Posted on 03/12/2003 1:18:20 PM PST by eshu
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:13 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
NEW YORK (CNN) --A federal judge Tuesday ordered the government to allow lawyers to meet with alleged "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, an American citizen accused of being an al Qaeda operative who plotted to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" inside the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I would hope that this judgement would be welcome here, among all the staunch defenders of the American Way of life.
TO anyone who feels otherwise, consider this:
President Hillary Rodham Clinton...
(that ain't funny, man!)
He is not charged with any crime, let alone a felony, because being an unlawful enemy combatant is not a civil offense.
He was arrested while on a "scouting mission". That is another way of saying that he is a spy.
That is a war offense. That is why he was transferred to the Defense department.
If he did what they say, I hope he is dragged out back and put down like a mad dog.
I'm just trying to defend our principles of justice, our traditions, our Freedom from fear of thuggery... I hope you all understand.
You are right. There is not a criminal case to be made against him. He was stopped before he was able to do anything he could be prosecuted for in federal court.
Does that mean he should be turned loose until he does something he could be prosecuted for?
War is also about preventing attacks, so he should be hung as a spy.
And what power should Hillary Clinton, as president, have to declare U.S. citizens 'enemy combatants' and pick them up off of U.S. streets? Who should have review of these decisions? President Bush things no one should.
He was arrested while on a "scouting mission". That is another way of saying that he is a spy.
That's the government's story, and I'm sure they're sticking to it. That said, the man is innocent until proven guilty.
That is a war offense. That is why he was transferred to the Defense department.
Should President Hillary Clinton have the authority to declare you an enemy combatant, concocting any necessary offenses for the press conference, and then imprison you without charging you with a crime or providing access to a lawyer? Is that the America you want to create?
So we have a crime there we can prosecute. (I would think.) Now, if there is no evidence, what are we doing here?
Question: Did the Nazis at Nuremberg have lawyers?
And we do put spies on trial, including the process of charging them and allowing them counsel.
I'll answer that. If the Justice Department wishes to declare an American citizen to be an enemy combatant, there should be due process for such where Justice has to present the evidence for the declaration and the defendent can present a defense. Once that has happened and a judge (or, preferably, a panel of judges) rules in favor of the government, then and only then can he go into the enemy combatant black hole.
This is just too dangerous a power to bestow upon the executive branch without some kind of check and balance from the judiciary.
Do you recall a recent story where someone who was spying for North Korea was arrested, but could not be charged because he had not delivered any classified information?
Do you contend there should not be such a thing as "laws of war" administered by the Defense Department?
That has been litigated and the Supreme Court has stated that they defer to the military in matters of war.
I contend that there should be due process for any American citizen in these situation, whether action against an American citizens is prosecuted by Justice or Defense. If you allow the federal government to circumvent such with good intentions, it won't stop there. I am more frightened of a government with the ability to make its citizens disappear down a black hole than I am of our enemies. And I don't see how allowing due process for Padilla will endanger security in this country if due process is carefully controlled.
And SCOTUS also found a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Just because SCOTUS rules in favor of a matter does not mean they are correct or are keeping potential dangers to liberties in mind. This is simply too dangerous a power to entrust to the executive branch without some kind of check and balance from the judiciary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.