Quick Fact: Doocy advances misleading claim that "an enemy combatant" has "never" been "tried in a civil court"
On the November 19 Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy advanced the misleading claim that there has "never" been "an enemy combatant" who "was tried in a civil court." In fact, Jose Padilla was a U.S. citizen who was held as an enemy combatant for three years before being tried in a civilian court.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the November 19 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: It was interesting, yesterday Eric Holder seemed completely unprepared for what seemed like a pretty simple question from Lindsey Graham: When was the last time there was an enemy combatant was tried in a civil court?" "Uh, uh...." And then Lindsey Graham eventually answered: "Never."
Fact: Padilla was held as an enemy combatant before eventually getting a trial
As The New York Times reported, Padilla was a U.S. citizen who was originally arrested on suspicions of "taking part in an Al Qaeda plot to detonate a radioactive 'dirty bomb' within the United States." Padilla was held "more than three years in solitary isolation in a military brig as an officially designated enemy combatant." While Padilla's lawyer challenged his designation, in November 2005, "the Bush administration suddenly announced that criminal charges had been filed against him in federal court in Miami. The new indictment made no mention of the dirty bomb or most of the other original charges. ... On Aug. 16, 2007, Mr. Padilla and two co-defendants, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people in a foreign country, which carries a penalty of life in prison. All three were also convicted of conspiracy to provide material support for terrorists, and providing material support for terrorists."
As its proof they have no clue on any thing real.
Fact: Padilla was held as an enemy combatant before eventually getting a civil trial
These are two different things that are being discussed. Padilla was not classified as an enemy combatant at the time of his civil trial. YES, he was held as a enemy combatant for years before this happened, but at the time of his civil trial he was no longer classified as a enemy combatant.
That is certainly a model of justice, the kind of principled, high-minded commitment to the rule of law that made America a beacon of hope and the leader of the Democratic world...
The decline and fall of The United States began in earnest the moment Fox News called the election for George W Bush in 2000. Obama's best efforts to reclaim our prestige, our laws, and our sacred values may never erase the blight of the eight years that followed. And we're watching as the media besmirches Obama's every attempt to correct the gravest errors and abuses of that era.
As far as oba mao restoring prestige, our laws, and out sacred values, you must be kidding unless our sacred values include ACORN, SEIU and the chitcago goon squad... right. By sacred values you mean abortions in the last (or any) trimester? or the sacred value oba mao listened to for 20 years thanks to jeremiah wright... pathetic...
Bush lied to you to get you to support war and that doesn't bother you one iota. He committed war crimes against a treaty signed by the US, and that doesn't bother you. He failed HUGELY in keeping the US safe on 9/11 and that doesn't bother you.
Ridiculous.
Oh, and McVeigh was indeed a Christian. He was raised Catholic and told Time Magazine that he maintained the core beliefs.
That doesn't equate to blaming their religion for what they did.
Haven't seen you around here much lately.
I don't recall President Bush seeing a day of combat - before, during, or after he was President of these United States.
Holding an American citizen for three years without any of his Constitutional rights is not a "mistake." A "mistake" is a math error in your checkbook.
Shreading the Constitution rises to a high crime and misdemeanor.
How many US soldiers killed themselves at Fort Hood in 2009? Have you shown any concern or other interest in their fate?
So why do they keep asking us to leave?
So was Clinton.
What does calling Hasan a terrorist change about the tragedy at Ft. Hood? There is already an investigation happening, and part of that investigation will be ascertaining Hasan's motives and mental state at the time of the attack. If they come back with sufficient evidence to declare Hasan a "terrorist", then okay.
Terrorist is an incredibly emotionally and politically charged word, that should not be tossed about lightly (and, in my opinion, its been treated that way so often that the word has lost any precise meaning). I truly don't understand the compulsive need that people feel to call this guy a terrorist immediately.
McVeigh wasn't a Christian? Because you get to decide these things? Nutjob. You and your ilk are why no one wants to be considered a Republican anymore. You and your Fox News and your hate radio have driven nearly every reasonable person out of your party. Enjoy the wilderness!
So by your comparison you are bestowing the same rights granted by the US Constitution to US Citizens and legal residents to KSM and the other foreign enemy islamic terrorist. Hmmm... does that mean when they are captured we should read them Miranda?
So Bush did the right thing by moving the Padilla trial to civilian court because padilla is a citizen yet you want to make it out as what, wrong!!! hypocrites... pathetic...
