Dirty-Bomb Suspect Lawyer Meeting Debated (serious setback to Padilla interrogation sez govt)

AP via Longview (TX) News-Journal ^ | 10 January 2003

[Stultis]

Dirty-Bomb Suspect Lawyer Meeting Debated

NEW YORK (AP)--The government asked a judge to reconsider his ruling that defense lawyers should be allowed to meet with Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member accused of plotting with al-Qaida to detonate a dirty bomb.

In a case being closely watched by civil liberties advocates, the government wrote in court papers Thursday that it may have failed in prior arguments ``to focus on the grave damage to national security'' that would result if its interrogation of Padilla were interrupted.

Letting Padilla see a lawyer would ``set back his interrogation by months, if not derail the process permanently,'' the government wrote. It asked U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey to reconsider his Dec. 4 decision that Padilla could meet with an attorney.

Defense attorneys have requested a full week of meetings with Padilla, with no restrictions on questions, and are expected to argue that he was improperly detained as an enemy combatant.

Padilla, 31, was arrested Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8 after he returned from Pakistan. He was first held as a material witness in a grand jury probe of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He was designated an enemy combatant a month later and transferred to military custody.

Defense lawyer Donna Newman, who took on Padilla's case before he was designated an enemy combatant, has repeatedly argued that his rights have been trampled.

``Without Padilla's input, this court is deprived of a full factual record,'' Newman has written.

Thursday's court papers were signed by U.S. Attorney James Comey and U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. They said that interrogations of detained enemy combatants had already helped thwart 100 or more attacks since September 2001.

The government's filing in the Padilla case came a day after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled that the government could detain U.S. citizens captured overseas as enemy combatants without concern for rights normally afforded in criminal cases. The case involved the only other U.S. citizen known to be held as an enemy combatant, Yasser Esam Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan.

The government noted in its filing Thursday that the court had reached that ruling without permitting Hamdi to meet with lawyers.

The government believes Padilla may have information about al-Qaida's organization, its associates and any plans for future attacks. Allowing him to meet with attorneys would ``set back his interrogation by months, if not derail the process permanently,'' and could make the lawyers unwitting intermediaries between Padilla and terrorists, the government wrote.

Interrogators have been able to obtain valuable intelligence from previously uncooperative subjects after months or even years have elapsed, the government wrote.

Padilla is alleged to have approached Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaida's top terrorism coordinator, in 2001 and proposed stealing radioactive material to detonate a dirty bomb in the United States. The government has said he twice met with senior al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan in March and discussed a dirty-bomb plot.

[Mo1]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Phantom Lord]

Jose Padilla, a US Citizen, arrested in the United States should have been immediatly charged with a crime or set free. Period.

If it can happen to him it can happened to the rest of us. Charge Padilla or set him free.

[sinclair]

IMO They don't want him to have access to information other than what they are telling him. It is easier to extract information about terror plots and activities if he is ignorant of outside influences. Works for me.

[staylowandkeepmoving]

"Thursday's court papers were signed by U.S. Attorney James Comey and U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. They said that interrogations of detained enemy combatants had already helped thwart 100 or more attacks since September 2001."

Yeah, right. These guys that failed so miserably before 9-11 are suddenly batting 1000. If it weren't serious, it would be laughable.

This is becoming more and more ridiculous. How about we just burn the constitution and give all of our rights to government bureaucrats and prosecutors.

[templar]

Works for me.

Will it work for you when this strategy is applied to, say, Gun owners? Those who oppose implementing Aztlan? That may not be too far away now.

[Smogger]

I don't think that he can/should be denied counsel as he was not captured overseas as an enemy combatant.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...should have been immediatly charged with a crime or set free

What "crime" should he be charged with?

He came on a scouting mission. That is not a crime. It does show that he is an enemy combatant --- a spy.

Enemy combatants are not "criminals" They are "enemy combatants". They are dangerous to the country so their "mission" should be interrupted.

It is part of war. People are captured and detained. They are questioned.

[staylowandkeepmoving]

It doesn't matter where he was "captured."

The government doesn't have any right to violate US citizens rights because there out of the country. If this were the standard, if our Feds weren't comfortable with their case (for example, against you), they just grab you up, hall you to Mexico or Canada, declare you an "enemy combatant" and lock you away incommunicado -- forever... They have no obligation to provide due process, let you go before a judge, see an attorney, talk to your family -- anything.

Why not just do it the way the constitution proscribes?

[sinclair]

Not talking about gun owners. Talking about terrorists bent on your destruction. Pay attention.

[staylowandkeepmoving]

Correction: some government bureaucrat (the guys suddenly batting 1000) claims it was a scouting mission. The government has already had to take back most of what they claimed when they grabbed this guy.

Is it okay that this is all it takes for a citizen to loose his constitutional protections?

Why not put these people on trial? Maybe we'll find that Padilla is guilty of conspiracy to commit mass murder and we can fry him without shredding the constitution. But maybe, just maybe, we'll find that the government is lying to us (like they've stopped 100 out of 100 terror attacks since 9-11) and perhaps not even focusing on the terrorists.

[trebb]

Jose Padilla, a US Citizen, arrested in the United States should have been immediatly charged with a crime or set free. Period.

Sounds good froma philosophically purist standpoint, but drastic times require drastic measures and extra common sense.

[staylowandkeepmoving]

>>Not talking about gun owners. Talking about terrorists bent on your destruction. Pay attention.<<

And RICO was about going after mobsters. It took less than one decade before it was the tool of choice for denying anti-abortion protesters their rights and seizing their property.

PS. Love the logo.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Why not just do it the way the constitution proscribes?

It is as the constitution provides. It is a time of war and the Supreme Court has ruled that it under jurisdiction of the defence department.

This is not a new precedent. You should read the court rulings on this. It has been done every time there is a war.

[Smogger]

The government doesn't have any right to violate US citizens rights because there out of the country. If this were the standard, if our Feds weren't comfortable with their case (for example, against you), they just grab you up, hall you to Mexico or Canada, declare you an "enemy combatant" and lock you away incommunicado -- forever... They have no obligation to provide due process, let you go before a judge, see an attorney, talk to your family -- anything.

Alright. I agree with that.

[Dan(9698)]

You would have to ammend the constitution.

The court has ruled that the constitution places this under the Defence Department.

It is not new.

[Lloyd227]

"If it can happen to him it can happened to the rest of us. Charge Padilla or set him free. "

I'll second that.

If they have enough evidence to charge him, then they should do so. If "National Security" concerns are legitimate, then file a motion for a closed hearing and sealed records, but charge him with a crime or turn him loose.

[Smogger]

Not talking about gun owners. Talking about terrorists bent on your destruction. Pay attention

You know new laws (and interpretations of old laws) will outlive our present circumstances.

The next administration might consider anti-abortion advocates, gun owners, or Christian religious zealots to be terrorists.

[Smogger]

And RICO was about going after mobsters. It took less than one decade before it was the tool of choice for denying anti-abortion protesters their rights and seizing their property

Good point. Too bad it will be lost on the majority of law and order types here on FR.