John Ashcroft -- menace or threat?

[rsa]

december, you can ask your good friend minty green whether the Dallas Morning News is conservative or not. They endorse 95+% Republicans for any office for example, and the President reads it every day. BTW, you can easily find the editorial if you don’t mind registering. (www.dallasnews.com June 12 editorial)

minty green, even though I’m not a lawyer, I agree that there should be procedures to safeguard confidential information. That was one of my points; why doesn’t Bush, et. al. trust the courts.

[minty_green]

It’s pretty conservative on its editorial page, and very friendly to big business in its reporting. But the Morning News is really a very good newspaper. The editorial rsa is referring to may be found below.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/stories/061202dnedidirtydeeds.ae671.html

As President Bush noted, Mr. al-Muhajir is a treacherous man. But under U.S. law, even the most heinous among us are owed due process. In keeping with the administration’s decision to not prosecute Americans in a military court system, it would make sense for the government, as it has done with Mr. Moussaoui and Mr. Lindh, to file specific charges against Mr. al-Muhajir in a federal court.

Mild criticism, but on-target.

[december]

**Judge Upholds Custody Of “Dirty Bomb” Suspect **

http://www.coxnews.com/washingtonbureau/staff/emling/061302TER-ARREST-COURT.html

[minty_green]

If you prefer an entirely different spin, try “Judge rejects government argument to immediately dismiss habeas corpus petitition.”

The more accurate headline would be the simple, and thoroughly unsurprising, “Judge orders government to respond.”

[bordelond]

From december’s link above:

**“There is insufficient evidence for the government to obtain an indictment against Padilla,” said (Padilla’s attorney Donna) Newman in a habeas corpus petition filed Wednesday.

But U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey said he could not vacate a warrant allowing the government to hold al-Muhajir as a material witness, as Newman had requested.

He gave the government until June 21 to file a motion to dismiss the petition or transfer it to another jurisdiction.**

I don’t know, minty – Mukasey’s judgement is pretty open-ended. The judge gave the Feds a choice in the matter. If the Feds decide not to dismiss the petition, they can just transfer all this to another jurisdiction (how, I wonder?).

I wonder how much of this transferring can go on, and for how long. If the country’s judiciary (I know that Mukasey is but one judge) is going to let slide such detainments as Padilla’s, then there isn’t much anyone can do in the short term.

…

After reading this article, I see that Padilla does, in fact, have “counsel” – or better, “representation”. Apparently, Newman has not yet conferred with Padilla.

[minty_green]

I think you’re misinterpreting a bit there, boredelond. That should be read as “He gave the government until June 21 to file a motion to dismiss the petition or [a motion to] transfer it to another jurisdiction.” You have to file a motion if you want to transfer venue, and even then you can only do it if the new venue is a proper one. Can’t just transfer to any random court then pull the same schtick again. In any event, the Department of [In]Justice has one week to respond.