| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Remember Jose Padilla?; Perhaps higher than we thought. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 26 2006, 03:59 PM (523 Views) | |
| George K | May 26 2006, 03:59 PM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
Feds say Padilla may have been higher in Al Qaeda May 25, 2006 (Last Updated: 8:23:47 PM) - Federal investigators say they have evidence that former Chicago street gang member Jose Padilla was a higher ranking member of Al Qaeda than first thought. Four years ago this month when Jose Padilla was arrested at O'Hare Airport, federal agents considered him a Chicago street gang member who had been recruited by Al Qaeda terrorists to scout potential American targets, but now U.S. prosecutors believe Padilla was operating at a much higher level than just an advance man for Al Qaeda. Jose Padilla was not just a Chicago street gang stooge as some in law enforcement portrayed him at the time of his arrest. Federal authorities say evidence now shows that Padilla had had risen in Al Qaeda's ranks to have personal relationships with the top planners of the September 11th attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. Padilla has told authorities that his direct Al Qaeda supervisor was Ammar al-Baluchi who obtained flight simulators that the 9/11 hijackers used in training. According to Padilla, Baluchi was the right-hand man of Khalid Sheihk Mohammed---considered the architect of the 9/11 attacks. In documents filed during the recent death penalty hearing for Al Qaeda terrorist Zacharias Moussaoui, Moussaoui described Baluci as a "key travel and financial facilitator for the Sept. 11 hijackers." Padilla's connection to Al Qaeda provided his marching orders as well. Federal agents say Padilla has told them that Baluchi gave him $10,000 cash before flying from the Middle East to O'Hare, provided travel documents, gave him a U.S. cell phone and an email address to notify Al Qaeda operatives of his arrival in Chicago. But authorities say Padilla's connection to the upper crust of Al Qaeda is best found in his activities with three of the organization's top terrorists. The night before leaving for Chicago they threw him a bon voyage dinner -- hosted by the men considered to be the 9/11 masterminds. Baluchi, a native of Pakistan, was himself arrested in April of 2003. He has used several aliases, including Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; Habib; Mustafa; and "Losh." His bombing targets were to be east coast gas stations. Baluchi is believed to be held by the U.S. military at Quantanomo, Cuba. Padilla was originally held by the military as an enemy combatant. He has since been charged criminally and is at the federal lockup in Miami. |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 26 2006, 08:23 PM Post #2 |
|
As a U.S. citizen, he should have been charged or released from the very beginning. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 26 2006, 10:17 PM Post #3 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Padilla is not a criminal defendant, he is a detained combatant under the AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force -- passed by the Congress on September 18, 2001). Title 18, section 4001(a) of the U.S. Code states that "No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress." AUMF satisfy that requirement. Now it might be politically expedient to bring Padilla up on criminal charges, and I do not know why Bush is willing to take heat on this when so many are charging him (incorrectly it seems) with violating Padilla's rights such as habeas corpus and right to counsel, but the Administration seems to be obeying the law as legislated by Congress. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 26 2006, 11:11 PM Post #4 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
AUMF never authorized holding U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. Simply citing the legislation doesn't accomplish anything. Do you have any more specific citation about the intention to hold U.S. citizens as enemy combatants? General statements about giving the President war powers will not suffice. Moreover, even if there were specific statements in the legislation, the legislation cannot override Constitutional rights of citizens. For example, the Constitutional right to a speedy trial. For example, the Constitutional right to confront witnesses. No law of Congress (even if you could cite a specific intent to hold U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, which you can't) can override these rights. Other laws saying that Congress can pass laws can't override these rights. What happened to Padilla was an outrage. It's incredibly scary that anyone who believes in the principles on which this government was founded could support his indefinite detention. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 27 2006, 09:16 AM Post #5 |
|
If there was ever a case for Rick to cite for a violation of civil liberties, it would be this one. The fact that an american citizen was held in prison for over 2 years without even being charged with a crime is scary and horrible. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 27 2006, 11:18 AM Post #6 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
As tbe argument goes, it is not by virtue of AUMF but by Title 18, section 4001(a). However, under AUMF, "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." There is no exclusion for American citizens. The ruling of the 4th Circuit overturned the ruling of US District court and declared that ""the President does possess such authority [to hold Padilla as an "illegal enemy combatant"] pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed." I suspect it is now being appealled to SCOTUS. I think it is politically inexpedient to hold Padilla as he has been, and I certainly want him brought to trial and given his day in court, then executed as a traitor. But laws are not specifically written for every occurance, and it is obvious that Padilla is not being excluded from the judicial process (or else his case would not have been brought before the Federal Courts). There has been no abrogation of the "the principles on which this government was founded", Padilla has full access to the US Judiciary as the progress of the case indicates. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | May 27 2006, 11:29 AM Post #7 |
|
Thanks Ivory, the wording is clear that the President does have the power to hold Padilla. I would hope (and assume) that Congress has the power to over-ride the Presidents decision, if necessary. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 27 2006, 11:37 AM Post #8 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
A bit of a civics lesson, 89th. Congress has the authority to write other laws if they desire which can limit the Executive's scope of power (effectively overriding the President's decision, if you will). If such a law is vetoed, they have the right to override a veto and bind the Executive against his will. The Supreme has the authority to determine the Constitutional application of the law and thereby "override" the President's decision. The checks and balance system seems to be working as intended by the Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the Constitution, so I see no cause for outrage other than cause célèbre. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 27 2006, 11:46 AM Post #9 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War or, in other words, acted to override a part of the Constitution. He did so pursuant to the powers given him also by the Constitution. Other presidents (Wilson, Roosevelt) did similarly during their particular crises. A president has fairly broad authority in excercising his powers in time of war. The founders of this country understood that rghts are important but mean nothing if the country cannot by kept secure against external threats. Having said all that, I have to wonder why they don't just put this guy on trial and be done with it. Is there some national security reason for detaining him like this? I admit that I find this troubling. