Posted on 01/10/2003 9:06:39 AM PST by Stultis
Dirty-Bomb Suspect Lawyer Meeting Debated
NEW YORK (AP)--The government asked a judge to reconsider his ruling that defense lawyers should be allowed to meet with Jose Padilla, a former Chicago gang member accused of plotting with al-Qaida to detonate a dirty bomb. In a case being closely watched by civil liberties advocates, the government wrote in court papers Thursday that it may have failed in prior arguments ``to focus on the grave damage to national security'' that would result if its interrogation of Padilla were interrupted. Letting Padilla see a lawyer would ``set back his interrogation by months, if not derail the process permanently,'' the government wrote. It asked U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey to reconsider his Dec. 4 decision that Padilla could meet with an attorney. Defense attorneys have requested a full week of meetings with Padilla, with no restrictions on questions, and are expected to argue that he was improperly detained as an enemy combatant. Padilla, 31, was arrested Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8 after he returned from Pakistan. He was first held as a material witness in a grand jury probe of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He was designated an enemy combatant a month later and transferred to military custody. Defense lawyer Donna Newman, who took on Padilla's case before he was designated an enemy combatant, has repeatedly argued that his rights have been trampled. ``Without Padilla's input, this court is deprived of a full factual record,'' Newman has written. Thursday's court papers were signed by U.S. Attorney James Comey and U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. They said that interrogations of detained enemy combatants had already helped thwart 100 or more attacks since September 2001. The government's filing in the Padilla case came a day after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled that the government could detain U.S. citizens captured overseas as enemy combatants without concern for rights normally afforded in criminal cases. The case involved the only other U.S. citizen known to be held as an enemy combatant, Yasser Esam Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan. The government noted in its filing Thursday that the court had reached that ruling without permitting Hamdi to meet with lawyers. The government believes Padilla may have information about al-Qaida's organization, its associates and any plans for future attacks. Allowing him to meet with attorneys would ``set back his interrogation by months, if not derail the process permanently,'' and could make the lawyers unwitting intermediaries between Padilla and terrorists, the government wrote. Interrogators have been able to obtain valuable intelligence from previously uncooperative subjects after months or even years have elapsed, the government wrote. Padilla is alleged to have approached Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaida's top terrorism coordinator, in 2001 and proposed stealing radioactive material to detonate a dirty bomb in the United States. The government has said he twice met with senior al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan in March and discussed a dirty-bomb plot.
Then put a gag order on his attorney or provide a military one.
and someday we may see an article about Flatch in the same situation.
What's the criteria that places an American citizen in this situation?
- Is that criteria subject to change?
- Who has authority to change that criteria?
- As a fellow American citizen, what is my legal recourse to appeal should a government bureaucrat misuse his authority?
- Anyone here believe that a government bureaucrat would never abuse their position?
I believe it's Sinclair who should be paying more attention.
All governments have certain groups within which make very little distinction between "gun owners" and "terrorists bent on your destruction".
The fact that you make such a distinction is a good thing in my eyes. However, neither of us should assume that the ATF, FBI, or the Office of Homeland Security makes the same distinction.
Please just be careful what you wish for, because... well you know the line....
Yes I know. They are called Liberals, Democrats, Socialists and Communists. We are working on that. ;^)
I could care less is foreigners are detained indefinately without counsel. I just want to make sure the rights of US citizens are preserved.
Then they would have to get congress to authorize the use of military force against those people before they would be able to designate them "enemy combatants".
This is authorized by congress.
I am constantly astonished that this fact is ignored here by people who I believe respect the Constitution.
The congress passed Public Law 107-40 ( the authorization of military force) and the president is doing this under that authorization and the court acknowledeges that:
"The President is authorized under the Constitution and by law to direct the military to detain enemy combatants in the circumstances present here, such that Padilla's detention is not per se unlawful".
And OTOH consider that if the president did not use military force against those the congress directed him to, that he would properly be subject to impeachment and removal for failing to defend us and for failing to uphold the law!
( and imagine if some terrible attack resulted from his negligence!)
BTW: I agree that Padilla should have contact with his attorney to dispute his designation as an enemy-combatant.
The court's order puts reasonable security limits upon that contact.
Their rights are preserved.
Congress changed the Laws of War after the 1812 war with Britain to include citizens to be treated as "enemy combatants" if they are.
The court has no authority to issue the order.
They have ruled that he is under jurisdidtion of the Defence Deparment therefore not under his jurisdiction.
The old "separation of powers" thingy.
Here's the ruling on Padilla which is being appealed: HERE -it's a 100+ page PDF file.
Just reading the conclusion, it seems to back the administration in just about everything but the access to counsel.
Maybe the administration wants something more restrictive.
"They have ruled that he is under jurisdidtion of the Defence Deparment "
No, that is what they are going to decide.
But since the court must keep within it's own constitutional powers:
"the court will examine only whether the president has some evidence to support his designation and whether that evidence has been mooted by subsequent events" (paraphrasing)
The government only has to show "some evidence" that then makes the default decision that they are correct and so the court has no jurisdiction and the lawyers have no standing.
That is nothing new. During wartime that is the way it has always been.
I am paying attention.
Terrorists are whatever the Gov says they are. Arab Islamics, Gun owners, Pro Lifers, illegal immigrant resistance, anyone out of favor with the ruling class. Today it's the ones you want denied their rights. Tomorrow it's you. Remeber the old thing about "I didn't protest when they caame for ..."? If rights can be denied one group, they can be denied any group. And there is no way to prevent it once the principle that it is okay to deny rights to someone because of their category of crime is established; as is being done today.
I say that if the constitution and bill of rights are outdated in todays world then do away with them. If not, then obey them without qualification. No pretenses.
I agree. It's hard for me to imagine what harm would be done by giving a court-appointed attorney access to him. And whatever harm might be done to him ought to be tolerable in a constitutional system -- think of the harm to our whole system that would be done by not allowing him access.
The court has no authority to order either. It is not within their jurisdiction.
The old "separation of powers" thingy.
Under the constitution and the applicable law it is the Defense Deparment.
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.