guilty by the state(, but not determined or proven to be by a court), what would be the point of due process with any suspect if it isn't needed with Padilla?
Exactly. Very well stated.
It would be pretty easy to name you an unlawful combatant. While they are beating you, you will have ample time to tell them how unfair it all is seeing as you are innocent. Now all you'll have to do from you lawyerless hole in the brig is get a lawyer and prove your innocence while guys like you stand outside asking why it's taking so long to execute you.
There are two failures here...
Failure of the Bush Gang to even pretend to uphold the Constitution and laws of this country, and Failure of our News Media to do their job.
I may forgive the media when they become diverted by Paris Hilton and not report some international trade news that affects this country, but when the issue is something as fundamental as our rights, then I really get mad.
Perhaps one of the biggest stories in the last 100 years is being played out in public; the President of the United States publicly proclaiming that every U.S. citizen in this country now does not have a fundamental protection from being arrested and tortured by our own government.
Holy cr@p!!!
And how does the press handle this story?
Lies, distortions, obfuscation, ignorance.
If I were a working newsperson today I would seriously consider resigning my job.
Right on, Sluggo with those TWO points. Sad, sad, sad how Bush is screwing up OUR country--and we are letting him?
Padilla's endured torture is the reason why he has not been legally charged with the original dirty-bomb plot indictment. Jose's extremely prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation rendered anything he said as constitutional inadmissible in court. [link to www.associatedcontent.com] /> "Jardin inferred that the power to torture was regarded as part of the royal prerogative ...inflicting torture at pleasure at the mere instance of the Crown, has always appeared to me to be a very remarkable instance of the opposition of a prerogative to law-of the existence in former times of a power above the law, controlling and subverting the law, and thus rendering it practical application altogether inconsistent with its theoretical excellence.: [link to www.associatedcontent.com]
Lapdogs
The corporate media pushes the right-wing agenda.
Charlie Gibson is nothing but a pathetic old hack who reads the scripts his masters hand him.
He's got a nice, safe life in the corporate bosom, and he's just peachy with it--thank you very much. He has all the guts and integrity one might expect from a corporate chicken hawk.