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 27 2006, 11:58 AM Post #10 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Note the refusal to address the Constitutional right to a speedy trial. I'm not aware of any case indicating that the President has the authority to suspend the right to a speedy trial. I'm not aware of any case indicating that Congress can pass a law authorizing the President to suspend the right to a speedy trial. Padilla is a U.S. citizen. Even the Fourth Circuit, one of the most conservative circuits in the country, recognized that the government's behavior in this case was troubling and inappropriate. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 27 2006, 12:02 PM Post #11 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Do you have any cites or quotes specifically in mind? What might the Court find "inappropriate" that was not germane to the constitutionality of the case? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 27 2006, 12:08 PM Post #12 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I think Lincoln did so within the confines of the Constitutional provision: Article 1, Section 9 "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." I do not undestand the mechanism of this, since this section limits Congress, not the Executive, but I assume it comes with the declaration of War. I have no idea how Roosevelt justified it. Anyone? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 27 2006, 12:11 PM Post #13 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 27 2006, 12:15 PM Post #14 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Once again, I wasn't talking habeas (although I could have been) ... I was talking the right to a speedy trial. Even if you believe that the President had the right to suspend habeas in this particular circumstance, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the President the power to suspend the right to a speedy trial. Moreover, from Wikipedia:
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 27 2006, 12:15 PM Post #15 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Thanks for the quote. Whether they found it "troubling and inappropriate" or more likely important enough for a definitive adjudication beyond their competency seems to be a matter of opinion. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 27 2006, 12:19 PM Post #16 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
They found it troubling and inappropriate that the Administration tried to moot the case and avoid Supreme Court review. The decision was clearly not beyond their competency, or else they wouldn't have been able to issue an opinion in the first place. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 27 2006, 12:25 PM Post #17 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Has the US given reason for exception to a speedy trial? Obviously, the term is flexible, and many states allow a longer term for more serious crimes such as murder. I think an argument can be made that given the gravity and complexity and momenteousness of the Padilla affair (which BTW is not even a criminal trial as yet but still under the detention of enemy combatant category, so the courts have first to adjudicate that status), some latititude might be reasonably granted. IMO that terminus ad quem is approaching, but as long as the case is stil finding its way through the courts in an orderly manner, I am not of the opinion that this is an outrageous denial of Padilla's constitutional rights. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | May 27 2006, 12:27 PM Post #18 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
By the very nature of their position, an Appellate Court cannot give a definitive adjudication. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 27 2006, 12:28 PM Post #19 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
The part about it not being a criminal trial is laughable. The Bush Administration attempted to turn it into a criminal trial, thereby mooting the case and any Supreme Court review of the Fourth Circuit precedent that U.S. citizens could be held as enemy combatants. The Bushies liked that precedent, and didn't want it reviewed. The Fourth Circuit called them on that gamesmanship. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 28 2006, 01:10 PM Post #20 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Something has been troubling me about this. Is it not precisely Mr. Padilla's Habeus Corpus rights that would be the issue here rather than his right to a speedy trial? Under Habeus Corpus the state has the obligation to, within a reasonable period of time which has since been determined to be 72 hours, either charge Mr. Padilla or release him. Since he has never been charged with anything his right to a speedy trial does no even apply. No determination has yet been made that a trial is even necessary since he has yet to be and may never be charged. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 28 2006, 02:27 PM Post #21 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You know not of what you speak. An appellate decision ... for that matter, a district court decision ... is definitive. It is subject to being overruled, but that doesn't make it any less definitive. And if definitive means it can't be overruled, then nothing is ever definitive. Even Supreme Court decisions can be overruled, by a subsequent Supreme Court. What you mean is that the appellate court is not the highest possible authority, which has nothing to do with the term "definitive".
Only the second definition comes remotely close to your interpretation, and even that one is arguable. Especially so since the Supreme Court reviews (by memory) less than 2% of the decisions of any of the Courts of Appeals. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 28 2006, 02:31 PM Post #22 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
An interesting point, JB. However, I could easily argue that locking someone up indefinitely without charging them with anything constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment, barring cruel and unusual punishment. Whether you think it's cruel or not, it's virtually unprecedented, and therefore unusual. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 28 2006, 02:33 PM Post #23 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
I could also point to the Ninth Amendment, which states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Such as, the right to be charged with a crime (and then to have a speedy trial) if the government locks you up. That one would seem fairly basic, as rights go, and fairly implied in the right to speedy trial. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 28 2006, 02:46 PM Post #24 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
The right to be charged with a crime (or be released) would seem to come under Habeus Corpus. As to cruel and unusual punishment the question arises: punishment for what? There has been no determination of guilt. This still looks to me like a straightforward denial of Habeus Corpus rights. The Constitution seems to provide circumstances under which this can be done. Whether those circumstances do, in fact, exist or apply to Mr. Padilla would seemto be the central question to be addressed by the courts. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | May 28 2006, 02:53 PM Post #25 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You might think so, but it's not necessarily so. One further point, related to habeas. You mentioned that Lincoln suspended habeas. But did you know that, upon judicial review, Lincoln's suspension of habeas was found to be unlawful? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








12:42 AM Jul 11