Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Your Rights Online News

Judge Grants Padilla Access to Lawyer 255

Posted by michael from the small-favors dept.
Morphine007 writes "A judge has ordered that Jose Padilla be allowed to see his lawyer, and all I can say is it's about fscking time, I especially like the quote: "Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel, and it is certainly not an invitation to conduct further 'dialogue' about whether he is permitted to do so.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Grants Padilla Access to Lawyer More

Judge Grants Padilla Access to Lawyer

Comments Filter:

  • My Rights Online?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SN74S181 ( 581549 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @09:29PM (#5489988)
    What does this have to do with Online Rights?

    Can't it be posted under a relevant topic, whatever that would be here on a 'News for nerds' website?
    • This has a lot to do with Your Rights, online or not. It has been considered a basic right of a prisoner to have legal counsel available ever since the US was founded. Bush and his pals trying to take that away has very far-reaching implications on the entire US legal system.

      After all, if someone is detained without counsel for allegedly trying to blow up a plane, what's to say they couldn't be detained without counsel for allegedly trying to hack a government website? I don't condone either action, but people should have the right to represent themselves in court, and access to someone who can advise them on legal issues. Anything else is just a show trial, where the verdict is decided before the trial begins.

      • Re:My Rights Online?? (Score:5, Informative)

        by neocon ( 580579 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @09:56PM (#5490167) Homepage Journal

        The problem with that argument is that it has also been the law of the land, since the earliest days of this republic, that prisoners of war are not criminal suspects, but fall in a different category.

        This includes enemy soldiers acting within the United States, even if they legally have citizenship. As early as the Jefferson and Madison administrations, this fact was used to detain port saboteurs working in the service of the French government.

        So this is not a new practice, and indeed, it is a practice which the Supreme Court has upheld for two centuries. This most recently came to the test during World War II, when a team of German saboteurs were landed from Submarine on Long Island, with a mission to plant bombs in power plants, industrial centers, and Jewish-owned businesses. They were caught, and held as prisoners of war, and the Supreme Court was asked to review this detention, as one of those caught was a US citizen who had travelled to Germany in the thirties in order to join the SS.

        The Supreme Court ruled that their detention was lawful, as their intention to commit acts of war against the US made them enemy combatants, not criminal suspects. You can find more information on the case, named Ex Parte Quirin, including a transcript of the court's ruling in this journal entry [slashdot.org].

        So in short, this is not, as you suggest, a new practice, nor is it, as you also suggest, against the intent of the Constitution (something that Madison, who employed the practice himself as president, presumably knew a thing or two about).

        • Re:My Rights Online?? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:05PM (#5490235) Homepage Journal
          So a man not apprehended on a battlefield is a POW how?

          Oh wait. Since we're fighting the "war on terrorism" the world is our battlefield, and ANYONE can be accused of terrorism and summarily stripped of their rights as a US citizen (completely arbitrarily I might add, given that John Walker Lindh who WAS found on a goddamn battlefield was given full constitutional rights to legal representation etc...but wait, Pedillo or whatever else you wanna call him isn't a White Suburban Boy with Parents Who Have Money to Fight for Him!).

          No potential for abuse there at all....

          • Looks like you didn't read the post you are responding to at all.

            In Ex Parte Quirin [slashdot.org], the Supreme Court ruled that Nazi infiltrators caught in the US did not cease being enemy combatants simply because they were caught here.

            So please, go read the post you just responded to, then respond if you have something on-topic to say.

            • Re:My Rights Online?? (Score:3, Insightful)

              by elmegil ( 12001 )
              I think there's a clear and obvious difference between an open war a la WWII and the nebulous "war on terrorism" which appears to let the government pick and choose who is and isn't an enemy combatant, even if they were caught on a battlefield--see the case of John Walker Lindh.

              Arguing that Pedillo gave up his rights because the government alleges (hasn't even proven in a court yet, apparently) that he was a terrorist is hypocrisy of the highest order, when Lindh didn't give up his rights after being caught with a gun on a battlefield.

              But of course what else can we expect from the judicial system where money buys a good verdict (Lindh, OJ, the list goes on....)

              • Perhaps, but the Supreme Court (most recently in Ex Parte Quirin [slashdot.org], and two hundred years of precedent, going back to the detention of French port saboteurs by Jefferson and Madison, disagrees with you.

