Why is 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui entitled to a fair and speedy trial? Let’s presume he is NOT a US citizen. (I understand he’s from France, and mostlikely not a US citizen.) Where is it written in the US Constitution (or elsewhere) how we treat illgeal alien criminals? legal alien criminals?
I love this quote from his lawyer: “[Our] client is incompetent to plead guilty to crimes that carry a possible death sentence.”
Because it’s in the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment reads:
If the drafters had intended this provision only apply to U.S. citizens, they could have qualified it, e.g. - “… the accused, being a citizen of the United States, shall enjoy the right, etc.” They didn’t do that. They said that in all cases, the accused has the rights set out.
As for how the lawyers can live with themselves, well, they’re doing their job, assigned to them by this same article. The drafters recognised the fundamental importance of the right to counsel for a fair system, and entrenched it in the Constitution: the accused in all criminal prosecutions has: “… the right to the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” That constitutionally protected role for counsel is to insure a fair trial in individual cases, and overall works to keep the government operating within the boundaries assigned to it by the Constitution. Independent defence counsel are one of the bulwarks against an oppressive government, as the drafters knew from the pre-Revolutionary period.
By your logic, if an American breaks the law in (for instance) France, there’s no need to bother with a “fair and speedy trial” - off with his head!
Probably quite well. I know I’d sleep well knowing I’d done as well as they have.
But to make it plain, they “live with themselves,” in the face of the ignorant hostility of an undereducated public, by reminding themselves:
Constitutional rights ought to be protected, whether the accused is sane or insane, a US citizen or illegal alien, innocent or guilty.
People who are not mentally competent may not plead guilty to crimes (whether or not they committed them) and may not understand the nature of the proceedings, such that an “assent” to the death penalty is not free, and in respect for human dignity, no civilized judicial system will execute someone who is insane.
The world is watching America’s judicial system, and it deserves to be shown for the great instrument of justice that it can be.
There, but for the grace of God and John Ashcroft/Alberto Gonzales, go hundreds of other men. Including, perhaps, you someday.
Personally, I have tremendous respect for attorneys who are willing to mount a vigorous defense of their client in such a hostile environment, where the general public (who ought to understand the Constitution and principles of justice, but who too often have their heads turned by bright shiny objects on the colorful box in the corner of the room) condemn a man without knowing the evidence upon which his prosecution is based, and who condemn the lawyers who are the only things standing between that self-same general public and an over-zealous government who thinks civil rights are simply something to bulldoze over during difficult times.
Then there’s this little diddy from the Fourteeth Amendment from the same document that Northern Piper linked:
So we aliens, within the US or elsewhere, have “certain inalienable Rights”, including “Life” and “Liberty”, even when accused of capital crimes.
i find it interesting that the rights given to us in the constitution in these amendments apply to Zacarias Moussaoui but apparently notjose padilla
Yes, but don’t get us angry.
I’ve wondered about this too. Is it because Padilla was “caught in the act” (as, IIRC, he was caught acting in the comission of his accused crimes) and Moussaoui was simply caught before he could act (while still just conspiring to act)?
Furthermore, I know the ‘Enemy Combatant’ label is a sticky issue, but can anyone shed any definitive light on why one is and one isn’t?
Tripler
All I know in my simple mind is that if they launch bullets (or more) at me, they’re ‘enemy combatants’.
Following up on this point, I would assume that the reason the lawyers take this position is that there is a question about Mr. Moussaoui’s mental competance. If he truly is mentally incompetent, then the Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia may apply:
A lawyer who allowed his client to plead guilty and receive an unconstitutional penalty would be acting contrary to the lawyer’s duty to uphold the laws, such as the Constitution.
Which is a reason why, IMHO, Americans who travel abroad should be concerned about the decision of the Bush Administration to withdraw from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Representation, as discussed in this article. That Protocol gives the World Court jurisdiction to hear complaints when a foreigner in another country (e.g. - an American in France) is arrested and the French authorities do not allow the American access US consular represenatives. Americans abroad are still entitled to the right to contact their consular representatives, but the Bush Admin’s withdrawal from the enforcement provisions substantially weakens the effectiveness of your protection under the Convention.
friend tripler
but would being caught in the act disqualify jose padilla from recieving his constutional right to due process?
No, not at all. Heck, even Jeffrey Dahmer and Timmy McVeigh got due process. I just wonder where the line in the sand is between “enemy combatant” and not.
Heck, if Padilla is an “enemy combatant”, doesn’t that entitle him to some protections and conveniences under the Geneva conventions?
Tripler
See? You got me thinking now. . . way to go. 
Well, plenty of lawyers have been arguing over the past few years that those same constitutional rights do, indeed, apply to Padilla. His own lawyers have been making that argument.
IIRC from other threads, the term “enemy combatant” exists only in the minds of the Bush administration and has no standing with respect to the Geneva conventions.
IIRC, the term “enemy combatant” is used so the Bush Administration wouldn’t have to extend to folks thusly labeled the same rights and protections given to “Prisoners of War.”
I think it’s because Mr. Moussaoui was caught before the current administration came up with the concept of “enemy combatant” and decided that enemey combatants could be detained indefinitely. Once they charged him and brought him before the courts, they couldn’t easily label him an enemy combatant.
Mr. Padilla, on the other hand, was caught after the admin. came up with the idea of “enemy combatants.”