Constitutional rights be-gone!

[jon1101]

I gave the following short-speech today (and please forgive any punctuation errors - I do not focus on such things when writing speeches):

As of today, a United States citizen is being held in a navy brig because he was accused of planning to build a radiological dirty bomb and detonate it in the United states. This citizen’s name is Jose Padilla, and he was detained with no charge, has been imprisoned for several months, and has access to no legal council.

Thus, the Bush Administration and I seem to be reading from two distinctly different copies of the United States Bill of Rights. You see, when I look at this always-important document, I notice the Fifth Amendment, which says that no person may be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law” whereas in the Administration’s copy, it seems to have inexplicably disappeared. I see the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the accused the right to a speedy and public trial with the ”assistance of legal council for his defense.” However, in the administration’s copy, it seems to be strangely absent.

To his credit, Attorney General Ashcroft states that there is ‘clear supreme court precedence’ to support the administration’s actions. What Ashcroft refers to is a 1942 Supreme Court Case which established that unlawful combatants, like terrorists, can be charged and tried in military tribunals. But, sadly, Padilla has been neither charged nor tried. Furthermore, this precedent is only justified after a congressional declaration of war and establishment of military tribunals, neither of which have been made by Congress in this case. Instead, Bush has taken unconstitutional power by establishing military tribunals with an executive order.

To further compound the problem, Bush’s own executive order has been contradicted, because in it he excludes United States Citizens from the reach of military tribunals.

As it stands today, Jose Padilla’s rights are still constitutionally in effect, but they seem to have been unapologetically violated by the present administration.

Discuss.

-jon

 

[seebs]

I would be very interested in seeing what the offered explanations are for the continued lack of charges.

 

[wildernesse]

I believe that our government should give all people (citizens or not) due process within our legal system. I don't think that citizens apprehended abroad should undergo military tribunal. I think that the U.S. should follow Geneva conventions in regard to detainees.

I also think that there is a danger to giving our government--at any level--unchecked power.

I think Padilla should have access to an attorney and either charged or released.

--tibac

 

[LouisBooth]

Question. 1. was he in the navy? 2. in times of war the pres can over-ride anyones "rights".

 

[tericl2]

1. Mr. Padilla was charged and held on a material witness warrant issued by a New York grand jury.

2. The government says they have proof that he met with senior Al-quaida opperatives in Karachi, Pakistan in March and discussed a plan to detonate a radiological weapon in the U.S.

3. On June 9 it was decided by Pres. Bush that he would be considered an enemy combatant and was transferred to a naval base.

4. Mr. Padilla does have a lawyer. Her name is Donna Newman.

excerpt from article in Washington Post

By Victoria Toensing
Monday, September 23, 2002; Page A19

Those opposing the government's detentions also contend they are "secret arrests." In fact, each detention was made under color of law -- actually, three laws, depending on whether the detainee was indicted for criminal offenses, held as a material witness or charged with an immigration violation. All criminal charges are on the public record, and those charged have counsel at taxpayer expense, as do people held as material witnesses. Persons charged with immigration violations have a right to counsel. Most have been deported (more than 400); 63 remain in custody.

What is important for all these cases is that the courts are functioning. President Bush has not, during a war fought within our borders, suspended habeas corpus as President Lincoln did during the Civil War. Each of these issues will be decided by the courts according to our Constitution, which does not mean according to our criminal law.

The writer, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, is a Washington lawyer.


Link to full article. "Need for Preventive Justice"

 

[LouisBooth]

ahh..so Jon didn't have all the pertinent information...okay.

 

[tericl2]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
ahh..so Jon didn't have all the pertinent information...okay.

Which is not so unusual for those attempting to "win through emotion", which is what the media and most liberals try to do. Usually, their "facts" are very flimsy so they depend on the emotional "spin".

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Question. 1. was he in the navy? 2. in times of war the pres can over-ride anyones "rights".

Congress had not declared war and there was no constitutional establishment of military tribunals. Also, even if the establishment of military tribunals had been legitament, Bush's own executive order was contradicted. If Padilla was in the Navy all of the articles I've read neglect to mention it.

Also, would you mind bringing up some evidence that the President can override anyone's rights in wartime? I think this may be slightly overstated, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding it.

Originally posted by tericl2
Mr. Padilla does have a lawyer. Her name is Donna Newman.

Padilla does not have access to legal council, even if he does have a court-appointed lawyer. The following refutes points 1 and 4:

from The Minnisota Daily, reported Oct 1 2002
http://www.mndaily.com/new_site/article.php?id=484
The suspect, Jose Padilla, remains in a Navy brig in South Carolina without access to his court-appointed lawyer, Donna R. Newman. Federal officials detained Padilla in May for allegedly conspiring to assemble a radioactive bomb. Though he has not been charged with any crime, he has been since designated as an “enemy combatant.”

Point 2 is useless unless the government proves their accusations in a court of law.

