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.
Rights? I don't care about his rights. What about the rights of the people his plot would have killed or poisoned? Who speaks for them?
Linclon suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus (sp?) during the Civil War. The measures Justice is taking trying to prevent another 9/11 is analogous. Habeus Corpus was not suspended forever, and holding suspects as military combatants will not prevail or pervade.
President Bush is doing the right thing. Freedom is not going to be worth much when and if radiation corrupts the air we breath and the water we drink. Do you think the Founding Fathers would have reacted differently that the current President in this siutation? I don't! Due process ain't what it used to be, being that it has been corrupted by defense attorneys ready, willing and ably abetted by higher courts to defend the indefensible.
The founding fathers were patriots and idealists, but they were not fools. Security and freedom go hand in hand. Freedom can't exist amid chaos, ask any of the people around the world under siege. I am not worried about this man's civil rights; I'll leave that tothe likes of those great defenders of freedom, Dershewitz (sp?), Cochran and Shapiro.
Because of his despicable and treasonous actions in a foreign country he has forfeited his full rights. You would give this avowed enemy of our nation greater rights than we give our own military men and women. You, Iwo Jima, and the rest of the knee jerk mental flyweights are screwed up in your thinking and priorities beyond all belief.
How do you know that he joined forces with Al Qaeda? Have you seen any evidence? Has the Gov't presented any? Has a jury looked at the evidence and the facts? No.
Remember when the Gov't was telling us that David Koresch and the Branch Davidians were running a drug lab and abusing little girls? All charges that turned out to be lies?
Now before I am flamed, I am not taking the side of either of these gentlemen. But this is a double standard. Preferrably treat them both as POWs and return them to their new homeland after the Police Action on Terror is over
I don't think you understand the situation. He has been held over a month without any charges being filed against him. He hasn't been arraigned. His lawyer is not court appointed, as he has been "removed from the justice system" and hasn't been allowed to communicate with her. She's doing this on her own.
How would you like them to be able to do this to you, just because they want to? Without presenting any evidence to a Grand Jury, a judge, or anyone else, that you have committed any crime.
This is another cases where the legal/right thing to do may not be the best for the country yet we all need to demand our elected officials and government stick to the provisions of the constitution. As I said, charge him, detain him without the possibility of bail, put him on trial and execute him.
As far as history goes, the man was originally detained by Pakistan who could have held him indefinately were it not for US intervention on gaining his release.
In all honesty, in this case, I'm giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt. I love my freedom just as much as the next person, but IMHO if we aren't willing to give just a little to gain the safety of all, I'm not sure how much of a country we might have left one day should these terrorists achieve their ultimate goal...our destruction. The terrorist are counting on the fact that they can use our laws and freedoms against us to bring about our demise. They've already demonstrated this ability and will continue into the future. I understand everyone's fears and justifications against holding this man under a charge that renders him a non-citizen, but we seem to be bickering over the application of a 60-year old ruling. Where was everyone complaining during those 60 years or do we only complain when these laws are brought to the forefront of our knowledge?
In a military court he would have the opportunity to make his argument that he didn't belong there. He'll get a military "due process".
OTOH, if the government's contention that he's a member of Al Qaeda doesent pan out or lies on a thin reed, it's going to be a huge setback for Bush, . Beyond stupid, IMO.
Playing with yourself again?
The government can't make it's case. A street-punk and likely high school dropout was in charge of Al Qaeda's radiologic weapon research program? Yeah, right!
If, as the government alleges, this guy is an Al Qaeda operative, then let them prove their case in court. If he is found guilty, then execute him.
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.