                In other words, you are the one proposing a drastic change in the law, not Bush. That's a perfectly valid thing for you to do, I suppose, but then you had better approach the problem as such, and present articles for the change you think should be made.

                Before you argue that a declared war is needed for detention of POWs, though, ask yourself the following: `should we not have been able to detain any POWs caught in the attack on Pearl Harbor, had their been any, because they were caught the day before war was declared?'

                • The way the Bush administration is using the "enemy combatants" issue allows them in theory and so far in practice to arbitrarily declare that an individual is an enemy combantant and therefore not guaranteed any rights to defend themselves from this declaration. IF they had applied this consistently to any US citizen who was found to be an enemy combantant, they would have a leg to stand on. However, John Walker Lindh, obviously someone who you could only doubt was an enemy combatant if you count the money his parents were willing to spend on his behalf, was not treated as an enemy combantant, and was not stripped of his rights. IF they had some reasonable means of determining in a court of law that someone was an enemy combantant and then stripping them of their rights, they would also have a leg to stand on, but of course that's not what they're doing.

                  Personally, I find this extremely offensive, hypocritical, and threatening to my rights. Since I disagree quite strongly with the current administration's approach to a wide range of things to do with terrorism, citizens rights, etc. I do not think it is an entirely unlikely possibility for them to, at some point, try to declare me an enemy combatant (though I don't think at this very moment it is extremely likely either).

                  As for the whole "he could activate his sleeper cell through his lawyer" argument, that is specious. If it's acceptable to let the Teflon Don knowingly continue to run his syndicates through his lawyer, which certainly could be linked to the deaths of many people, I don't see how the possibility that maybe this guy could get a message--unmonitored! yeah, right!--to a sleeper cell is so much more a threat. After all, the mafia deals among other things in drugs, and if you deal drugs you're a terrorist, right?

                • ... until you answer the relevant questions, shut up, or admit you are mistaken.

                  French saboteurs were under the orders of the French goverment. A foreign goverment.

                  These alleged terrorists banded amongst themsleves, they represent no army and no goverment, they represent only themselves and their co-conspirators. In short, they are a criminal organization.

                  Criminal organizations are dealt with with common law, no matter how dangerous they are.

                  You are stretching laws that are not meant to fight individuals but organized armies and hostile goverments.
                  • This is a hostile force capable of an organized millitary. End of Story. They are the enemy not those who are fighting against them. At least show them a little latitude instead of throwing all off the benifit of the doubt towards the people trying to kill americans. You would think this would be self evident but there sure is a small but vocal percentage that just doesn't get it.
              • Minor nitpick, but it's Padilla. In spanish, the way you're spelling it means, loosely translated, small fart. Not that I'm against your point, but it is a distracting detail.
            • And the United States has declared war on -who- ?
              The situation you are talking about is completely different than what this story
              is about. There is no declared war, there is no tangible enemy, there is no end-game. When does Padilla get released ? When The Government of Terrorism surrenders?

              The scary part about the Pidilla case is that the Gubmint wants to be able to call anyone an "Enemy Combatant" (or POW) and be able to lock them up without a trial, without a lawyer, without ANY due process.Ashcroft SAYS that Padilla is a member of Al Qaeda and was planning on setting off a dirty bomb, but how do we KNOW that?

              • With due respect, did you actually read any of the above thread? The Supreme Court's ruling in Ex Parte Quirin [slashdot.org] already addresses the issues you raise, and that was sixty years ago. al-Muhjajir will be tried before a military tribunal after these questions of jurisdiction have been resolved.

                That's how it works for crimes which fall under military jurisdiction, such as waging war against the US in a manner which contravenes the laws of war, such as fighting in civilian clothing. This has been the law of the land since the earliest days of the republic, as discussed in Quirin.

            • What do we need to do so people with thick skulls like you understand the difference between a foreign goverment and army in a declared war and an organized gang of derided individuals?

              Was Timothy McVeigh an enemy combatant then?
              Was the Unabomber an enemy combatant?
              What about the snipper?

              Do you get it or do you need a trepanation?

              Jeez....

