Appeals Court Orders Jose Padilla released in 30 Days!

FOXCNN

[Dog]

Breaking...

[nuffsenuff]

You have a firm grasp on the REALITY of the situation...

He will have his day in court... there was vital information being held in his brain that needed to be extracted...

Had he been allowed to "lawyer up" we would have missed a good opportunity to gain insight into the workings of our enemy. Not only that, we would have another fiasco like the one in Indonesia... with the terrorist scum laughing at the families of the victims, etc.

He'll get his laywer, he'll have his trial, and he will hopefully face the chair.

[Protagoras]

do you understand why Padilla cannot be given a trial? what happens when he calls Zubayda and KSM as witnesses, should the government be required to produce them? can you answer just that simple question for us, should the government be required to produce those two people as witnesses in Padilla's trial?

A fundamental misunderstanding of the system.

[freeeee]

I see. If the penalty given to one person isn't harsh enough, the solution isn't to make the penalty harsher. No, the rational decision is simply not have trials at all.

Got it. Those founders were such leftist idiots for putting a treason clause in Article III. They should have simply put: Treason is whatever the executive says it is, and traitors are anyone the executive says, by virtue of proclamation.

Why didn't someone think of that before?

[snopercod]

That "socalled" Patriot Act has kept you safe the past 2.5 years.

Wrong. The vigilance, strength, and preparadness of the American people has kept me safe for the past 2.5 years.

[Protagoras]

My point was that it is ironic that the scum bag lefties are the ones defending the constitution in thic case, for whatever reason.

[Mo1]

It should be pointed out that he was even being treated differently that other Americans who did the same. The seven up northeast and that goofy kid who was with the enemy in Afganistan.

If I recall .. wasn't he going to be tried in a Military Tribunal?

[Protagoras]

If I recall .. wasn't he going to be tried in a Military Tribunal?

I don't think so, but if so, I stand corrected on that point.

[jwalsh07]

I don't know. And it is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Hardly. Members of Al Qaeda are enemy combatants pursuant to the Joint Resolution. Being an American citizen does not chnage that one whit. The Congress authorized the executive to prosecute war against Al Qaeda and their supporters. The executive is doing just that and it is the executive that makes decisions on what to bomb and who is an enemy combatant, not the courts. Padilla was arrested in America, the site of the opening battle in the current war.

If he is a traitor. He should be tried for treason, and if found guilty, hopefully shot.

Oh certainly but not until he is squeezed for intel, however long that takes.

If he committed other crimes, he should be prosecuted for those and receive the proper punishment.

Well now thats the point isn't it. Should American citizens who are members of Al Qaeda be treated as criminals or enemy combatants. If you treat them as criminals then you forfeit any chance at gathering intel on his fellow travelers in or about the US. From my vantage point whoever said the Constitution is not a suicide pact had it exactly right.

[Regulator]

Nope, the proper and constituional thing to do is exactly what was done

Not at all. If in fact he was an "American citizen", then the Constitution is clear on what to do with him, and Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft have no basis for the Ad Hoc designation of "enemy combatant", nor for military trials of US Citizens under such circumstances.

IIRC, the baffle speak a couple of years ago was that only aliens would be anointed with the "enemy combatant" label, that we were all not to worry. So, what happens? Richard Reid - an alien - ends up in a federal court and Sr. Padilla - allegedly a citizen - ends up in a Navy brig. Please. They can't even be consistent in applying their non-law. It's an ad hoc exercise of power, with no underlying Constitutional rationale.

As far as release on bail, his bail would probably be in the tens of millions, and there are plenty of suspects sitting in jails being held without bail because of the risk they present. Padilla would be going nowhere.

By the way, last time I checked, Richard Reid was tried, convicted, and currently headed for a natural lifetime in taxpayer custody. Have a little faith, pal. The criminal justice system works better than you think.

[thinden]

amazing, ain't it?

[Mo1]

I don't think so, but if so, I stand corrected on that point.

Well I could be wrong and if I am .. I'm sure there will be some around here that will correct me

But it was my understanding that at first they did not know how to try him .. but then it was decided that he would be tried in a Military Tribunal

[jwalsh07]

Look, why don't we cut this debate short. All you need do is point to the section of the Constitution which grants the judiciary the power to tell Congress how to conduct it's business.

Failing that I have considered your arguments and found them lacking in our constitutional republic. If you are arguing for judicial oligarchy, I will reconsider.

[oceanview]

should the government produce Zubayda and KSM at his trial? At least lugsoul answered the question honestly. What say you?

We have the same problem in the Moussaoui case, he wants to depose KSM and Zubayda, we can't allow it. We can't allow it for Padilla either. So what is his "trial" about then?

So unless you want a "sham" trial for this guy, I don't know what else to say. Our justice system was not designed to prosecute conspirators like this, its mostly designed to punish people AFTER the crime has been committed, which doesn't do a whole hell of alot to protect us against someone plotting to detonate a dirty bomb.

[oceanview]

sure, me and all my "prepared" friends are ready to stop a dirty bomb from being set off.

[Protagoras]

Members of Al Qaeda are enemy combatants pursuant to the Joint Resolution. Being an American citizen does not chnage that one whit.

That is incorrect. Not to mention, no one has proved that he is a member of Al Qaeda. If otherwise, you or I can be called that also and denied our rights without due process. It would be a call for the government with no recourse. No trial, no attorney, no charges. Just, "I say he's the enemy so he is".

Oh certainly but not until he is squeezed for intel, however long that takes.

You can't have it both ways. But you can sure try. If he has no rights, then there need be no trial. If he gets a trial on treason, he is entitled to his rights as a citizen.

[Recovering_Democrat]

You're partially right. Also lots of credit should be given to the JD's pursuit of terrorists: whether you'll admit it or not.

[Recovering_Democrat]

If you're going to make a wrong statement, I'll correct it. Ashcroft's department is not in custody.

So much of the handwringer's statements about the Homeland WoT is wrong, I feel the need to express the truth "loudly". :)

[Thane_Banquo]

According to Padilla's attorney, the government didn't even argue the Patriot Act before the court in this latest ruling.

[jwalsh07]

While I agree with you on the inconsistencies regarding Johnny Jihad and Richard the Shoe, We don't know each other well enough to be considered pals and if truth be known I think you exhibit a naivete over and above the call of duty.

There are reasons to treat Padilla differently, the nymber one reason being his association with Abu Zubaydah.

If Padilla had been treated as a criminal from the beginning there would have been no intel from him forthcoming. Now you may not see that as a big thing but I do. We had already lost 3000 dead with no idea if an end was in sight. But given that, evidently you would have set Padilla free on bail. Is that correct?

[Mo1]

he would be tried in a Military Tribunal

Maybe I should have said .. Military Court?

Either way .. my point is .. he wasn't going to be tried in a regular court as a criminal would be