Padilla's Sentence

Today you'll probably be reading about the jury's conviction of Jose Padilla on counts of conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists in Bosnia and Chechnya, and providing material support to terrorists in the Middle East. Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of "dirty bombs" in that conviction. Maybe we can also point out to the public - and especially the Bush administration - the obvious conclusion that we can, in fact, prosecute terrorism suspects under the normal, and well-founded, public court systems. From Padilla's attourney:

Padilla's fate, pending appeal, remains unknown. Also unknown is whether the courts will ever definitively rule on the legality of the government's mistreatment of Padilla during his four years of military detention. But some things are certain:

The trial showed that our federal courts are perfectly capable of dealing with terrorism cases. A federal judge presided over the five-month trial of Padilla and his co-defendants with great care for both the rights of the defendants and for national security. The Bush administration has claimed since Sept. 11 that the federal courts cannot be trusted with terrorism matters. It has argued that we should scrap our centuries-old constitutional protections and replace our system of checks and balances with one awarding the executive complete discretion to lock up whomever he wants, for however long he deems appropriate. The Founders rejected that kind of arbitrary and oppressive power. And the federal court in Florida has shown how weak the administration's case for abandoning the Constitution really is.

As those in power start eroding your rights under the guise of "protecting the American homeland from terrorists," we need to ensure that the standard of due process of law is not taken from any U.S. citizen. And how we treat those non-U.S. citizens under our control and jurisdiction is how our society will be judged as well.

Comments

[NVH]

Wasn't Padilla a US citizen? Wasn't that the reason everyone was up in arms about how to deal with him? we were given the power to, or the prez took it, whatever, to classify him as an enemy combatant, stripping him of his rights, but b/c he was US citizen, we stepped into it on that. It's the whole square peg / round hole argument thing. We never took time to figure out all the general scenarios we might face and everyone, admin, attorneys take advantage. You would think in four years we could have figured it out and done it the right way the first time but everyone keeps pushing their stalled agenda, hoping for a break. Jesus, sit down at the table and figure it the eff out, that's what we pay these people for. I for one though, am not ready to arrest UBL and charge him and pay for his attorney, uh uh, we need a different approach altogether to deal with that, and we need the good graces of our allies to help, and THAT's the problem with pissing the rest of the world off, they don't want to help, and we don't want to capitulate...

[Guy M. Blasi]

I still cannot figure out why the general media in the USA can't distinguish between an "enemy combatant" and "enemy nations". Al Queda, Hezbullah, etc. are not from any nation, though the region of the Middle East. A great case in point is Padilla. Padilla is a United States citizen. I am personally pleased that as a citizen, he was tried and convicted for his crime. Take this a step further with respect to the free world's current enemies, those representing radical Islam. These radical Muslims do not wear a uniform of any recognized country. Therefore, those representing Radical Islam and are being held outside of the Geneva Convention are fighting for a theology rather than any respective country. Take that a step further and those on the looney-tune-left need to understand the rights granted under the Geneva Convention applies to the rules of war between nations. Factions, such as radical Islam, aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. I see those who sympathize on granting Geneva Convention rights to those detained (i.e. prisoners in Gitmo) as at the best misguided and at the worst misinformed (thanks to the liberal bias in the media). Sad to say that there is a far-left liberal faction in the United States who would be willing to trade our rights and freedoms for praying daily several times to Mecca and repressing our women in Birkka's.

[Ann Gaothin]

Guy, I hope that if you're ever arrested on any charge, you're locked away for five years with no access to attorneys, no knowledge of the specific charges against you, no right to call defense witnesses, and no ability to face your accusers in the courtroom. These are all rights guaranteed to you specifically under the Constitution, acknowledged through precedent, or adhered to on the basis of common law. Maybe then you'll understand why those of us on the "far left" believe in equal justice for all citizens, even those we believe are nefarious, evil, and downright stupid.

[Grandjester]

Ann is correct Guy, Padilla was a US citizen and was held w/o his rights for 3.5 years, he was finally sent to Fed court where he was convicted of talking shit and filling out at app for Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart, AQ, whatever). And before you go off talking shit about Geneva, ya might want to read it bright boy. Third Convention, Articles 3 and 4, some relavent points: "Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war" and from Article 4 "Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements"

[josh jasper]

I still cannot figure out why the general media in the USA can't distinguish between an "enemy combatant" and "enemy nations".