Conservatives used to stand for the rule of law, for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution. Those days are over. When "conservatives" invoke the constitution today, it is to falsely claim that Obama is somehow abusive of it. Think of it this way: the president can declare anyone, even a US citizen like you and me, to be an enemy combatant. You can then be thrown in military prison, without the right to a lawyer, without the right to phone your family, without the right to a speedy, fair trial. Any person at any time is subject to indefinite detention without due process under the precedent established under the Bush administration. Habeas Corpus? Gone. Due process? Gone. Right to an attorney? Gone. Speedy trial? Gone.
Your support for tyrrany calls into question your patriotism. This is true of most self-identified Republicans and conservatives at this time in our history. It is highly unfortunate, but hardly surprising.
I do not support tyrrany. You have the RIGHT to question my patriotism and I yours, which I won't do, because I don't believe you are unpatriotic.
As far as the law that allows you or me to be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant, well it's still the law and bush ISN'T the president and the congress is 100% controlled by democrats... go figure...
2001 Presidential military order
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on 18 September 2001. In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution and stated:
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
How odd it is to see so many so called patriots rail so loudly against the United States legal system.
Fact is as you pointed out, bush followed the law. When the Supreme Court interpreted the law differently, bush adapted... That's the job of the Supreme Court duh!
"Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps.[1][2][3] The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. The case challenged the legality of Boumediene’s detention at the Guantanamo Bay military base as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined case were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007. On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. Along with Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, this is a major case in the Court's controversial detainee jurisprudence."
Clear enough for ya'?
This presumes, of course, these people are guilty as charged. And we can't know that until after the trials are concluded.
A 15-judge Federal court in Washington, DC., found the US government's evidence against 30 Guantanamo Bay detainees was so weak their immediate release was ordered. This is not the first time, either.
And even if they were found not guilty because of prosecutorial misconduct or some other reason, what are we going to do let them go?
Yeah right.
Looks like he's using the civilian courts to put on a show trial, in which he knows that the evidence will overwhelmingly establish the guilt of these defendants, notwithstanding all the inadmissible evidence. What happens to the detainees who likely are terrorists, but who don't openly tout their guilt and don't want to be martyred? When will Holder provide them the rights which he now accords KSM?
The answer? He doesn't.
Go here and watch Sen.Graham completely bamboozle an "in-over-his-head" Atty General...it's painful to watch how...utterly inept when trying to defend his untenable position of trying terrorists.
Hell, he doesn't even know where we would put bin laden upon capture...he doesn't know how he would be questioned or by whom...he doesn't know if bin Laden should have Miranda rights read to him...hell, he doesn't know anything.
Read the transcript for yourself at NPR.
Atty General Holder was correct - Senator Graham was trying to trap him, and Holder didn't fall for the trap, and somehow you think that means that Graham 'bamboozled' Holder? Your definition of winning is looney.
His depiction of the event wasn't the way he described it? You're not making much sense here, Dear Dolly.
Do you even make an attempt at thinking before you write, or do ya just spew down the first thing that passes through that shell on top your shoulders?
And, if you think that his refusal to answer the hypothetical shows that he is "utterly inept" and that "he doesn't know anything" I would love to hear how upset you are that Roberts and Alito are on the Supreme Court. I would refer you to their hearings and their refusal to answer hypotheticals.
Trying KSM in New York Federal Court is proper and just. To give him standing as a war criminal is to recognize Bin Laden's "war" declared against the United States. It makes sense to try the Cole bombers in military court, and it makes sense to try the 9/11 conspirators in Federal court. You could make the case either way.
What is essential is that the trials meet international standards, and our own constitutional standards. Our prestige is already damaged by the Bush administration's disregard for these concepts.
We should all unite behind the idea of justice.
These attacks against the Obama administration for trying to correct the abuses of the past is highly counter-productive, and completely expected from a right wing that has completely lost its marbles.
**But if y'all want an example of a military combatant caght 'in the battlefield' and tried in our civilian courts? his name was Mnauel Noriega, arrested in our invasion of panama on charges directly involved with the large 'War on Drugs' which is very similiar to this broad scoped 'War on Terror'.... And the 9-11 co-conspirator was charged in civilian courts where the conservatives CHEERED when he was convicted under Bush... 216 terrorists were tried in civilian courts and only 10 in military trbunals... and 100% success conviction rate...
**Military tribunals should ONLY be used like it was back in WW when these combatants WERE ACTUALLY CAUGHT ON A BATTLEFIELD, BUT WE COULDNT GET THEM TO OUR CIVILIAN COURTS HERE IN THE U.S CAUSE OF WARTIME, SO THE TRIBUNALS WERE ENFORCED...