        • Re:My Rights Online?? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Ivan Raikov ( 521143 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:21PM (#5490343) Homepage
          This includes enemy soldiers acting within the United States, even if they legally have citizenship. As early as the Jefferson and Madison administrations, this fact was used to detain port saboteurs working in the service of the French government.

          No, you're wrong. The Constitution protects the rights of all American citizens and legal residents, except in time of war. However, the United States is not at war, no matter what Chimpy likes to think, because only Congress has the right to declare war, and it hasn't.

          The French spies you refer to were not citizens. Jose Padilla is.

          As for the German spy, allow me to remind you two things: 1) war was declared against Japan by the United States on December 8, 1941; and, on the 11th, Germany and Italy declared war against the United States. 2) the German saboteurs were tried by a military tribunal, and so had the opportunity to defend themselves in open court, rather unlike Padilla.

          Also note that the Constitution makes very specific provisions about aiding the enemies of the United States in times of war; the current administration has blatantly ignored and perverted these principles to serve their own political interest.

          • Please go read the Supreme Courts ruling on the matter, which I linked above, before declaring (incorrectly!) what you think it says. The Supreme Court was very specific on the matter, and stated pretty much the opposite of what your are claiming.

            And yes, some of those detained as French saboteurs were, in fact US citizens. That's the whole point. It is certainly true that the German infiltrators were tried in a military court (not an open court, however). The same will happen to al-Muhajir, once the courts settle the matter of jurisdiction.

            So again, taking a practice which has existed since the earliest days of the republic, and has been repeatedly been upheld by the Supreme Court, and claiming that it is something new only shows that you don't know the history of the matter.

        • The problem with that argument is that it has also been the law of the land, since the earliest days of this republic, that prisoners of war are not criminal suspects, but fall in a different category.

          And when did the government prove, with due process of law, that Padilla is a P.O.W.?

          He wasn't detained pursuant to any combat, nor did he surrender to any member of any military force.

          He was arrested in O'Hare Airport, in Chicago (not a military zone, last I checked), by civilian police.

          Padilla is a U.S. citizen, arrested in the U.S., wearing civilian clothes and with no connection to any foreign military -- other than that claimed by an enemy of the U.S. under interrogation, and techoed by the administration.

          Allowing the administration to decide that anyone is an enemy combatant, just because they say so, is far more of a threat to American liberties than any terrorist.

          • Please read the post you are responding to, before posting.

            I have just posted links to a very similar case (enemy agents, one of them a US citizen, arrested in the US and held as POWs), which the US Supreme Court upheld in the 1943 case Ex Parte Quirin [slashdot.org].

            The court's ruling in that case addresses all of the points you raise.

            • I went a little cross-eyed when I read the details in your link... but there appears to be a little problem - at present, the U.S. isn't at war... by the legal definition of war anyway. Therefore "Prisoner of War", and all the legalese in your link, doesn't really apply.

              • Actually no -- by that argument, had we captured any of the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor, we could not have held them as prisoners of war either, as war was not declared until the day after the attack.

                Nothing in Ex Parte Quirin requires a state of war to exist, because we will not always have the luxury of voting whether to declare war before another nation chooses to attack us by surprise (as al-Muhajir tried to do).

        • Under the orders of which army is this person?
          Which foreign power is waging war against the US?

          No matter how much the US goverment hype this up, terrorists are common criminals, not regular armies.
      • It has been considered a basic right of a prisoner to have legal counsel available ever since the US was founded.

        Any student of the Constitution realizes that all rights under the Constitution have limits of one sort or another. Usually these limits become important when full exercise of a right has the potential to cause harm significantly greater than the loss of that right. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but no you cannot us it in a manner that significantly harms another - see libel laws, child pornography, etc.

        Unfortunately we do not live in a world of 0 and 1.

        This is exactly the same case - right to an attorney is very important - but if it can be shown that access to an attorney puts people's lives in danger, well, then a judge can be convinced that the right should be overridden.

        The weighing of these circumstances is why judges are so important...

        After all, if someone is detained without counsel for allegedly trying to blow up a plane, what's to say they couldn't be detained without counsel for allegedly trying to hack a government website?

        The concern in this case is not whether this person tried to commit a crime in the past, but rather what could happen in the future. The potential damage from a dirty bomb going off in a major city is so severe that any significant chance of such a thing happening must be taken very seriously.

