So that cock-and-bull story about a radiological dirty bomb was unprovable.
Possibly.
Every other country? Perhaps in most Western Democracies…
But even if we restrict ourselves to those Western Democracies, a POW is not treated like a criminal-- neither in the sense of being afforded all the civil liberties citizens get, nor in the sense of being put to trial, as Padilla was. In fact it is expressly a violation of the Geneva Conventions to put POWs on trial.
So, my point still stands as stated in response to Scot’s post. Note that I am not condoning the system we set up. I’m solidly on record on this MB as being opposed to it.
For all we really know, he may have scammed AlQ for money he intended to spend on hookers and cocaine.
Well, that could be said about any jury verdict. Maybe Scooter Libby just wanted to date Valerie Plame and couldn’t get his mind off her while talking to reporters, so he just let her name slip. Maybe OJ really did do it. Maybe…
He was found to be guilty in a court of law. If we are to consider that the verdict was wrong, we need something of substance.
I think we’re missing the big picture. The issue isn’t whether or not he was found guilty at his trial (I strongly believe he was guilty of various crimes). The issue is whether or not his prolonged detention before his trial was constitutional. I’m sure every lawyer here would agree it’s not sufficient just to get the “right” outcome in a case; you have to follow the right procedures along the way.
In 20 years, people will look back on this case in amazement at how the government was able to get away with this.
Either unprovable, or some other reason mitigated against charging him. My guess is it was thin, a tissue thin hearsay-upon-hearsay story that had no chance of surviving a trial.
I don’t understand why some people have a problem with Padilla’s treatment.
Just because someone is a US citizen on US soil does not mean that they cannot be classified as an enemy combatant and imprisoned indefinitely with no charges and no rights, as long as they are guilty.
As we now know, Padilla was guilty. No harm, no foul.
Even if he had been innocent, the government could only act on their best estimate at the time, which was that he was guilty. So their actions, while mistaken, would still have been justified.
I think the foundations of any society and law system should be founded on exaclty the opposite premises.
Well, as long as they’re guilty, sure… it hardly seems worth the effort to charge them at that point, doesn’t it?
Wow. Just…wow.
On that basis, any one of us might be guilty of something. Best to lock us all up indefinitely on that basis perhaps? After all, some of those accusations might be accurate so that will be justified.
And that’s leaving aside the whole notion of a fair trial. In fact, why the hell bother with a trial at all - surely it’s best to make sure every potential threat is out of the way…?
I’m fairly certain Cosimo is being sarcastic, everybody.
John, I can honestly say that in the sixty plus years that my memory covers, I don’t recall ever looking to another country for how we should apply our standards of basic human decency and our value of human rights and justice.
We provide those standards for citizens of our country because they are the fair and just thing to do, right?
Why wouldn’t Padilla’s conviction be overturned based on failure of due process?
I find this disturbing, “The jury did seem to be an oddly cohesive group. On the last day of trial before the Fourth of July holiday, jurors arranged to dress in outfits so that each row in the jury box was its own patriotic color – red, white or blue.”
It only took a little more than a day for the jury to come back too. In a trial as long and complicated as this one that seems a little odd.
You might think there were many conclusions drawn early on.
I’ll have to keep that in mind the next time we discuss the death penalty.
Regards,
Shodan
The following link is to an interesting story about the ongoing debate about national secrets
Squink:
The process in that case worked exactly as it was supposed to. The DC Circuit has been, at least so far, remarkably non-politicized in its interpretation of the law.
That’s fair.
For one thing, the conditions of his incarceration were . . . cruel and unusual. At least, I hope they were unusual. See links in this thread.
:dubious: I hope you are not defending the Admin’s use of the enemy combatant classification, in the face of a textbook example of how it can be abused when a detainee is presumed guilty and considered to have “no rights.”
I concede to being whooshed if this is the case, but having crossed paths with people who hold (in all seriousness) the very opinion he expressed, I did not immediately recognize his comments as satirical.
The world of satire, unfortunately, is shrinking daily. (Also known as the “you can’t make this shit up” phenomenon.) I expect The Onion to be obsolete within five years.