Appeals Court Refuses to Transfer Padilla

Associated Press ^ | December 21, 2005 | Toni Locy

[NJ_gent]

You do see my point regarding the distinction between saving lives and living freely, though, right?

[thoughtomator]

In this case the enemy is the code-maker and we are the code-breakers. As the code-breakers, our objectives are first to break the code and read the messages, and secondly to conceal the fact that we've broken the code, so that we can continue to read the messages, and also so that the enemy cannot take countermeasures. (Technical improvements in cryptography are reduced in effectiveness by technical improvements in code-breaking; the game remains the same.)

And so goes the give-and-take of intelligence gathering - it's all about who knows what. If we know what our enemy is saying among themselves, that's good. If the enemy finds out that we know, that's bad, because this leads the enemy to communicate truly important information by more secure means, and also this opens up opportunities for disinformation - if our enemy knows that we can snoop on one of their methods of communication, but we don't know that they know that, then they can use that method as a way of passing false information to us and having us believe it, damaging our ability to sort truth from fiction and thus to make use of intelligence in general. A civil trial with discovery in Padilla's case will reveal to the enemy some of our methods and means of spying on them - the result of which can only be positive for the enemy and negative for us.

With regards to your last question, I believe Padilla is accused of plotting to detonate a radiological weapon in the city of Chicago.

In the current situation, the code comprises all of the methods of enemy communication, not just technological ones.

[jwalsh07]

Personally, I have no issue with what took place in Sudan. I'd have no problem with US soldiers, per rules of engagement, killing a threatening American citizen on the field of battle.

This is not what happened. No US soldier was anywhere near the American jihadist when they sent the missile up his arse. This incident is right on point. I understand you're position but I don't agree with it in these specific cases.

I'm looking for consistency from you and Scalia. Either enemy combatants of American citizenship are protected or they aren't. The Sudan incident was either a legitimate act of war, it was murder or geography modifies the constitution.

[ndt]

I do understand the whole generic Spy vs. Spy game (not the two birds in Mad mag.). My point is the in secure communications, the periodic generation of new keys is the norm. After 3 years, any enemy not bright enough to change their keys dozens of times, is no threat. They would have been eliminated early on.

"With regards to your last question, I believe Padilla is accused of plotting to detonate a radiological weapon in the city of Chicago."

Are you aware that the government has dropped (or attempted to) that charge?.

[jwalsh07]

You do see my point regarding the distinction between saving lives and living freely, though, right?

Liberty has always occupied a place on a balancing scale with life at the other end in times of war. An infinitesimal shift of the scale toward life really doesn't cause me too much concern.

If a POTUS began arresting people of any ideology because of their ideology, me and mine would be right next to you with our packs and weapons because the courts haven't the means to protect Americans from tyrants. That is left to the citizens when all is said and done.

[thoughtomator]

The cryptography analogy is not meant to be construed in a strictly literal fashion. It is not merely the breaking of encryption to which the methods of codebreaking apply; it is the entire range of intelligence-gathering activities, including placement of human agents, bugs, and other information-gathering tools. Whether we know what we know about Padilla via breaking an encrypted code or by a human agent in the enemy camp, or by mechanical spying devices, the important part is not to let the enemy know what we know and how we know it. This is a fundamental principle in warfare.

I am aware of the status of the charges against Padilla. It is precisely because the government is making the same calculation I have been describing and has decided that the risk of revealing our intelligence methods is higher than the risk of Padilla as an individual going free, or being charged with less than his full crimes - and this is the correct decision to make, when faced with the difficult choice imposed on it by civil courts acting outside their authority.

[NJ_gent]

"Hyperbole, there are no inviolable rights while there certainly are absolute truths."

Really? There are no inalienable rights? You sure we're talking about the same country? :)

"Why don't you enlighten us all and tell us how many citizens have filed court cases based on abuse of the Patriot Act?"

Considering the fact that all cases stemming from the Patriot Act are automatically sealed, that'd be rather difficult. The ACLU actually filed a suit on behalf of some librarians as I recall. However, the suit, as they posted it on their site, was redacted to the point that it could have been a grocery list. On the site, they explained that they'd filed a lawsuit on behalf of some librarians, but that they couldn't talk about the suit, couldn't say anything about the suit, couldn't say who's involved in the suit, and couldn't discuss any facts about the case.

The first rule of PATRIOT Act is you do not talk about PATRIOT Act.
The second rule of PATRIOT Act is you do not talk about PATRIOT Act.
The third rule of PATRIOT Act is you do not talk about PATRIOT Act.
(for all you Fight Club fans out there)

"And then tell us how many citizens have been jailed by the tyrant Bush."

First of all, I never called President Bush a tyrant. Secondly, and this is the scary part, I don't know how many citizens have been jailed as enemy combatants; no one does, save for a few at the top of the food chain. Can you honestly tell me you know for certain whether it's 3 citizens in military brigs or 300? That doesn't concern you?

"why don't you tell us how the courts will guarantee our liberty if Bush was indeed a tyrant. They would enforce their opinion how?"

By sending US Marshals to take control of the facility holding the individual they're tasked with taking into custody for the courts. This has been done at least once that I can recall with a civilian prison when a warden refused to honor an ex parte order. What you could see is a whole bunch of US Marshals, along with state and local police from near the facility in question, staging a massive invasion into a US military facility. What you would then have is US soliders, police, and Marshals shooting and killing one another. The Marshals take their jobs every bit as seriously as our military soldiers, and I don't think they'd hesitate at all to use overwhelming force to accomplish their given task, whatever the cost.

That's a horrible scenario I don't even want to contemplate, and any President who forces such a situation in the future should be immediately impeached and removed from office. I don't believe President Bush would ever let it come to that, but future Presidents just might.