      • Here goes the karma.

        As has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, this man is accused of having joined an enemy military against the United States during a time of war. He actively conspired to kill Americans. According to US law (look at a passport), you lose your citizenship when you join an enemy military. He did so, and frankly is only guaranteed the rights of a captured soldier. Not only that, when he was captured he was not in a uniform (and with the money for bomb on him). The military is permitted, under international law, to execute him for spying.

        This man should be stripped of all rights as a US citizenship, appropriately tried by the military, and either executed or imprisoned for a damned long time. This has happened in the past with other American citizens who turned on this country during war, and for good reason-other comments on this article cite examples.

        This is war, people. Get it straight. Find a worthy cause for your ire.

        • It is called terrorism people, get it straight. Find a worthy cause for your ire.

          For those inisisting this is a war, write here the entity you are waging war against: _________

          And write here the criteria by which you would considered the war over: __________

          Did you win the war against Timothy McVeigh and their pals or are they hidden away as POWs? Yuor thoughtful answer here: _________

  • Why... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neocon ( 580579 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @09:30PM (#5489998) Homepage Journal

    Why does Morphine007 refer to the suspect as `Jose Padilla' when he chose the name Abdullah al-Muhajir for himself?

    Does Morphine007 refer to Muhammed Ali as `Cassius Clay'? Does he refer to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar as `Lew Alcindor'?

  • I strongly suggest (Score:3, Insightful)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @09:48PM (#5490110) Journal

    that anyone thinking that using a military commission to hold Padilla is unconstitutional first read ex Parte Quirin [findlaw.com] and then note that Padilla was arrested after getting off a plane from Pakistan dressed in civilian clothing.

    I think you'll find that while the two cases aren't exactly the same, they are surprisingly similar. The whole concept of enemy combatants wasn't invented by Bush.

    • Too bad an obvious POW like John Walker Lindh was allowed to set a precedent for granting rights to US citizens involved in this mess, eh?

      • And another POW, Yasser Hamdi was not. The point, of course, is that the government felt that there was sufficient chance that Abdul Hamid (born John Walker Lindh) was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, so they handed the matter over to the courts to decide.

        With Hamdi and al-Muhajir, the evidence of intent to participate in al-Qaeda was much stronger, so they are being held as enemy combatants.

        That the government defaults to the courts when there is reasonable doubt does not set a precedent that they must do so when there is not.

        • I'm sorry, but let's see: I have a gun, I'm on a battlefield, I'm in the army of the enemy.

          Or: I'm on a plane flying from one place to the next.

          Which one seems more likely to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

          To claim that there's a difference that makes a difference is ludicrous; the big difference is the one that was ignored for Lindh. Until al-Muhajirhas been proven in a court of law with appropriate rights guaranteed to actually BE enemy combatants, he deserves at least as much of his rights as Lindh did. To do otherwise simply says that the government can strip the rights of anyone they choose.

          • Again, that's an interesting proposal, but it's not what the Supreme Court has ruled (repeatedly!), and it's not the way the law has worked at any time in US history.

            So, if you think that a Constitutional Ammendment should be passed to overturn Quirin, please tell us what it would say, and why it should pass.

          • You're quite right about Lindh being the one who
            was patently at arms, while Padilla was not.
            But Padilla was Ashcroft's wall-trophy.

            As regards Lindh, he certainly wouldn't be
            in prison now if he had been in the IDF
            blowing the heads off of palestinian stone-throwing schoolchildren instead being among the the
            mujahideen. He picked the wrong religion.
            My only complaint about Lindh's behaviour is
            that he copped a plea. He had the guts to die
            for God, but not to spend his entire life in
            prison.

      • Did you read Ex Parte Quirin? Padilla fits the precedent much more strongly than Lindh. Lindh was a lawful combatant. Padilla was an unlawful combatant.

        Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
        The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

        Padilla is not a POW.

        • And all Bush has to do is declare some obscure peace organization a front for al-Quaeda and suddenly he gets to strip a bunch of peaceniks of their due process rights, and make an example of what happens when you speak your mind in dissent of the ruling junta. You're likely to go along with that one too, right? (Yes, I'm deliberatly exaggerating my point here, so calm down that I have insulted the precious Presidente)

          The whole point of due process is to prevent the kinds of outrageous miscarriages of justice that occur when you have "secret evidence" and no rights to appeal. While I do agree that the preponderance of evidence points to Jose Pedillo being a bad guy, it scares the shit out of me that nobody had to prove it to get his rights stripped from him. That means nobody would have to prove it about me either, and I know I'm NOT a bad guy, I'm just a loudmouth who disagrees with the current administration.

