Posted on 06/12/2002 4:21:35 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON - Two top Republic senators are questioning why terrorist suspect Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, is being detained outside the criminal justice system without charges.
''There is going to be a lot of public concern about how you treat a United States citizen,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a former prosecutor and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ``I think that guy's got to be kept in detention, but I think the definition is a congressional matter.''
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., added that ``the attorney general has to come up with a rationale for why they're doing this. They've got to make their case.''
Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said during a visit to Qatar Tuesday that the administration is in no hurry to bring Padilla -- accused of helping to plan a ''dirty bomb'' attack in the United States -- to justice.
''Our interest, really, in this case, is not law enforcement. It is not punishment,'' Rumsfeld said. ``Because he was a terrorist, or working with terrorists, our interest at the moment is to try to find out everything he knows so hopefully we can stop other terrorist acts.''
Padilla, 31, is confined indefinitely in a military brig in Charleston, S.C., as a ''military combatant,'' which means he can be detained for an unspecified period without facing trial.
Padilla's attorney complained on Tuesday that detention is punitive by its nature and said the military was holding him unconstitutionally.
''My client is a citizen,'' Donna R. Newman said outside federal court in New York where she had filed a writ of habeas corpus, which would require Padilla to be brought to court.
''He still has constitutional rights -- the right to counsel, the right to be charged by a grand jury. They have not charged him,'' Newman said.
Sen. Specter called Tuesday for congressional hearings, arguing that the right to set up military tribunals rests with Congress.
Other lawmakers, including liberal Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, sided with the administration.
''If you aid and abet the enemy, whether you are a citizen or not, you're not entitled to the right of due process,'' Schumer said.
Padilla's military custody stands in sharp contrast to the manner in which the administration handled terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen, and John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban apprehended in Afghanistan.
Both now face criminal charges in federal court. Padilla, arrested in Chicago on May 8, was detained as a material witness for a grand jury investigation until he was handed over to the Pentagon.
''Lindh has been charged under criminal provisions,'' Specter said. ``So you really wonder what the differences are between Lindh and this guy.''
Senior government officials have said that Padilla discussed the bomb plot with al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan, among them Abu Zubaydah, the aide to Osama bin Laden who was captured in Pakistan in March, and who later told U.S. officials about the bomb plan. It is believed that Padilla met with Zubaydah as recently as March, just before Zubaydah was captured.
U.S. officials said another al Qaeda associate involved in the alleged plan is being held by Pakistani authorities.
They said the man, who has not been publicly identified but is from an Arab country in the Middle East, is being interrogated by U.S. authorities at an undisclosed location. There were conflicting reports as to whether Pakistan had handed the suspect over to U.S. authorities.
The second suspect traveled with Padilla to eastern Afghanistan last fall to meet Zubaydah and later accompanied Padilla to secret meetings with other senior al Qaeda leaders inside Pakistan to discuss the ''dirty bomb'' proposal as well as potential attacks against hotels, gas stations and other targets, the official said.
One of the most urgent aspects of the investigation is whether Padilla had other accomplices, particularly in the United States.
''He clearly had associates, and one of the things we want to ask him about is who those associates were and how we can track them down,'' Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said on CBS's Early Show.
One law-enforcement official Tuesday cautioned that no specific target city or mode of carrying out the bombing had been determined. The official said it was not clear whether al Qaeda's leaders had fully embraced Padilla or the plan, which he had proposed to them.
''There is no indication he had the means to do it or was given the authority to do it,'' the official said.
Neither a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office nor Newman would comment on the grand jury investigation of Padilla.
But officials said he had not offered any information of value.
''He was not forthcoming,'' one official said.
Attorney General John Ashcroft said in the Padilla case that authorities were acting under a 1942 Supreme Court precedent ``which establishes that the military may detain a United States citizen who has joined the enemy or has entered our country to carry out hostile acts.''
Drew Brown of The Herald's Washington Bureau contributed to this report, which was supplemented with information from Herald wire services.
Ah, how the wheels of history turn.
Back in the 50s and 60s, this was the Better Red Than Dead mantra of the unilateral disarmament crowd. Just like you, they presented us with a false dilemna - We'd better (fill in the blank) or else we're all dead!
Their tactic - the very same one you are employing now - was to use fear to advance their political agenda. Remember the mid-80s TV miniseries The Day After? Fear-mongering was an intellectually dishonest tactic then, and it still is.
At least the lefties could point to a credible threat - the Soviet Union had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, and they had the means to deliver them. As for the current threat, well, let's look at the words of Paul Wolfowitz:
"He (Padilla) researched nuclear weapons and received training in wiring explosives while in Pakistan"
Hmm! A street thug and likely high school dropout became a nuclear weapons researcher for Al Qaeda? Wow! Now I'm really scared! What a bunch of hogwash!
Al Qaeda is a dangerous, international criminal entity. The current, ongoing, police action (it isn't a war) is completely justified. Nevertheless, the idea that Al Qaeda presents a greater threat than the Soviet Union is laughable. And guess what - despite the predictions of doom, we didn't all die. There was no reason to become Red in order to avoid becoming Dead. History has proven that it was a false dilemna. History will regard your fear-mongering in the same way.
"Due Process" is to shoot them!
Good point. If indeed this is a fight for our very survival, why haven't we reinstated the draft? One would think that in a time a national peril, we would want every able-bodied person in uniform.
What sacrifices has the government asked of us? Why, we're all supposed to shop till we drop for democracy! And pay no attention to the disintegrating stock market, the falling dollar, and the return of deficit spending - why that would be unpatriotic, don't you know?
You are exactly right - the only thing the government has asked us to sacrifice is our liberty.
Because power corrupts - and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why we have a government of laws, not a government of personality.
Looks like you will "quietly" accept coddling terrorism and terrorists.
Your coddling of these people may not be tyrannical, but it certainly is sucidal.
Good catch.
By the law of war, lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war; unlawful combatants, in addition, are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.It has long been accepted practice by our military authorities to treat those who, during time of war, pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, as unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission. This practice, accepted and followed by other governments, must be regarded as a rule or principle of the law of war recognized by this Government by its enactment of the Fifteenth Article of War.
Citizens of the United States who associate themselves with the military arm of an enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.
It doesn't surprise me.
Keep on posting there Iwo Jima, looks like whatever you are smoking has kicked in, and your deluded, crass, and arrogant rants are there for the world to see.
I find your disregard of the real world situation(i.e there are terrorists out there trying to kill us) and you appointing yourself as sole spokesman for all those who have died in service protecting out country just as appaling.
Let me connect the dots for you. The Hillary Administration, using the precedents set during the (ongoing) "war" on terror, declares the pro-life movement a "terrorist" organization. Everyone even remotely associated with the pro-life movement is arrested, thrown in solitary confinement, denied access to a lawyer, and is held without charges, indefinitely.
That said, the suspect is represented by counsel, and he(she) will soon file a writ of habeas corpus. Then some Federal judge will rule on the legality of the administration's actions.
Nothing unconstitutional here.
Flame Shields Up.
BD
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.