Just as soon as you prove me wrong, I promise to move on and will even publicly apologise to you for wasting your precious time.
Or, rather than get snarky, how about just read what I posted?
I didn’t say he has had inadequate legal council - your own cite did. One 15-minute legal conference in over two years sound appropriate to you for a supreme court case, as a reasonable individual? You’d be satisfied with seeing your lawyer once in 2 years when on trial for attempted murder, would you?
Cite for the SCOTUS or Congress upholding this right? The PDF you cited talks directly about the majority ruling of Padilla’s ‘next friend’ habeas writ, but never mentions the President’s right to arbitrarily suspend Habeas Corpus for individual citizens that I could find, be they Enemy Combatants or not, and even with such court ‘support’ the US released Hamsi. And don’t pull out the same one you tried before - that says that non-US Citizens can be held as enemy combatants, but remains silent on keeping US citizens in the same condition.
Rather than take one sentence out of context, why not read the entire thing:
Yeah, right. The SCOTUS never addressed the central issue, which is whether he was legally held as an enemy combatant, but instead addressed a technicality and remanded the case to the lower court. That’s certainly my idea of justice.
Did you bother to read the dissenting opinion? I’ll quote a little bit of Justice Steven’s (with Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer joining in dissent) words to you:
Sounds like he was a bit unhappy that his fellow Justices dodged the issue, to me…
Newman, the PD for Padilla in New York, filed her habeas writ on behalf of her client on June 11th, 2 days after her client had been moved to the navy brig in SC. At that time, she was informed, not by the prosecution as required by law, but by the media through Ashcroft’s statement during a press conference held in Moscow, Russia, that Padilla had been moved.
From Justice Steven’s dissent, page 4:
As this incorrect filing was half of the cause the SCOTUS majority remanding this ruling to the lower court used as justification, it was pretty damn important to get it right. This was the technicality that the conservative majority on SCOTUS used to duck this particular problem.
In addition to this, in Steven’s dissent he further states (footnote 2, page 3):
So, since Stevens and 3 other Supreme Court Justices think justice has yet to be done, that Padilla is being held illegally, and that the whole thing was dodging ‘the duty of the court,’ yeah, I think I kind of have a point that maybe Padilla hasn’t yet had his day in court.
Or maybe I will just let Stevens speak for himself, as he’s a pretty eloquent guy:
My only point is that Stevens, along with the other dissenting Justices, believes the issue at the heart of the case has yet to be heard, that the government acted in such a fashion as to make it impossible for the PD to file her case correctly, and that they are holding someone with no significant intelligence to offer incommunicado in a Navy Brig in violation of Federal Law.
Of course, that should be no big deal, really. I trust the Executive to do the right thing.
Well, let’s see. So far, you have claimed that Padilla had no legal representation, which was wrong, that the legal representation was inadequate, which was also wrong, that there was no evidence linking him to al-Queda, which your own cite contradicted, and now that what Justice Stevens said is more important than the actual findings of the Supreme Court.
Perhaps you could read the cite immediately following my claim.
Indeed.
You don’t have to. They are subject to judicial review, as in this case. That’s how our system operates.
OK, you win. He saw his lawyer for about a month (from his arrest May 8th 2002, until two days prior to his secret midnight transfer June 11th, 2002, then once more in Feb 2003). So you’re right, he did have legal representation. Just not enough.
Your cite, not mine. And it was inadequate, unbeliveably so. Would you accept seeing your lawyer for about a month (I assume with a bit of regularity), then only one single time in 2 years, if you were on trial for your life and through the appeals process? I am curious as to your answer.
No ***significant ** * ties to Al-Queda, not none. For someone being as pedantic as you are, I am surprised you missed that.
Not what I said, but go for your life if that’s what you want to read into it. What I said was that his opinion stated that the core issue of whether he was held illegal or not was not addressed by the Court, instead the Court focused on two technicalities.
Did that; just couldn’t find that cite anywhere in the linked PDF (which I assume was your source) or in any other judicial sources including findlaw.
Thank you for that excellent lesson in Government 101. Now if we can return for a moment to my premise, which is that the Court (according to Stevens et al) failed to meet it’s duty and instead of addressing the core Constitutional issue of habeas corpus and illegal holding of US Citizens incommunicado instead addressed two technicalities allowing the case to be remanded to a lower court.
You have a fascinating view of my statements, Shodan. I wonder where you are getting them from, because it is clearly not what I said.
