Score one for the fifth
A judge has ruled that Padilla (of dirty bomb fame) cannot be held unless he’s charged with a crime:
In a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration, a federal judge ruled the case of “dirty bomb” suspect Jose Padilla is a matter for law enforcement — not the military — and ordered the government to charge him or let him go.
Sure, Padilla may be a terrorist. Sure, he may be guilty. But this is America, we should not keep people in prison who aren’t convicted of crimes. The government will appeal so Padilla will likely still remain imprisoned for a while.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:16 pm
And we should read their rights to the enemy before we shoot them?
There is a difference between crime and war. Laws designed for crime are not applicable to war.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:26 pm
And who, in this case, are we warring with?
March 1st, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Walter:
1. Padilla is a US Citizen. If he’s guilty of conspiring against the US, the government ought to be able to prove it in a court of law — or at least get him indicted for Chrissakes — just like they do with any other alleged crime.
2. What about laws designed for war? (E.g. The Geneva Conventions?) We apparently don’t need to follow those, either. And in any case, once you leave the battlefield, the comparison fails.
3. People like you scare the hell out of me. Your trust of government must run way deeper than mine, if you’re willing to allow the government to hold people indefinitely on literally nothing more than their say-so.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Unfortunately there has been a lot of equivocation in the use of the term “War” regarding terrorism. Blowing things up in a crime; see Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was also a terrorist just as people who blow up abortion clinics are also terrorists (or the eco nuts who use violence, if you want to pick on the left). Should these people not be given their constitutionally protected rights? No, of course not. Now I don’t know the specifics of the case and I would not comment on Jose Padilla specifically until I knew more specifics of the case, such as his status WRT to citizenship and so forth.
Having said that, the fact is that we are not in any constitutional sense “at war” since it has never been declared. The use of force was authorized in Iraq, but no war was declared. Until that happens the use of the term “war” is nothing more then rhetorical as in the war on drugs or the war on poverty.
The statement, “And we should read their rights to the enemy before we shoot them?” is an equivocation that sounds good but really is not all that useful in a substantive discussion on the issue.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:45 pm
I meant to say Should these people not be given their constitutionally protected rights? Yes, of course.
Sorry for the crappy proof reading
March 1st, 2005 at 8:33 pm
The government cannot take the Padilla case to court without jeopardizing intelligence. If their hand is forced by the courts, they’re probably better off letting him walk then letting terrorists know what we know.
As for due process, I agree that criminals should not be held without trial. But I’m not sure I agree that a man who conspires with terrorists and takes up arms against his fellow countrymen should be able to hide behind his citizenship.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:15 pm
If their hand is forced by the courts, they’re probably better off letting him walk then letting terrorists know what we know.
The guys been in custody for years. Anything we know is long dated at this point.
But I’m not sure I agree that a man who conspires with terrorists and takes up arms against his fellow countrymen should be able to hide behind his citizenship
Padilla is not a man who conspires with terrorists, he’s a man who has been ACCUSED of conspiring with terrorists and the only way that we can punish him for this is to try him before a jury of his peers. It’s called America, perhaps you should look it up on the internets or something.
And he’s not hiding behind his citizenship, he’s hiding behind the Bill of Rights (which incidently applies to non-citizens on US soil), something a lot of people fought really hard with the British in order to obtain.
March 2nd, 2005 at 1:22 pm
“As for due process, I agree that criminals should not be held without trial. But I’m not sure I agree that a man who conspires with terrorists and takes up arms against his fellow countrymen should be able to hide behind his citizenship.”
That he conspired with terrorists remains to be proven. If you just take the government’s word for it, you’ve reinvented the lettre de cachet. Remember that Hilary Clinton could be the next President – how many of us do you think she’d consider terrorists?