    • I think you'll find that while the two cases aren't exactly the same, they are surprisingly similar. The whole concept of enemy combatants wasn't invented by Bush.

      Are you stupid? Congress has not declared war, therefore all constitutional protection of U.S. citizens is and ought to be in full force. Read the Consitution some day, it has some interesting stuff...

      • Leaving aside the point that `Are you stupid?' isn't a particularly civil way to start a discussion, it is you who have not read the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter, linked above.

        Think about it: if having already declared war was necessary before POWs could be taken, then any Japanese pilots shot down at Pearl Harbor could not have been held, because war was not declared until the following day.

        Is this really what you mean to claim?

        • Leaving aside the point that `Are you stupid?' isn't a particularly civil way to start a discussion, it is you who have not read the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter, linked above.

          I didn't read the particular page pointed to by the link you provided, but I'm familiar with the case, as well as several other cases where the writ of habeas corpus was suspended during time of war. I'm not arguing whether habeas corpus can be suspended; I'm arguing that the United States is not at war. The Japanese POWs were not citizens or legal residents, and the Constitution does not provide for their protection.

          • Clearly, you're not at all familiar with the case, which has nothing to do with suspension of habeas corpus, and everything to do with the question of which cases are not subject to civilian prosecution in the first place.

            Do go read it before posting about it, please.

        • That's a separate issue. They could be held on a
          number of grounds, regardless of whether war was
          declared by the U.S., or even by Japan. An actual
          state of war existed, regardless of declaration,
          for one thing. Even if they were not acting under
          the orders of the Japanese government, they
          made war upon the U.S. forces.

          I know of no reason to believe that either Lindh or
          Padilla or Hamdi have ever engaged in an attack
          on the U.S. or particpated in a war upon the U.S.
          As regards Lindh and Hamdi, defending against an
          attack is not an act of war, it is an act of
          self-defense. As regards Padilla, there's just
          no evidence of *anything*.

          • I'm interested to know how you came to find out what evidence there is or isn't against al-Muhajir. What are your sources for claiming that there is none? Eh?

            At any rate, you should go read the case, Ex Parte Quirin, linked above. The US Supreme Court has already addressed the concerns you raise, and that was over sixty years ago. If you want to change the Constitution now, to say something else, that's well and good, but say so -- don't argue that Bush is changing it by employing a practice which has existed since the earliest days of the republic.

            • I don't feel it's necessary to change the Constitution
              to invalidate ex parte Quirin. The Roosevelt
              Supreme Court can hardly be regarded as a
              bastion of Constitutionalism. Positivistically,
              ex parte Quirin is law, yes. But only by virtue
              of inertia.

              Bestiality is a practice which has existed since the
              earliest days of the Republic as well, but I'd
              still call a sheep-sticker a sheep-sticker.
              I'm not under the influence of a zionist reality-
              distortion field.

              Here's a clue: You don't cite sources for lack
              of evidence. That's like demanding proof that
              there's no evidence for time-travel. Wouldn't
              be prudent. Not at this juncture. Ain't gonna
              happen.

              • I'm not under the influence of a zionist reality-distortion field.

                Thanks. I think that statement of yours tells the readers of this thread everything they need to know about your position. That is, if your novel judicial position that Supreme Court decisions expire with time did not...

                • Ah, I see. Anybody who thinks zionism is racism
                  and that the Iraq war is planned and conducted by
                  zionist agents in the U.S. government
                  (specifically, Perle, Wolfowitz, and the rest of
                  the NPAC cabal that planned the invasion of Iraq
                  back in the mid-90s) can be discounted because you
                  can play the race card labelled "any self-hating
                  Jew who despises Israeli crimes against humanity is
                  prima facie an anti-semite" card. Sweet. It must
                  be nice to have a deus ex machina like that at your
                  disposal.