[lugsoul]

If I knew that you didn't care about the Constitution, we could've avoided the entire discussion.

[NJ_gent]

What on Earth does that have to do with legal procedures for properly presenting secret and/or classified evidence in a court of law?

[NJ_gent]

"the Constitution, written after a victorious rebellion and after the first attempt at self government via the Articles of Confederation most assuredly was not a suicide pact."

The rebellion succeeded? There was a peace treaty signed? The War of 1812 didn't happen? The White House didn't burn to the ground at the hands of the British? ...

[thoughtomator]

See the following posts that explain it in detail to the other gentleman I have been discussing this issue with.

[NJ_gent]

"If that's what it takes to reduce the liberal judiciocracy to one of three co-equal branches of government again, then yes."

You seem to think that the US Marshals are a daycare service. They'd find out how many soldiers are stationed at the brig, then pull four times as many agents and state and local police into the area to stage a massive invasion. You'd end up with hundreds, if not thousands of dead US soldiers, US Marshals, and good, loyal police officers.

That ain't my cup of tea, thank you.

[NJ_gent]

I explained the distinctions for each individual case, as well as my position in each individual case. Please don't take my explaination for one, apply it to another, and say I'm inconsistent. :)

[NJ_gent]

"An infinitesimal shift of the scale toward life really doesn't cause me too much concern."

What is your opinion of the sentiment expressed in the New Hamshire state motto?

"If a POTUS began arresting people of any ideology because of their ideology, me and mine would be right next to you with our packs and weapons"

Take up arms? You think you'd make it past the local and state police? The FBI? ATF? Marshals? US Army? No modern rebellion succeeds without the support of the police and the military.

[jwalsh07]

Really? There are no inalienable rights? You sure we're talking about the same country? :)

Really. You scream fire in a crowede theatre and your inviolable right to speech becomes non violable right quick.

Considering the fact that all cases stemming from the Patriot Act are automatically sealed, that'd be rather difficult. The ACLU actually filed a suit on behalf of some librarians as I recall. However, the suit, as they posted it on their site, was redacted to the point that it could have been a grocery list. On the site, they explained that they'd filed a lawsuit on behalf of some librarians, but that they couldn't talk about the suit, couldn't say anything about the suit, couldn't say who's involved in the suit, and couldn't discuss any facts about the case.

This is just plain wrong. Habeas has not been suspended, due process continues unabated. Any citizen accused of a crime under the Patriot Act has access to the courts. Groups of librarians are not individuals. The correct answer is zero.

The first rule of PATRIOT Act is you do not talk about PATRIOT Act. The second rule of PATRIOT Act is you do not talk about PATRIOT Act. The third rule of PATRIOT Act is you do not talk about PATRIOT Act. (for all you Fight Club fans out there)

The Patriot Act is simply entires in the US Code. No magic that makes Bush's enemies disappear. Except for jihaidts I would hope.

First of all, I never called President Bush a tyrant. Secondly, and this is the scary part, I don't know how many citizens have been jailed as enemy combatants; no one does, save for a few at the top of the food chain. Can you honestly tell me you know for certain whether it's 3 citizens in military brigs or 300? That doesn't concern you?

This is false again. Habeas has not been suspended. Due process continues apace. The correct answer is 3, all having been well represented in courts of law. Now you can claim that there are more to the cows come home and ask me to prove the negative, I understand that. But the fact remains, all US citizens captured in the WOT have had unlimited access to the courts. Why there would be 300 more who haven't is left for you prove.

By sending US Marshals to take control of the facility holding the individual they're tasked with taking into custody for the courts. This has been done at least once that I can recall with a civilian prison when a warden refused to honor an ex parte order. What you could see is a whole bunch of US Marshals, along with state and local police from near the facility in question, staging a massive invasion into a US military facility. What you would then have is US soliders, police, and Marshals shooting and killing one another. The Marshals take their jobs every bit as seriously as our military soldiers, and I don't think they'd hesitate at all to use overwhelming force to accomplish their given task, whatever the cost.

You'd best check your organizational charts.

That's a horrible scenario I don't even want to contemplate, and any President who forces such a situation in the future should be immediately impeached and removed from office. I don't believe President Bush would ever let it come to that, but future Presidents just might.

Crap happens but this discussing this in the context of Bush and Padilla is ludicrous.

[jwalsh07]

I explained the distinctions for each individual case, as well as my position in each individual case. Please don't take my explaination for one, apply it to another, and say I'm inconsistent. :)

Actually you've refused to answer a straight forward question based in fact. I understand why.

[OXENinFLA]

PADILLA V. HANFT
December 21, 2005

A federal appeals court denies the government's request to transfer American terror suspect Jose Padilla from military custody to civilian custody, concluding that by doing so "the government may be attempting to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court, and also because we believe that this case presents an issue of such special national importance as to warrant final consideration by that court."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/padilla/padhanft122105ord.pdf

Pres. Bush's Memo on Transferring Padilla
http://public.findlaw.com/pnews/news/hdocs/docs/padilla/gwb112005memo.html

See the Padilla Terror Case History
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/index.html#padilla

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1505800_1

Padilla's Defense Attorney Andrew Patel
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1200006_1

Padilla's Defense Attorney Donna Newman
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2946081_1

FindLaw's Supreme Court Center
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/

[Leatherneck_MT]

Was Padilla a US Citizen?

[oceanview]

wee the posts from jwalsh above - Scalia just isn't seeing the big picture here. we can't suspend habeas for everyone just to deal with a handful of americans who become agents for foreign powers and are captured on US soil.

[oceanview]

Padilla's detention, the reasons behind it - are hardly secret.