Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge: Court can decide if dirty-bomb suspect properly held; Padilla can meet with attorneys
Associated Press / SFGate

Posted on 12/04/2002 7:36:17 AM PST by RCW2001

Wednesday, December 4, 2002
©2002 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/12/04/national1021EST0545.DTL

(12-04) 07:21 PST NEW YORK (AP) --

A federal court has authority to decide whether Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member accused of plotting with terrorists to detonate a radioactive "dirty" bomb, was properly detained as an enemy combatant, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Padilla has been barred from meeting with lawyers since his arrest May 8. U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey said Wednesday that Padilla may meet with them now.

The ruling was a blow to the government, which had argued that Padilla, a U.S. citizen, had no right to challenge its actions in court because he was detained as an "enemy combatant."

Padilla was arrested on a material witness warrant issued by a grand jury and secretly held in a federal jail. He has been in a Navy brig since he was declared an "enemy combatant" in June and transferred to the control of the U.S. military. The government says the "enemy combatant" declaration allows it to hold him without formal criminal charges.

The government said Padilla twice met with senior al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan in March and discussed a plot to detonate a radiological weapon in the United States.

A spokesman for U.S. Attorney James B. Comey had no immediate comment. Lawyers for Padilla did not immediately return a telephone message for comment.

©2002 Associated Press  


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 12/04/2002 7:36:17 AM PST by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Padilla, as an American citizen arrested in America should have been promptly provided an attorney or granted access to the attorney of his hiring and immediately charged with a crime or set free. Period. End of story.
2 posted on 12/04/2002 8:21:22 AM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Which President said, when informed of a Supreme Court decision he disagreed with "lets see them enforce it". What are they going to do, send Public Defenders to Guantanamo Bay en masse?
3 posted on 12/04/2002 8:22:50 AM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Padilla, an American citizen has been held as a prisoner for 7 months WITHOUT being charged with a crime and WITHOUT access to a lawyer. That is WRONG. And this wrong must be corrected. He should have been charged with a crime or set free. Period. The government has no right, nor authority to hold US Citizens as criminal prisoners without charging them with crimes.
4 posted on 12/04/2002 8:28:10 AM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I disagree. He is being held as an enemy combatant, and could potentially pass information detrimental to the lives and safety of other American citizens through a legal conduit.

In fact, I feel that all American Islamists, i.e, those who would implement jihad to invoke sharia, or Islamic law, on the infidel by force, if so identified, should be similarly detained.

5 posted on 12/04/2002 8:52:33 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I'm willing to see the government hold a citizen like Padilla without trial if it can satisfy a court that it has reasonably classified him as an enemy combatant. What has really troubled me about the government's position is that it has claimed it shouldn't have to make such a showing to a court.
6 posted on 12/04/2002 8:55:45 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
This is good news, finally. Padilla might well be a traitor and deserving of the death penalty, but he is a Citizen whose rights cannot be taken away without due process. Let the charges be proven in open court, to a jury of fellow citizens.

If the government can ignore the rights of one citizen, it can do the same to any and all of us.

7 posted on 12/04/2002 9:05:15 AM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
He is being held as an enemy combatant, and could potentially pass information detrimental to the lives and safety of other American citizens through a legal conduit.

As far-fetched as it may sound, what is to keep a future government from doing the same to you someday? You might be a pro-lifer, rounded up after agents provocateur blow up a few butcheries (remember the Reichstag?). Or perhaps a future government will attempt a bold power grab, and you might belong to a group calling for the return to individual liberty and constitutional government.

Think for a minute. Must the government prove any case of wrongdoing against you -- a Citizen -- in a Constitutionally-prescribled court of law which presumes your innocence? Or might it simply declare your guilt by your mere association with an unpopular group, and then quietly dispose of you in a secret court martial with secret evidence and anonymous witnesses? Who will be empowered to make those determinations? And to whom will these dictators be accountable?

The answers can be found in the history of the French Revolution, where the accusation was tantamount to conviction. Imagine what mischief a future American government can do if allowed to lump you in with the hated group de jour, and simply ignore your rights as a Citizen.

8 posted on 12/04/2002 9:27:39 AM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
You are exactly right. Our system is quite strong enough to try Padilla properly and by the rules. We don't need to cut any Constitutional corners. If Padilla is guilty, he'll get what he deserves. What concerns me is that the government might be using this tactic to punish or dispose of people who they know they CANNOT prove are guilty of any wrongdoing -- they just think that they are "bad people" who need to be gotten rid of.
9 posted on 12/04/2002 9:35:21 AM PST by Iwo Jima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
I disagree. He is being held as an enemy combatant, and could potentially pass information detrimental to the lives and safety of other American citizens through a legal conduit.