                  Too bad about the fantasy world not matching with
                  reality. Any perception of rhetorical victory is
                  quite illusory when it is predicated on falsehood
                  and fallacy. In fact, you could poke your eye out
                  with that:

                  Get real, man. The neocon AJC Commentary bunch
                  are burning the U.S. by manipulating it into
                  conducting a war of aggression on 1 billion muslims
                  so that Likud can advance the cause of greater
                  Israel. In the process, they are very likely to
                  destroy the U.S. as a global power, and eventuate
                  the nuclear destruction of much of palestine.

                  It's a big problem.

                  I did not say that SC decisions expire with time.
                  But they are typically given one helluva lot of
                  english on the next cue strike.

        • -Name the entity you are in war against, here is a line for you to fill up: ____________
          -Name when was war declared and by whom: _____________
          -Name who has the right to decalre wart in the name of the US: _____________
          -Name when will the war considered won: ___________
          -Are Timothy McVeigh's pals enemy combatants? _______

          Finally although naming you stupid is not civil it feels pretty accurate. The link you keep refering too clearly shows you are wrong.
      • Are *you* stupid? Do you imagine that there aren't 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House to declare war on Al Queda if you *can* declare war on Al Queda? War is for state to state combat, not for state v. non-state international groupings otherwise we could be declaring war against the Colombian drug cartels, the IRA, and a hundred other groups that have done things on US soil that, if done by a nation-state, would have led to a declaration of war.

        Be careful what you ask for. Declarations of war againt non-state actors would be more dangerous than you seem to have thought (if you have thought). Whine enough about a lack of war declaration and when the 3rd or 4th 9/11 style incident rolls around, you'll get that declaration of war, and all the wars afterwards under the same convenient standard.

        We will become Sparta, always on war footing. Liberty will be dead.

        No thanks.

        • We will become Sparta, always on war footing. Liberty will be dead.

          What makes you think that we aren't already?

          The reason the government should declare war before denying us our rights is so that there is some hope of regaining them when the war ends. By denying us of our rights without a declaration they take them away without our consent (or at least the consent of our forefathers who enacted the constitution that granted legitamacy to the our strange electoral system) and since there obviously aren't enough patriots in this country to kill the whole lot of them and re-establish the rule of law we've lost our rights for the forseable future. Hopefully our children will be more brave, we have no "America" out there to save us from ourselves like the Germans had.
  • But are we willing to take the chance? By communicating with his "lawyer" there is the risk of him giving instructions to sleeper cells.

    There are limits to your freedoms and rights. You begin to approach these limits when you declare yourself an enemy of the state by associating yourself with people who the state is at war with.

    • Re:Padilla may not be a terrorist (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos@ c h i p p e d . net> on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:00PM (#5490196) Homepage Journal
      But are we willing to take the chance? By communicating with his "lawyer" there is the risk of him giving instructions to sleeper cells.

      Indeed! And by allowing him into the light of day he may be able to regain enough energy to focus his willpower on creating a beam of death that could destroy the world! I mean, you never know, he MAY be capable of this.

    • Too bad we let that Walker Lindh guy have his rights after being detained ON A FSKING BATTLEFIELD. Set a bad precedent, it did.
    • There are limits to your freedoms and rights. You begin to approach these limits when you declare yourself an enemy of the state by associating yourself with people who the state is at war with.

      I agree. So his interogators are associating themselves with him- so they should be locked up as well?

      How do we actually know for sure that he is a terrorist? We only have the governments word on this, pretty much.

      What's to stop the government label anyone a terrorist? The FBI labelled a 71 year old British man in South Africa a terrorist- he was locked up for 3 weeks in lousy conditions; till the FBI admitted that they had screwed up. But what would happen if they couldn't admit their mistake for some reason? How long would this man have been locked up for?

      You see, this is exactly why the legal system is there; to decide who is and isn't breaking the law. The government does not and should not have the right; governments are too influenced by public opinion (at the very least), and corruption (or worse).

      It's a very dangerous edge to cross; it is by no means impossible for a country to slide into facism. The founding fathers deliberately tried to limit the powers of government in America.

      It is not a question of this mans rights, it is a question of all American's rights. Anyone can be labelled a terrorist.

    • Wow. That's some turgid reasoning. It brings new
      meaning to the phrase "a mind is a terrible thing
      to taste".
    • Fuck sleeper cells.

