Story here.
Is Padilla guilty or not? Was he ever a member of al-Qaeda or any similar organization? Did he actually plot to “murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country,” as the prosecutors alleged in their opening arguments?
And why didn’t they mention the “dirty bomb” plot?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
And why didn’t they mention the “dirty bomb” plot?
[/QUOTE]
That’s been out of the picture for some time. It was only an excuse to hold him as an “enemy combatant”. Once it became clear that the courts were not going to uphold the administration’s right to deny Padilla justice, it was no longer useful.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
And why didn’t they mention the “dirty bomb” plot?
[/QUOTE]
Dunno. But did they manage to squeeze in at least a passing reference to Al-Queda? 
What if Padilla scammed them? What if he made of with 10 large, with no more intention than to boogie down bigtime?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Story here.
Is Padilla guilty or not? Was he ever a member of al-Qaeda or any similar organization? Did he actually plot to “murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country,” as the prosecutors alleged in their opening arguments?
[/QUOTE]
These are all excellent questions.
I’m not sure how we can determine the answers, though, since there are so many of us, spread out across the whole country.
If only we, as a society, had some sort of formalized process by which evidence of wrongdoing against an individual could be weighed by some sort of neutral tribunal.
Until we create and apply such a system, we’ll just have to continue to wonder.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Dunno. But did they manage to squeeze in at least a passing reference to Al-Queda?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
(BTW, the spelling is controversial but al-Qaeda/al-Qaida is never, ever spelled with a “u.”)
[QUOTE=Bricker]
If only we, as a society, had some sort of formalized process by which evidence of wrongdoing against an individual could be weighed by some sort of neutral tribunal.
[/QUOTE]
I’m noting very very subtle undertones of..what is that? Sarcasm?
Why should I be convinced that a military court is neutral?
[QUOTE=ForumBot]
Why should I be convinced that a military court is neutral?
[/QUOTE]
They scrapped the idea of trying Padilla before a military tribunal. At this stage, he’s being tried in a civilian federal court, with a jury and defense counsel and everything.
Not that I have any confidence in the justice of that, either, considering how the Sami al-Arian case turned out. If the feds wanna fuck with you, they’re gonna fuck with you.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Yes.
(BTW, the spelling is controversial but al-Qaeda/al-Qaida is never, ever spelled with a “u.”)
[/QUOTE]
Not even with an umlaut?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
They scrapped the idea of trying Padilla before a military tribunal. At this stage, he’s being tried in a civilian federal court, with a jury and defense counsel and everything.
[/QUOTE]
…oh.
Glad I wasn’t an asshole about it, then.
[QUOTE=ForumBot]
I’m noting very very subtle undertones of..what is that? Sarcasm?
Why should I be convinced that a military court is neutral?
[/QUOTE]
The court in this case is civilian.
As a general proposition, the justice system, both civil and military, begins with a presumption of neutrality for its tribunals.
A tax protestor may well claim the federal court that convicts him is other than neutral, that the judge was in league with the IRS or biased against tax protestors. We as a society don’t tend to pay too much attention to those arguments.
Why?
Because we can see for ourselves that the process is set up to ensure, as much as is reasonably possible, neutrality. The judge’s rulings on evidence are a matter of record, and can be reviewed not only by the attorney for the defense but by the public, and by a higher reviewing authority. The accused is entitled to defense counsel, and the trial follows procedural rules that are known in advance and have been judged not to disadvantage the defense. The jury is selected from people who either side may reject on evidence of bias, and who take an oath to judge the evidence fairly.
It is true that a civilian court trying a criminal case will provide more protection than a military court. Unanimity of the verdict, for example, is not always required in a military trial.
Still, those same statements that establish the presumption of neutrality of civilian courts can be made about military tribunals. Changes like requiring a unanimous verdict do not make civilian courts more neutral – they tip the decisional advantage towards the accused, yes, but to characterize that as more neutral requires assuming there is some objective process of true neutrality and measuing each of our procedures against it.
Short answer, then: you should be convinced a military court is neutral because the judge’s rulings on evidence are a matter of record, and can be reviewed not only by the attorney for the defense but by the public, and by a higher reviewing authority. The accused is entitled to defense counsel, and the trial follows procedural rules that are known in advance and have been judged not to disadvantage the defense. The jury is selected from people who either side may reject on evidence of bias, and who take an oath to judge the evidence fairly.
I’ll take that the judges are neutral. You’ve got me on that count. How would you go about convincing me that the laws they interpret are fair? Not just constitutional, but fair? It seems more and more clear to me that our goal is not to find terrorists but to show results, whether we actually have them or not.
[QUOTE=ForumBot]
How would you go about convincing me that the laws they interpret are fair?
[/QUOTE]
That’s a matter for the political/legislative process, not the judicial/prosecutorial. You don’t like the law, write your Congresscritter.
[QUOTE=ForumBot]
I’ll take that the judges are neutral. You’ve got me on that count. How would you go about convincing me that the laws they interpret are fair? Not just constitutional, but fair? It seems more and more clear to me that our goal is not to find terrorists but to show results, whether we actually have them or not.
[/QUOTE]
As a general proposition, the laws may enjoy a presumption of fairness because they arise from our elected representatives, as BrainGlutton correctly observes above. We may assume that officials writng unfair laws woul dbe subject to removal by disgruntled voters.
That’s not proof that the laws are fair, of course. That’s merely the reason I suggest they enjoy a presumption of fairness. In other words, it’s now for you to offer a specific criminal law that you contend is unfair, rather than for me to defend, seriatim, each law on the books.