What you mean is, you don't understand why the rest of us just can't shut up and accept the government's right to hold anyone anywhere without trial for as long as they want, with no court access, and tell us that it's all in the name of national security.

[Polis]

Padilla Convicted, Bill of Rights Overturned
From May 8th, the date Jose Padilla was arrested.

The">http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html">The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The conviction of Jose Padilla means the administration has now enshrined the authority to pick you up off the street at any time, put you in a military prison, do anything they want to you, including torture, for 3 1/2 years, then release you if they feel like it to a civilian court, psychologically helpless to assist in your own defense, as long as the charge is "suspected of terrorism." According to AP Padilla did not look surprised. Why should he? His lawyer said he did not trust anyone and fully expected this would be another part of the long charade in which interrogators posed as lawyers, he was told he would never be released, and in general messed with his mind in ways that made him emerge not the same man.

This could now happen to you, to Kos, to me, anybody. This is way bigger than the Iraq War. If is for the freedoms for which the Iraq War is supposedly being fought. George Bush has overturned the U.S. Constitution.

The only remedy now is impeachment on grounds that Bush violated his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, the Law of the Land, legislation in Congress stating that previous precedents for the "enemy combatant" designation cannot apply to American citizens in a war that has no end, and the immediate release of Jose Padilla for grievous violation of his constitutional rights. If he "assisted" in terrorism, and he probably did not, as we can see from the government's incredibly weak case, so be it. Killers are released all the time because police did not read them their Miranda rights. The blame is on the government for blowing the case. It has been held in law that dismissal of a case is the only remedy which would instill proper respect by the authorities for the Law of the Land.

If the Padilla case stands, and GWB leaves office without being impeached, it will be as if the American Revolution had never been fought, as if the thousands of men who died">http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-eur/normandy/nor4o2.htm">died at Normandy died for nothing. All officers of the U.S. government are hereby reminded of their duty to the oath they took to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, and are ordered by We the People to effect the immediate arrest of the traitor George W. Bush.

From May 8th, the date Jose Padilla was arrested.

[Polis]

Officers Have Constitutional Obligation in Wake of Padilla Sentence

"I, _____having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." --Oath of the American military officer

The New York Times reported uncritically the government's position on the conviction of Jose Padilla today, of a dual justice system "to protect secret intelligence and other factors make terrorism cases unsuitable for the criminal justice system." Omitted was the fact that the U.S. Constitution leaves no allowance for a two-tier system for American citizens. The Bill of Rights, which was forced as a compromise on December 15, 1791 by a segment of Founders who thought the main body of the Constitution gave the federal government too much power, states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

James Madison and George Mason of Virginia, in drafting the Bill of Rights, asserted the principle of "inalienable rights," certain individual rights that cannot be taken away.

It is unclear whether or not the Founders intended foreign nationals to be covered by these rights. What is crystal clear is that they were intended for all Americans.

The NY Times thus joins the cabal currently seeking to enshrine unlimited detention by the government of any American citizen, with the minor inconvenience that it be accompanied by a charge of terrorism. Not a single mention of the constitutionality of Padilla's illegal 3 1/2-year detention was made in the Times article. This now has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Jose Padilla. This is the Constitution finally on its death bed.

The oath of the enlisted man and the officer upon entering the U.S. military differ in one respect: whereas the enlisted oath swears to "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me," the oath of the officer is to the Constitution and the Constitution only. Thus officers are charged with the higher duty. American officers: do your duty. Effect the arrest of the traitor George Bush.

from May 8th, the date Jose Padilla Was Arrested

[NVH]

Poilis, please, oh the drama...move to canada if you really think it's that bad. Legitimately the Admin mishandled this ONE case with Padilla being a US citizen then declaring him an enemy combatant, stripping him of his citizenry, then NOT having a plan to deal with him or the detainees at GITMO once they had them, mistakes, plenty of which were made by all prior to and after 9-11.
JESTER, I don't see ANY timeframes the conventions give to us to adjudicate these individuals, so are we still within the confines of such docs, other than maybe you think we've mistreated them a little more than the conventions allow for?? Which I of course disagree with...
ANN G, you are really scaring me, and I was a cop, I know EXACTLY how far I can go with the law and my rights, and the fact is, I'm more well informed than 95% of the people in this country, which still leaves like 15 million to keep you safe from being falsely arrested, held, and accused, so sleep well at night
JESUS!!