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 previous 1-2021-31 last
To: Always A Marine
Two points.

The trial of the one-eyed "American Citizen" responsible for the first attack on the WTC resulted in several items becoming public which aided and abetted the second attack on 9/11. Those were the governments being forced in open court to reveal that they knew Usama bin Laden's cell phone number and also being forced to turn over all architecturals regarding construction of the WTC.

And the second point is this. When the drone sent a missile up the tailpipe of the car in Yemen with the six bad guys, one of those bad guys was a United States citizen. Is the government guilty of murder?

21 posted on 12/04/2002 11:19:08 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
Two points.

The trial of the one-eyed "American Citizen" responsible for the first attack on the WTC resulted in several items becoming public which aided and abetted the second attack on 9/11. Those were the governments being forced in open court to reveal that they knew Usama bin Laden's cell phone number and also being forced to turn over all architecturals regarding construction of the WTC.

And the second point is this. When the drone sent a missile up the tailpipe of the car in Yemen with the six bad guys, one of those bad guys was a United States citizen. Is the government guilty of murder?

22 posted on 12/04/2002 11:19:10 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
The government isn't rounding up anybody. Two American citizens are being held as enemy combatants. Padilla and Hamdi. One American citizen was killed in Yemen a couple of weeks ago while he was in the company of his fellow travelers.

The judiciary is stepping on the CIC's perogatives here. Only one man can execute the war on terrorism and it isn't a Judge.

23 posted on 12/04/2002 11:24:53 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
There's more to this, and you know it. Though if you feel that Padilla should be able to engage in radiological homicide of Americans - as the evidence suggets he was plotting - so that the civil rights of all Americans somehow by that process are otherwise protected...it's your right to say it.
24 posted on 12/04/2002 12:33:10 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
There's more to this, and you know it.

A jury and a judge need to know it. I know next to nothing about the case beyond the fact the is an obvious Constitutional breech.

Though if you feel that Padilla should be able to engage in radiological homicide of Americans - as the evidence suggets he was plotting -

There is no evidence available for public inspection.

25 posted on 12/04/2002 12:40:32 PM PST by AdamSelene235
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The trial of the one-eyed "American Citizen" responsible for the first attack on the WTC resulted in several items becoming public which aided and abetted the second attack on 9/11. Those were the governments being forced in open court to reveal that they knew Usama bin Laden's cell phone number and also being forced to turn over all architecturals regarding construction of the WTC.

That is the risk of a free society; you're alternative leaves too much unchecked power in the hands of one man. I do not trust a police state.

And the second point is this. When the drone sent a missile up the tailpipe of the car in Yemen with the six bad guys, one of those bad guys was a United States citizen. Is the government guilty of murder?

Of course not. That bad guy was overseas, and in the company of targeted combatants.

26 posted on 12/04/2002 12:57:50 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The judiciary is stepping on the CIC's perogatives here.

I beg your pardon, sir. It is never the prerogative of the President to violate the Constitution of the United States. His highest oath is to support and defend the Constitution, and one of the chief roles of the Judiciary to ensure that neither the President nor the Congress oversteps it. What we are discussing is a Citizen being held incommunicado, without charges and without legal representation, on the whim of the President and the Attorney General.

27 posted on 12/04/2002 1:03:56 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
That is the risk of a free society; you're alternative leaves too much unchecked power in the hands of one man. I do not trust a police state.

A police state? Please. There are currently two American citizens being held as enemy combatants. One is Padilla and the other is Hamdi. There is no police state. There is a state of war and the Constitution grants the POTUS the powers of CIC during war. The POTUS has declared Padilla and Hamdi as enemy combatants and that's his preogative and it has precedent.

Of course not. That bad guy was overseas, and in the company of targeted combatants

So, the rights of citizens are geographically dependent and not absolute as you stated above?

28 posted on 12/04/2002 4:48:34 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine
I beg your pardon, sir.

Beg away but I have always worked for a living so the sir deal is a bit much.

It is never the prerogative of the President to violate the Constitution of the United States. His highest oath is to support and defend the Constitution, and one of the chief roles of the Judiciary to ensure that neither the President nor the Congress oversteps it.

The Constitution is clear. The POTUS is the CIC during war, not a Judge in New York. What Constitution are you reading from?

What we are discussing is a Citizen being held incommunicado, without charges and without legal representation, on the whim of the President and the Attorney General.

No what we are discussing is an enemy combatant who happens to be a US citizen. They are referred to in the Rules of War as saboteurs and spies and as such are, according to the rules of war and Ex-Parte Quirin, enemy combatants.

Your use of the word whim is whimiscial by the way.

But tell me is Hamdi also being held on a whim?

29 posted on 12/04/2002 4:55:59 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Iwo Jima; Always A Marine; aristeides; onedoug; Phantom Lord; Jack Black; RCW2001; AdamSelene235; ..
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.

Your argument on legal principal is credible (if debatable) but your speculative "explanation" (underlined portion) is pure horsepucky. Whether rightly or wrongly, with or without adequate legal justification, Padilla is being isolated from lawyers for only one reason: The P.O.S. is a terrorist. He met repeatedly with al-Qaeda operatives. He has intelligence information that we want, and that may thwart future attacks, and keeping him in isolation is the best, and possibly only, chance of getting it.

Here's an update to this story:

Dirty-Bomb Suspect Lawyer Meeting Debated (serious setback to Padilla interrogation sez govt)

30 posted on 01/10/2003 9:26:38 AM PST by Stultis (are "sarcasm" tags really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
The constitution lives.
31 posted on 03/11/2003 11:41:11 AM PST by Grover_Cleveland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


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