Two senators questioning detention without charges [Bush-hater, John McCain, at it again]

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.

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.

911 was a tragedy but not nearly the tragedy the nullification of our Constitution would be

According to this article the man's rights have not been nullified. He has an attorney who is pursuing them. I will wait and see the outcome and I will not fault the DOJ for playing hardball.

scalia_#1 posted the relevant passage from U.S. Supreme Court EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) on a another thread yesterday:

Here is the relevant passage from Quirin that is the basis for Padilla's detention and his removal from the jurisidction of the civil courts:
"Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the 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 is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt [who claimed to be an American citizen] is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused."

Like it or not the government is wrong on this point. First, the constitution is clear on holding a person in custody without charges filed against them.

Secondly, when Bush signed his executive order for military tribunals, he specifically placed in the order the fact it would not be used against US citizens.

Yes, it's funny seeing senators who usually wipe their backsides with the constitution bring it out in this or any other case, yet in this particular case they are right.

This terrorist needs to be charged with a crime, given a fair trial then taken out back and executed as the traitor he is.

Simple solution....File some charges against him.

It's not that simple, unless you don't ever want to get anything further from him. The minute that he is charged, his lawyer stands between him and the government and they will no longer have access to him for questioning.

Rather than bitch, McLame and Specter would be more helpful if they introduced legislation that would automatically remove citizenship from an individual who joins a terriorist group.

Would Specter be happier if Padilla pulled an Einhorn?

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the feds finally crack the anthrax case, and the perp is an American with ties to the militia/patriot movement. I wonder how many here would cheer if the feds started rounding up everyone with even vague connections to militia/patriot groups, and held them incommunicado?

BINGO

If we're so ready to discard the constitution now, if the shit ever really hit the fan (WWIII style) we'd be living in a monarchy in no time at all.

I have no problem detaining supicious foriegners, but once I heard the word "citizen" that's my line. This could open a can of worms.

It's not all a big game between idiot-boy McCain, Spector, Bush and the Rats folks. It's not a contest to see who comes out looking better. This is admittedly a difficult issue, but if having a citizen whisked away without being charged "because we say so" doesn't at least raise concerns you need to re-evaluate your values and re-read our founding documents.

Give the bastard a trial and shoot him. Don't give a future Clinton administration the sound bite "Well GW did it" when they're whisking you off.

The Constitution isn't a suicide pact and this clown's liberty is trumped by the right to life of the thousands he was and is intent on killing.

By joining forces with Al Qaeda to attack American citizens he has in fact renounced his citizenship.

SCOTUS ruled in Ex Parte Quirin in 1942 that the detaining of saboteurs, modern day terrorists, or what they called unlawful combatants is indeed constitutional. [Emphasis added]

Game, set, match.

Huh? Your comments make no sense. The fact that this guy was fortunate enough to have a lawyer come to his aid does not undermine the argument that his detention is illegal, unconstitutional, unAmerican, and immoral. Not to mention risky business which puts us all in greater, not lesseer, risk.

The next ( or the last??? person who becomes one of the "missimg" may not be so fortunante as to have an unknwn attorney to whom he has never spoken come to the aid of himself, the Constitution, and our country.

Times have changed since 9/11.
How are we to go forward if not to initiate change that will pinch someones toes somewhere?
Progress hurts, I just pray it doesn't hurt you or yours in protecting these terroroists.

Well, times have changed even more since the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.
Despite the determined attempts of nefarious politicians, the document has survived mostly intact as a model for the world.

I'm by no means saying the guy is innocent.
I'm just stating the fact - and it is a fact - that the Constitution applies to him if he is a citizen.
For us to deny this is both politically inconsistent and hypocritical.

Do you disagree that we would be crying foul if Bill Clinton were doing this?

How about if such action were taken by a future President Hillary!?
Suppose she decided to round up certain "activists" who were "extremist" members of a "hate site" called FreeRepublic.com?

I guess all we would be able to say from our jail cells is "Progress hurts".

"Secondly, when Bush signed his executive order for military tribunals, he specifically placed in the order the fact it would not be used against US citizens."

See post# 62. I don't believe they are holding him based on the Patriot Act or Bush's EO. He entered our country with intent to cause harm to the populace and therefore the Justice Department applied EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).

Except that they have a GREAT DEAL in the way of evidence, and would like to hear what this piece of doo doo has to say about his adoptive brethern towelheads. This guy didn't get caught selling crack on the street, HE WAS ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO KILL THOUSANDS OF US with a radioactive bomb. They have proof of that, if it's proof you require. I don't particularly care how they treat him in the brig, nor to I care if they keep him there indefinitely or forever.

The next ( or the last??? person who becomes one of the "missimg"

Of course, there's the 2,000 already dead and missing from the WTC and Pentagon due to the feckless Fed's reluctance to intrude on the precious "rights" of terrorists.

You'd sacrifice the lives of all of us to protect the non-existent "rights" of a convicted double-murderer scum street-punk who voluntarily travelled to Pakistan to receive instructions from our sworn enemies on how to kill tens of thousands of American citizens without affordng them the least due process.

You're broad-minded all right. Please feel free to sacrifice your own life for this treasonous twit. You have no right to sacrifice mine.

And none of you knee-jerkers have told us how this punk is being tortured or treated inhumanely.

You are missing my point. The claim is the guy isn't having his rights upheld but at the same time he has an attorney (which is most likely court appointed) and that attorney is pursuing his rights under the constitution. I don't see where this man's rights have been violated yet.

Isn't it up to our courts to apply the laws or is it up to our public opinion ?

By joining forces with Al Qaeda to attack American citizens he has in fact renounced his citizenship.

Dangerous drivel. The Constitution- and liberty-loving patriots on this thread want this miscreant and any others like him tried for treason and, if found guilty, shot. On the other hand the whiny-assed, statist, liberal, Charles Schumer followers want to give him an easy out by falsely stating that the very acts which makes a person a traitor also makes him not a citizen. How illogical! If he's not a citizen, then he's not a traitor. Or is that the result you really want to see? Why are you protecting this low-life?

Follow the Constitution! Prosecute this scum! Protect our safety! There is no contadiction in doing all three at once.

How about if such action were taken by a future President Hillary!?

I understand the fear the thought of Hillary as President evokes in all of us, and she, more than most, would probably manipulate the definitions of our laws to further turn the Constitution into her living document.

But progress in safety cannot be hindered by fear of the future. Granted your argument is a worthy one, but don't you think this is an even bigger reason to ensure the election of candidates who would not abrogate the law to their own ends? That in itself should be our goal in the first place.

an attorney should not have to 'pursue' his clients rights. His rights are or should be protected by the Constitution.

Then by that logic no one needs representation and no one needs courts.

The gov't believe they can hold him without charing him and the man through his attorney disagrees.

They are apparently heading to court over this. Everything is as it should be in my opinion.

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.