This bears repeating.
My understanding was that all (or most) of the evidence for that was gathered outside the legal mainstream, and was not admissible. He was detained without Miranda rights, and was not allowed to see a lawyer.
I didn’t say we should. Please go back and read the post I was responding to. You can’t take my post out of the context of the response to Scot’s post.
I would also add that his quoting of the DoI is, as we always say here, a non-starter since that document has no legal standing. It is not reasonable to suggest that we treat US citizens and non-US citizens the same way. We never have, and no other country that I know of ever has. We can argue about how different we should treat them, but to deny there should be a difference is just, well, nutty.
I guess a lot depends on whether or not you believe that our fundamental principles are bound to human rights as a universal. Why else do we mouth pious hypocrisies about exporting democracy and advancing the cause of human freedom? Do we not explicitly accept that universality of human rights in our very foundation?
Further, if we treat our enemies, both real and alleged, with the same dignity we treat our own, does that not underline our sincerity and purpose? And bring us closer to the day when our enemy is no longer our enemy?
Show them. Show them that it works, show them that power is limited by wisdom. Show them that we truly believe that any person on earth is fundamentally equal to any other, in light of justice.
If no us, who? If not now, when?
Well, that sounds lovely, but it often just can’t be done. A battlefield is not a police crime scene, so applying our criminal code to that venue isn’t practical. Should our soldiers get a search warrant before they raid Osama’s cave? Should they not use surveilance techniques that the SCOTUS has deemed unconstitutional in the US? You operate an armed conflict by the rules of war, not by the constitution.
That is not to say that I buy into Bush’s version of how to treat non-citizens-- just that I recognize that some differences are going to exist due to the nature of the beast. The GCs should be the operative documents, and one can readily comply with those without applying one’s own criminal code to the battlefield.
In this country he’s innocent until 12 citizens say otherwise. If the government’s “best estimate” is that someone’s guilty then the acceptable course of action is to charge them and prove it beyond all reasonable in a court of law.
You are correct (I thought it was obvious when I wrote it, but it is hard to tell these days). I was imagining a multiple choice test about what the OP meant when he said “So.”
(a) So… how 'bout them Yankees.
(b) So… can I get a Hell Yeah!?
(c) So… the government should be allowed to pull US citizens off the street and keep them locked up indefinitely with no charges, no right to protest, and no right to communicate even with their court -appointed lawyer, because they will turn out to be guilty.
(d) Criminal : Jail
I eliminated (a) right off the bat, and (d) was a misprint. I almost went with (b), but (c) seemed a little too detailed to be put in as one of the choices if it was wrong.
Cosimo, I for one was pretty sure you were being ironic. The only other reasonable interpretation I could make of your post was that you were actually Alberto Gonzales and were presenting the official position of the Justice Department.
What exactly does this have to do with anything being discussed here? Jose Padilla wasn’t captured by the Marines in the middle of Afghanistan. He was arrested by FBI agents in Chicago.
Oh, he’s well aware of that, he just wanted to head me off before I advocated parachuting in counselors and massage therapists for battlefield detainees. Save me some embarassment.
I was thinking maybe he had Padilla confused with John Walker Lindh.
Nemo: People are extrapolating this case to the detainees in Guantanamo. That’s what I was responding to. Elucidator’s proposal would require that we not allow soldiers on the battlefield to do anything a cop isn’t allowed to do at a crime scene. Clearly ridiculous. Of course, his spin is that I think he wants to coddle terrorists which is, of course, a strawman.
Once moved from the “Fer Us” column to “Agin’ Us,” they do have a tendency to blend together.
No, what he actually wrote was:
There’s nothing there about soldiers in battle following police procedures.
This week’s issue of The Nation includes an article by Moshik Temkin on the Sacco and Vanzetti case. The following has some relevance here:
This is a very welcome indication that we’re starting to remember what we stand for as a nation, as a democratic republic with a *meaningful * Constitution. One of those things we stand for is that rights aren’t only for people we happen to like.
So *what * again was the reason for denying this particular American his rights for so long?
Terrorism flag 9/11 flag 9/11 terrorism flag flag flag 9/11.
Let me know if you need more information.
Sorry I’m a tad late to the party.
I have three thoughts on the Padilla verdict (as opposed to the actions of this administration in its handling of Padilla, which is much more suited for the Pit).
First, I think the verdict seriously damages the Bush administrations argument that the criminal justice system can’t handle terrorism cases and that we need to have military tribunals. From day 1, this administration has tried to avoid trying anyone they determine to be “enemy combatants”, instead relying on indefinite detentions for all. All the while, they and their talking heads were spouting off about how the system couldn’t handle these types of cases. Well, it did.
Second, Padilla was a bad man, who did consort with our enemies. I don’t doubt that, and I think it was supported by the evidence. I have no problem with the verdict as a reflection of that.
Third, I am troubled by the charge itself, because it walks a very thin line of criminalizing thoughts. The great amount of the evidence showed that Padilla hated and wanted to hurt America and American citizens. But there was a serious lack of evidence in regards to actual plans, plots, or work being done to put those thoughts into action. The crap about the “dirty bomb” wasn’t even presented. I’m afraid the prosecution is another step toward the Star Chamber.