**Miranda rights and other 'legal' obligations yall say will aquit him? DOESNT NEED TO BE USED IF THE CRIMINAL IS AN IMMENANT THREAT TO OUR SECUTIY!!
KSM will be prosecuted by some of the best lawyers in the employ of the DoJ. His conviction will be a victory in the "war on terror" because it will show that in the face of Islamist extremism, we can continue to operate as a country in the way that got us to where we are in the first place. When we doubt our processes and our institutions' ability to handle the terrorist threat, and when we choose to stoop to the level of our enemies, these are not signs of victory or confidence in our way of life.
Well, obviously, this is not WWII or Vietnam. This is an entirely different war being fought under entirely different circumstances, most notably that we are not fighting a people. The people we're fighting do not represent a country or a government, they are essentially a group of outlaws. They are not a traditional army, and they are not traditional POWs, and we can't treat them as though they are. They are not.
Do these people really not recognize the fundamental difference between WWII or Vietnam and this war?
No enemy combatant should ever tried in a civil court
now even if there has been already one, that doesn't mean there should be another. however about Padilla you're again wrong. he was charged to be an enemy combatant. however this charge was dropped later and then he qualified to be tried in a civil court. You talking about fact checking. this is a simple fact that you are expected to check correctly
The designation "unlawful enemy combatant," as employed by the Bush administration, is a fabrication of the Bush administration, with no basis in U.S. law.
however about Padilla you're again wrong. he was charged to be an enemy combatant.
Padilla wasn't "charged" with anything. He was unilaterally declared an "enemy combatant" and locked away for years.
however this charge was dropped later and then he qualified to be tried in a civil court.
Again, no "charge" was ever brought in the first place, and none were "dropped." Padilla was finally charged with a crime, after years in illegal, unconstitutional lock-up, and only then because the U.S. Supreme Court was about to review--and throw out--the "power" to kidnap and hold people in that manner; the one the Bush administration had invented. The charges that were eventually brought against him in the legitimate court system had absolutely nothing to do with the "dirty bomb" allegations that formed the basis of his 3+ years of illegal, unconstitutional incarceration (because, of course, there was never any real evidence to support those charges). He was, instead, convicted of the equivalent of a thought crime.
you talking about fact checking. this is a simple fact that you are expected to check correctly
I'm sure you now feel ashamed of yourself and wish to apologize for fouling everything up then ending with that line, right?
you may want to think about your argument before you make a post!
he was held in army custody for 3 years, why? because he was charged to be an enemy combatant. now you want to call declare, do as you will! but the bottom line is he was in army prison because he was charged as an enemy combatant by whoever
but he was not tried in an army prison again why? because this charge was dropped and he was sent to civil court. now you want to play with words? well that seems to be your only argument, be my guest.
the fact of my argument is Padilla was not tried in civil court as an enemy combatant as this article falsely claims, he was tried as as a terrorist
now who's fooling everything up, well it's you.
No "charge" was dropped. The designation was changed, and then he was charged with crimes!
You're just making a doofus of yourself.
The topic here is Steve Doocy saying an enemy combatant has never been tried in a civil court.
Padilla was held as an enemy combatant. He was later tried in a civil court.
His designation changed when the dirty bomb charges against him were tossed, but a twist in terms doesn't erase the fact that he was held as an enemy combatant.
If we follow your line of logic, George Bush was never President of the United States because he is no longer President of the United States.
This is where everyone and their mother went haywire, trying to apply US criminal civilian law to POWs. Once that threshold was crossed, all this became illogical, chaotic, and hardly withstands scrutiny. There are very few issues I agree with Sen Graham on, but this is one where his position is far less flawed than the Obama Administration's. Bush and Obama both made a critical distinction where there was none. POWs are dangerous, they still remain an enemy, unless there is no evidence that they are, in fact, an enemy in time of war. They could have been held anywhere until the end of the war. If the war went on forever, then so be it. The symbolism and whatever went on at Guantanomo was that was illegal under military law, caused Obama to promise to close it. Culpability for the unlawful orders lands on the head of whomever was responsible, and anyone who carried out and sanctioned such orders.
O has made yet and maybe the dumbest decision any President
has ever made. And we have 38 more months of this.
KSM isn't even entitled to Geneva convention rules. For that to happen, Al Qaeda would have to agree to them and they don't. KSM doesn't. Geneva says you only have to obey Geneva if the other side does.
You all said this guy was smart. Prove it.