Point 3 simply states more of Bush's unconstitutional actions. The united states constituion does not differentiate between the rights of a non-lawful combatant and an ordinary criminal. The justification for trying US citizens in a tribunal was made in the aforementioned 1942 supreme court case because congress had declared war and thus invoked the articles of war and established military tribunals. In Padilla's case, however, there has been no congressional declaration of war.* Instead, there was an executive order that was itself contradicted, because "in it [Bush] excludes United States Citizens from the reach of military tribunals."

from an article by Robert Levy, chief fellow of constitutional studies for the Cato Institute
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-01-02.html
"...the Constitution does not distinguish between the protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and unlawful-combatant citizens on the other. Nor does the Constitution distinguish between the crimes covered by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the terrorist acts Padilla is suspected of planning. Still, the Quirin Court justified those distinctions -- noting that Congress had formally declared war and thereby invoked articles of war that expressly authorized the trial of unlawful combatants by military tribunal. Today, the situation is very different. We've had virtually no input from Congress: no declaration of war, no authorization of tribunals, and no suspension of habeas corpus."

Which is not so unusual for those attempting to "win through emotion", which is what the media and most liberals try to do. Usually, their "facts" are very flimsy so they depend on the emotional "spin".

Please give me a little more credit than that. Even if my points turn out to be false, I can assure you that I tried to come up with the facts. Furthermore, I am not a liberal.

-jon

*Or at least  there was no such declaration as of Jose Padilla's being considered a non-lawful combatant. If a congressional declaration of war has been made since then, it is an improvement but still a rather moot point.

 

[Wolseley]

I think he should be turned loose and given all the necessary materials to build a radiological dirty bomb. If he builds it and detonates it, then we'll know he was up to no good and he can be hung by the neck on the Washington Mall. If he doesn't build it and detonate it, we can all relax and go for pizza.

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by Wolseley
I think he should be turned loose and given all the necessary materials to build a radiological dirty bomb. If he builds it and detonates it, then we'll know he was up to no good and he can be hung by the neck on the Washington Mall. If he doesn't build it and detonate it, we can all relax and go for pizza.

Or, better yet, we can charge him, try him, and convict him in accordance to United States law without violating his Constitutional rights.

"Those that give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

-jon

 

[Starscream]

I think he should be turned loose and ... snip

Or .... he could be given the same rights as any other accused person in this country.  I don't understand why this is problem, I mean, if we have all this proof that he's a bad boy then what fear is there in allowing him to have legal aid?

Which is not so unusual for those attempting to "win through emotion", which is what the media and most liberals try to do. Usually, their "facts" are very flimsy so they depend on the emotional "spin".

I don't understand why so many arguments here depend more on condensension than evidence and facts.  Really, who in this thread is putting on any kind of "spin"?

Oh well, when in doubt just accuse your opponent of being of bleeding heart liberal.  That'll win yer argument.  Dang liberals, what do they know?!

 

[Morat]

  I think we should throw Wolsley into the brig. He might build a dirty bomb, and cause a few million dollars in cleanup, spike cancer rates for a few thousand, even kill a couple of dozen.

   Heck, you never know. He might. He's got hands. And internet access. He's got the tools for it.

   Whose for locking Wolsley up, "just in case"?

 

 

[Starscream]

Whose for locking Wolsley up, "just in case"?

Well he does think differently than I do.  He must be dangerous.

 

[wildernesse]

Actually, as of Sept. 27, Padilla has not had charges brought against him.

According to this NY Times article, he was arrested as a material witness in May. Then he was transferred to NY City where the grand jury for Sept. 11 crimes is. The grand jury has not indicted him yet.

After Bush declared him an enemy combatant, Padilla was transferred to Charleston, where he does not have access to anyone outside of his guards.

He's not being given due process, as it is currently defined. His lawyers are trying to have his pre-trial custody reviewed by a federal judge.

It's hard to spin facts like this. Too bad they're not flimsy, that's when they flutter the best. The Washington Post article earlier is an Opinion/Editorial piece--usually less fact than spin.

For more information about Padilla you can visit:

the ACLU

--tibac

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by wildernesse
Actually, as of Sept. 27, Padilla has not had charges brought against him.

According to this NY Times article, he was arrested as a material witness in May. Then he was transferred to NY City where the grand jury for Sept. 11 crimes is. The grand jury has not indicted him yet.

After Bush declared him an enemy combatant, Padilla was transferred to Charleston, where he does not have access to anyone outside of his guards.

He's not being given due process, as it is currently defined. His lawyers are trying to have his pre-trial custody reviewed by a federal judge.

It's hard to spin facts like this. Too bad they're not flimsy, that's when they flutter the best. The Washington Post article earlier is an Opinion/Editorial piece--usually less fact than spin.

For more information about Padilla you can visit:

the ACLU

--tibac

Indeed. Nice summery of the facts in this case.

-jon

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by Starscream


Dang liberals, what do they know?! [/B]

Answer: Only what is condusive to their cause or special interest.

 

[HazyRigby]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
Answer: Only what is condusive to their cause or special interest.

Kettle, you're black...

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
Answer: Only what is condusive to their cause or special interest.

Eh? You've got to be kidding me. You just generalized an extremely broad ideaological group as closed-minded.

Furthermore, what possible purpose did this post of yours serve? You just came on here and flamed liberals with some falacious generalization. If you have something beneficial to post, post it. If you have a genuine question to ask, ask it. But please, please do not just throw personal attacks at the opposition and leave.

-jon

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

I'm for locking Wolseley up.

And Sarge, it's spelled conduCive. If you're gonna be a bot, be an accurate bot.

 

[wildernesse]

It's interesting, but some people seem always to be better at flaming than getting the facts straight. Also, they would rather make things personal than deal with an actual issue.

Of course, in the issue dealing with Padilla, the only real debate/discussion could be about whether enemy combatants are subject to different due process than other criminals, and whether that's warranted under the Constitution.

--tibac