"Three British prisoners released last week from Guantanamo Bay have revealed the full extent of British government involvement in the American detention camp condemned by law lords and the Court of Appeal as a ‘legal black hole’.
Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed and Asif Iqbal, the so-called ‘Tipton Three’, speaking for the first time since their release at a secret location in southern England, have disclosed to The Observer the fullest picture yet of life inside the camp on Cuba where America continues to hold 650 detainees.
After more than 200 interrogation sessions each, with the CIA, FBI, Defence Intelligence Agency, MI5 and MI6, America has been forced to admit its claims that the three were terrorists who supported al-Qaeda had no foundation."
“the picture painted by the three released prisoners is of a Security Service which saw them as mere ‘interrogation fodder’, and questioned them repeatedly throughout their 26-month stay.”
"Ahmed described an interrogation session which took place before he left Afghanistan by an officer of MI5 and another official who said he was from the Foreign Office: 'All the time I was kneeling with a guy standing on the backs of my legs and another holding a gun to my head.
‘The MI5 says: “I’m from the UK, I’m from MI5, I’ve got some questions for you,” he told me: “We’ve got your name, we’ve got your passport, we know you’ve been funded by an extremist group and we know you’ve been to this mosque in Birmingham. We’ve got photos of you.”’ In fact, none of these claims was true."
Of course. Those three were obviously in Afghanistan for the tourism, and much like Weekend at Bernies, before they knew it, they were caught up in quite a zany caper.
Gosh, you must have a wonderful security clearance!
“After more than 200 interrogation sessions each, with the CIA, FBI, Defence Intelligence Agency, MI5 and MI6, America has been forced to admit its claims that the three were terrorists who supported al-Qaeda had no foundation.”
Can you tell us where the weapons of mass destruction are?
“Guantanamo may also hold a significant number of civilians. Anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan regularly cast a wide net, sweeping up non-combatants, and many of those they captured were delivered to U.S. officials, and in at least some cases in exchange for bounty payments. According to several sources, ranging from interviews with former detainees to press reports citing U.S. officials in Afghanistan, as many as several dozen detainees sent to Guantanamo were simply farmers, taxi drivers, and laborers with no meaningful ties to the Taliban or al-Qaeda—not the enemy combatants the Bush Administration claimed.”
I think you’d do much better if you tried to present a coherent argument instead of making these little quips. The only conclusion one can draw from this particular one is that you think that someone present in a country that the US is attacking must by definition be guilty of something, and therefore detaining them is the reasonable thing to do. I’m quite sure that’s not what you mean, but that’s the only way I can interpret your statement.
Brutus obviously thinks that anyone anywhere in the World who Rumsfeld says is a terrorist should be given life imprisonment without trial.
Family and lawyers will not be allowed to visit, since they are left-wing agitators.
Of course Mr. Torture is always welcome to drop by.
Glee provided a cite for his/her information. As this is GD, do you have a cite saying that the holding of Gitmo detainees has aided the US’s efforts in the War on Terror? Or a cite pointing to the guilt of any of the Gitmo detainees in acts which would justify holding these detainees in such cruel and unusual conditions?
Are you? I have already given my answer, which is that I find it hard to believe that a case that has already made it to the Supreme Court has not been given adequate legal attention.
Didn’t look very far, did you?
I will save you the effort. It is from the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Joint Resolution, Pub.L.107 – 40,115 Stat.224 (AUMF), enacted by Congress on September 18, 2001. See the footnote?
If you aren’t going to read the cites, I tend to lose interest in the discussion. Have a nice Christmas.
But the case made it to the Supremes without his lawyer having contact with his client. That’s what a Next Friend brief means!
Uh, yeah, but I assumed (incorrectly) that your cite came from the PDF of the Document. I see I was wrong, and apologize.
I didn’t understand the footnote, so thanks for pointing out the cite. I didn’t mean to sound snarky (on that particular point) and am sorry if I was.
But it still doesn’t address my question. Where does this give the President the right to arbitrarily suspend Habeas Corpus for select US citizens?
Hopefully, the above is enough. I am enjoying this discussion, whilst I completely disagree with you, and hope we can continue it civilly. I have read all of your cites, but just couldn’t find more detail on that specific one quoted.
Actually, you are right. I have been more snarky to you than was deserved. My apologies, and my appreciation for your gracious response.
I will be out of town for the next few days, and so mostly unavailable for posting. So the thread will likely have to do without me for a bit. But I appreciate your apology, and offer my own in return.