      We're not at war.

      No one's presented any proof of this guy doing anything wrong, yet he needs to prove himself innocent now.

      Terrorists are NOT everywhere and every person.

      Stop living your life in fear.
    • His "lawyer" eh? Don't you think he is entitled to legal representation as has been the custim for civil offences since the birth of the Republic.

      Mocking people's legal safeguards (everyone is entitled to a defence) is a quck way to give up your "rights" and "freedoms".

      You're busted. That measns you must have done it. What did you need that phone call for anyhow?

    • And how "legal" is every person you associate yourself with? Let's see.

      <ObviousGuyLogic>
      Paul was appropriately crucified upside down for his association with "christians" who were banned by the Roman "State"

      John was appropriately exiled to the island of patmos for that same crime
      </ObviousGuyLogic>

      Imagine yourself in a situation similar to this. Imagine that the person in charge of whatever state it is you may live in decides that people who mention the word Freedom and the word Rights are to be executed!!

      Hey. You are an enemy of the state. Now I understand that this is extremely over simplified and I don't agree with what the guy was trying to do. But we shouldn't allow anybody to be considered "guilty" until proven innocent because many people would use that power inappropriately ( the people in power are human are they not ? )

  • Enemy combatant. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:06PM (#5490250) Homepage Journal
    This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States. Read the fine print on your passport sometime. You can have your citizenship revoked for such actions. He is an enemy in a foriegn army. As such, it is appropriate for him to be tried by the military.

    There is some very damning evidence that this piece of shit wanted to detonate a radiological device on our soil. This isn't "Free Kevin" time here. He's a fucking terrorist. And if he succeeded in doing what he intended, if my two little girls were dying of radiation poisoning, at least Morphine007 can sleep well that he wasn't denied due process.

    For fuck's sake, can we get real about the fact this is a war?

    • Thank you, well put.

    • Re:Enemy combatant. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:13PM (#5490291) Homepage Journal
      Too bad John Walker Lindh got to keep his rights then, isn't it? He certainly was an enemy in a foreign army, with much more preponderance of evidence to prove it. I guess that this "he gave up his rights" attitude only applies if you don't have parents who can buy you out of trouble.
      • Lindh should have been tried by the military. Major fuck up.

      • Umm, no. The government felt that there was enough doubt whether Abdul Hamid (born John Walker Lindh) had intended to conspire with al-Qaeda that they handed the matter over to the courts to decide.

        In the cases of al-Muhajir and Yasser Hamdi, caught actively fighting in Afghanistan, there was no such doubt.

        • Last time I checked, Lindh was caught "actively fighting in Afghanistan". The only doubt involved was "oh, it's a confused WHITE BOY who has WEALTHY PARENTS. Maybe it would look bad to treat him the way we treat those brown skinned folks."

          • Sure, that must be it. It can't have anything to do with the fact that both al-Muhajir and Hamdi have ties to al Qaeda, while there is not similar evidence for Lindh.

            Which is it? You seem pretty bloodthirsty in arguing that the government shouldn't have discretion here in deciding who to treat as a POW, which is rather odd when you consider that a few posts above, you were arguing that the government shouldn't be able to treat anyone as a POW...

            • Where precisely did I say no one should be treated as a POW?

              The point here is that there are two ways to handle this: with a consistent standard (whichever way it cuts) or without. To my eyes, it looks like a pretty inconsistent standard to me. I fail to see how al-Quaeda member vs. Taliban army member matters a damn bit when we're at war with both.

              If you give the government complete discretion instead of holding it to standards, then you are begging for the government to abuse that discretion; and guess what, if it can keep the evidence of being an enemy combatant secret and away from our usual judicial standards, you are placing all your trust in the idea that the government is infallible and won't make a mistake. Yeah, right.

              • But the government already has a great deal of discretion in deciding what to prosecute -- the executive already decides whether to prosecute an offense, and what charges to bring.

                This is no different.

                • Re:Enemy combatant. (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by elmegil ( 12001 )
                  When it comes to stripping someone of the rights to due process that they as a citizen of the USA are guaranteed by the constitution, I'd say that's pretty different. Somehow, it seems to me that such an extreme action, while perhaps sometimes justified, does require a somewhat higher standard than the usual prosecutorial discretion.