If there is enough evidence to jail him, there is enough evidence to have a jury of his peers convict him.

There are plenty of folks out there with security clearances that could be called for jury duty. The trial details could be sealed afterwards for 10 years or so.

Holding a citizen without trial is wrong: immoral and illegal. It might be the most convenient course of action, but the precedent is unbelievably dangerous.

10 posted on 12/04/2002 10:02:49 AM PST by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Spot on.
11 posted on 12/04/2002 10:04:40 AM PST by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; onedoug
Padilla should be charged with a crime to be held as a prisoner. It seems that after 7 months of being held prisoner the government still does not have the ability to charge him with a crime and that there is virtually no case against him.

As far as an enemy combatant goes, seriously, what evidence has been presented to show that his detention is vital to the security of the United States or that he was actually involved in 'combating' the US?

12 posted on 12/04/2002 10:22:09 AM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235; Always A Marine
As I said, I disagree.

"There are plenty of folks out there with security clearances that could be called for jury duty. The trial details could be sealed afterwards for 10 years or so."

Even here, you're advocating an essentially closed trail.

Early legal strategies of many persons charged with espionage threaten that classified information will come out in open court, or be exposed to administrative segments without security clearences.

The preliminary evidence that Padilla was an enemy combatant I believe justifies holding him as such. If, at some point, he can be tried when the danger he poses, passes, fine.

I'm not worried about myself in this regard, to the point, once passed, where I would be willing to wage war on my countrymen. Not to say that point couldn't come. Though it definitely did come for Padilla. And I say he's justifiably held.

13 posted on 12/04/2002 10:22:39 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
In fact, I feel that all American Islamists, i.e, those who would implement jihad to invoke sharia, or Islamic law, on the infidel by force, if so identified, should be similarly detained.

So what your saying is that if the government "thinks" a citizen might commit a crime or that a citizen "might" engage in an attack on the US based on the citizens religion it should be able to detain those persons?

What is the burden of proof that you would require the government to meet to act in such a way? A hunch?

14 posted on 12/04/2002 10:24:59 AM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Islamists have already attacked this country in numerous instances and are continuing to wage war on American and Western civilization as we write here.

To wage war, is in fact to wage war. And that is, in fact exactly what I want our government to do against our enemies. That is government's pupose.

15 posted on 12/04/2002 10:31:29 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
The preliminary evidence that Padilla was an enemy combatant I believe justifies holding him as such. If, at some point, he can be tried when the danger he poses, passes, fine.

And what evidence would that be?

16 posted on 12/04/2002 10:34:42 AM PST by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Islamists have already attacked this country in numerous instances and are continuing to wage war on American and Western civilization as we write here.

Catholic priests have waged decades of sexual abuse on children. Following your demands regarding muslims, the government should be rounding up catholic priests and those they associate with to prevent future child abuse.

17 posted on 12/04/2002 10:38:42 AM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
..."Attorney General John Ashcroft said Al Muhajir -- who was born Jose Padilla -- was captured May 8 as he flew from Pakistan into O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois. Officials described the flight as a reconnaissance mission.

Officials said that when Al Muhajir arrived in Chicago, he declared having $8,000 but was found to have more than $10,000 in his possession.

In the weeks before he flew to Chicago, Al Muhajir was tracked flying between Pakistan, Egypt and Switzerland, officials said.

U.S. officials later said an "associate" of Al Muhajir had been arrested in Pakistan before May 8. It was not clear whether this was the "associate" Ashcroft referred to when he said Al Muhajir was working with someone in Pakistan on plans to build a dirty bomb." --CNN

...And, I suspect it goes deeper. Naturally, this is based only on what I know. Yet even by that little, I'm satisfied.

18 posted on 12/04/2002 10:41:44 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
If they can be identified as advocates of such activity, such as as active members of NAMBLA, for example, I consider that sedition and conspiracy, and which would, I feel, constitute grounds for such action, yes.

Though this is primarily domestic criminal activity as opposed to international warfare, each having its relevence to national security.

19 posted on 12/04/2002 10:46:26 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
I see. So he was found in possession of money, gasp, and John Ashcroft doesn't like.

Sentence: Life.

Wow, can't wait till the next Janet Reno.

20 posted on 12/04/2002 11:08:41 AM PST by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson