WAR: White House Must Charge or Free Jose Padilla

A federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to either charge Jose Padilla with a crime or release him. Padilla has been held for more than two half years as an enemy combatant. U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd indicated that the government cannot hold him indefinitely. In his 23 page opinion, Judge Floyd stated "The court finds that the president has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold petitioner as an enemy combatant". The government has 45 days to take action.



While I have no problem with the suspected terrorist being held I am bothered by the due process being afforded them. If we ignore the values and rights contained within our constitution, we have little to fall back on. The case against Padilla seems to be solid, so I fail to see why they would not charge him and give him a trial. Club Leavenworth is lovely this time of year.

I think the president is not going to be very happy with this,

In his 23 page opinion, Judge Floyd stated "The court finds that the president has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold petitioner as an enemy combatant". The government has 45 days to take action.

I feel that if the man is guilty well lets condemn him and get over with, but having the bush administration been put in the line by Judge Floyd, hum...........I wonder.

This will probably be appealed within that specified 45 days.
How many appeals would be allowed anyhow?
My reason for asking is that I am of the opinion, in the case of Mr. Padilla, the appeals will roll till exhausted.
At such a time, then he will either be released based on insufficient evidence(s) or charged based on the compiled/gathered evidences.




seekerof

Originally posted by FredT
While I have no problem with the suspected terrorist being held I am bothered by the due process being afforded them. If we ignore the values and rights contained within our constitution, we have little to fall back on. The case against Padilla seems to be solid, so I fail to see why they would not charge him and give him a trial. Club Leavenworth is lovely this time of year.

It is real hard to come up with a single defintion of what a enemy combatant is. However I did find this.

A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a lawful combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of war. Such persons should be treated according to applicable civilian laws (if any). In practice they may be tortured or executed.

As anyone can see by the bold type this individual does fit the description they have.

(Makes memo to send a copy of this to the judge)

As far as the ICRC claims they should be treated as prisioners of war, that is hogwash. No formal declaration of war has ever been issued by the president for this conflict.

Edit to add this link

www.cfr.org...

Has a somewhat better description.



[edit on 2/28/2005 by shots]

shots
A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a lawful combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of warAs anyone can see by the bold type this individual does fit the description they have.

I tell you what in 'them wod's Beyond Yonder"(the woods behind by back yard) we have a lot of people that can fit that description very well, they are always carrying guns and spying on the deers.

I wonder when the government is going to come and get them

[edit on 28-2-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043

shots
A captured person not wearing a uniform who is caught carrying weapons or engaging in warlike acts (such as a spy) is not a lawful combatant and is therefore not protected by the laws of warAs anyone can see by the bold type this individual does fit the description they have.

I tell you what in 'them wod's Beyond Yonder"(the woods behind by back yard) we have a lot of people that can fit that description very well, they are always carrying guns and spying on the deers.

I wonder when the government is going to come and get them

[edit on 28-2-2005 by marg6043]

Yeah marge but those men are not going to harm citizens are they?

Originally posted by shots
Yeah marge but those men are not going to harm citizens are they?

Actually it was some complains by some neighbors that were concern about bullets flying the wrong way and endangering the children around.

This case is disturbing for many reasons. Jose Padilla is a U.S. citizen and he was arrested in the United States. The fact that he has been held for over 2 years without being charged and without access to an attorney--or more succinctly, been completely denied due process and had his Constitutional rights clearly violated--completely at the governments whim is frightening. Even if Padilla is guilty, he is entitled to proper legal treatment as per the Constitution. If it is denied to one person, it can be denied to anyone.

But the other issue is that the reason why Padilla hasn't been charged is because once they charge him, he will have to be provided access to an attorney and evidence about why he was arrested will have to be released. It is believed that the information that led to Padilla's arrest was obtained via torture of other Al Qaeda leaders in custody.

The use or torture is extremely problematic because any information obtained is inadmissable in court and any suspects that are tortured or detained based on this information cannot be prosecuted. Even suspects that would call other suspects that have been tortured cannot be prosecuted.

Information revealed via torture would never be admissable in court because a) it would never hold up because it is considered unreliable and inaccurate and b) the U.S. government is not anxious to create a public record of officially sanctioned torture... ouch.

Perhaps torturing suspects may give the U.S. government a feeling of revenge or sick satisfaction, but it may not reveal accurate information nor is it providing avenues to proper legal investigations or prosecution.

slate.msn.com...
www.cato.org...
www.time.com...

So I see why he got the judge to push the issue, he is after all an American citizen. So you are right his constitutional rights has been denied, so hey, if he is allowed to walk away he can come back and sue the government.

For the rest of us Americans this will be a reminder that it could be any of us.

Originally posted by marg6043
So I see why he got the judge to push the issue, he is after all an American citizen. So you are right his constitutional rights has been denied, so hey, if he is allowed to walk away he can come back and sue the government.

For the rest of us Americans this will be a reminder that it could be any of us.

I doubt that Padilla will ever be a free man.

But, unfortunately, marg, if even if the government did make a mistake, held him for 2 1/2 years, ruined his life, possibly tortured him, and ensured that he will never lead a normal life again, should he decide to sue for damages, the U.S. government will invoke the state secrets privilege and he will be SOL....

Just like they did to Maher Arar, husband & father, who was an innocent Canadian citizen abducted by the CIA when returning from vacation at JFK airport because he was suspected of being a terrorist. Under the U.S. government's policy of "extraordinary rendition", he was shipped to Jordan and then to Syria, where he denied legal council and was brutally tortured for a year. When it became clear that he was innocent, he was released and sent home. He is attempting to sue the U.S. government, but they have invoked the state secrets privilege, leaving him little recourse.

www.iht.com...

Originally posted by lmgnyc

Just like they did to Maher Arar, husband & father, who was an innocent Canadian citizen abducted by the CIA when returning from vacation at JFK airport because he was suspected of being a terrorist.

I tell you what, he should sell his life story and have it published, I will read it, specially for what it was done to him by what US considers his allies.

Welcome to the NWO.

Government is dropping the ball here.

If the guy is a raging psychopath who was actually planning on setting off a dirty bomb in a city, by all means, prove it and string his loony ass up.

If he isn't, be done with it and commit resources to catching the people who actually are trying to do that.

This makes no sense.

Originally posted by marg6043
I tell you what, he should sell his life story and have it published, I will read it, specially for what it was done to him by what US considers his allies.

Even if he did indeed do what they are saying he has? The man is very likely scum. Down there with bin ladin himself and the 911 hijackers. Would you sympathize with the 911 hijackers? Would you happily read padillas book if you were one of the people his cell killed in their dirty bomb attack?

The question put to everyone is, why no charge in public?

There are a few logical reasons.

One is that the gov doesn't want a public trial in which its sources are revealed. I think that this is unlikely tho. A military tribunal could do it safely, and a secret trial or some such could be done outside of the military system.

Another idea is that the government is testing the waters. They don't, and certianly didn't, know the full scale of future attacks or incidents, so when the oppurtunity came up to see if they can indeed class a citizen as a combatant, they took it. In this way they can establish precedent and see what the legal ramifications of it are sooner rather than later. And better to try it with padilla and loose, than do it with dozens of other terrorists and loose.

Or doing it on principle. IOW, this man, they are convinced, is infact an enemy combatant, and does not deserve the protections of the document he is trying to destroy or the society whose members he is trying to murder.

I think the more interesting question is why has there not been a military tribunal. I think that the fact that there hasn't been one, just an 'administrative decision to detain', indicates that the last two options are plausible.