                  Of course, I don't trust the government to use its discretion only for good, as apparently you do. And I think my primary counter example of specifically not using the discretion for good in this particular issue (John Walker Lindh) stands pretty clearly. You still fail to explain how JWL, as a US citizen actively participating in the military of a government known to be an "enemy" of ours, could possibly have any doubt as to his status as an "enemy combatant", much less still retain his due process rights in the face of that status. "They didn't think they could link him" seems pretty lame in the face of him having a gun pointed our way. That doesn't seem like "discretion" it seems like "preferential treatment".

                  • So which is it? You don't trust the government's discretion, so you think they should be forced to apply the harshest standard, whether they feel it is warranted or not?

                    That's the same logic used to justify mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and I have to say, I just don't buy it.

            • If people fighting for the Taliban have such tenous links to al Qaeda then, answer (dotted lines for you thoughtful answers courtesy of truly yours):
              -Why did the US attack AFghanistan in the first place: ............
              -Why did the US went to the effort to flight people of the Taliban army to Gaunatanamo for further interroagation?........

              The whole point of bombing Afghanistan was that the Taliban were supporting al Qaeda, this guy was part of the Taliban army and may I say, would have more insight into US affairs than an AFghani that has never left his country. Would not you want to use your wide self annointed powers to apply the necessary persuassion to obtain more information?

    • Re:Enemy combatant. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @10:24PM (#5490366) Journal
      This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States.

      Um, what a bout due proces of law? What about proving that he conspired to harm the U.S.? What abbout doing this in a court of law?

      How does letting him have his day in court threaten our safety?

      And how does not letting him have his day in court safeguard our liberties?
      • Padilla will be tried.

        Why do you assume Padilla is entitled to a criminal trial in state or federal court rather than a military tribunal? Before you say that one is fair and one is not, I'll remind you that many Americans in the 4 armed services are tried by military tribunal and get fair trials. And many Americans get screwed in civil coart.

        It would be nice if you cared as much about the rights of people who would have been killed if Padilla's bomb attack had happened.
    • His status was changed to "enemy combatant" because he couldn't be detained any longer as a material witness nor a suspect in a crime. So, he was re-classified as an "enemy combatant".

      What evidence is there to support that he is a terrorist? The word of another terrorist? Yes, he did return from Pakistan where he is alleged to have undergone some terrorist training, but what further evidence is there to support the claim he is a terrorist?

      I think making him an "enemy combatant" is a bit extreme and not giving him access to legel counsel is just flat out wrong.


    • > This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States.

      You, like the fascists running our government these days, are deliberately obscuring the difference between "accused terrorist" and "terrorist".

      There's a reason for our constitutional rights to counsel and trial by a jury of our peers.

      • >>"You, like the fascists running our government these days..."

        I'm not fascist. I'm just a guy who thinks the terrorists who are still planning attacks are the bad guys, not those who seek to stop them. The tone of what you have written suggests you feel otherwise.

        Before you feel the need to lecture me on the law, you should read it.

        Federal Code TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > Sec. 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

        (2)

        taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or

        (3)

        entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if

        (A)

        such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States....

        • What is the foreign state for which this person served?

          Where is the evidence?

          Where do you have the video of his oath?

          Can you spell c-o-u-r-t-o-f-l-a-w or do I need you to explain to you where questions like the ones above should be answered?
          • Your treating this as a criminal case and well it just isn't. Padilla is a memeber of an organized millitary force who has already engaged targets on American soil. Can you spell e-n-e-m-y- -c-o-m-b-a-t-a-n-t.
    • An authentic FBI or CIA agent in /.!

      He knows the evidence that nobody else in the public has seen!

      And he knows sooo much that has already passed judgment!

      Police, judge, jury and executioner emobodied in one power (why to meedle with the judiciary or the legislative). That is what is in offer and this FBI/CIA agent has already decided that it works.

      Rejoice!
      • What are you trolling for? He didn't judge anyone he just stated facts. This guy is a member of al qaed. In case you missed it these are the people responsible for sept 11th. This makes him an enemey combatant and they can deny him a lawyer all they want. More than likely this rulling will be ignored just like his last.

        http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/04/padilla.ruling /

Slashdot Top Deals

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Close