Captain's Quarters -

Hmmm, based on your read, it appears that there is no way that Padilla was, oh say, innocent of the charges brought against him. Guess we know that if he's not convicted, then justice just wasn't done in your eyes. Glad you're objective and all.

Terrorism is a crime. War is war. Blurring that distinction only makes this country a much less safe place.

Well, considering the jury found him guilty of all three charges, it was pretty clear from the beginning that this was an open and shut case.

Chalk up a huge win for the good guys.

"If Padilla gets convicted, it may take a lot of steam out of the protests over this case and others like it -- although it could also turn into an argument for handling terrorism as a crime rather than an act of war."

It's an act of war Ed. Plain and simple.

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Padilla Guilty!

Yep, guilty, but the government sure didn't bother with the Constitution in his case. Wonder if it will stand up on appeal given how absurdly he was treated. Probably this Supreme Court would find that since he was found guilty, his rights didn't matter to begin with. Does the name Kafka ring a bell?

Couldn't the good guys have won pressing these charges when he was detained?

If Padilla wanted to help al-Qaeda, he should've done it the legal way--write about war and terrorism for Newsweek.

Skeptical,

The area is grey here, isn't it. A US Citizen caught as a nonuniformed combatant in the employ of a foreign power while in the act of attacking his own country. Caught on the battlefield, no less. He was treated better than the Geneva Convention requires in such cases.

There is no precedent here -- the last case in which issues like this were considered was during the Civil War, but they dealt with civilian noncombatants, not combatants in the employ of a foreign power. Of course, the ruling in that case was that, when civil courts are in session, then they take precedence over military court with regard to civilian matters.

I wonder what will happen when we finally catch Adam Gadahn?

The problem with treating these crimes as merely criminal is that our justice system is broken, and loaded with airhead lawyers and judges who don't give a damn about defending our country or our civilization.

Our military on the other hand is strong and loaded with realists who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend our country and our civilization.

You use the best tools you have. Our military is one of the few institution we have that has not been subverted by leftists, but they are working hard at it.

Padilla was treated fairly and legally. Now he has been found guilty. If this was WWII, he would have already been tried convicted and executed. He is a traitor, working for the enemy during time of war.
Any pap about how his rights were vioalted is simply ignorance.

unclesmrgol

Wasn't he apprehended in Chicago? Also, the administration has been claiming that since al Qaeda isn't a national entity. I always thought the problem with the argument is when they applied it the Taliban, whom we captured on (real) battlefields defending their country. Going in was obviously the right thing to do, but declaring the army of the country we invaded to retaliate against and to destroy their ability to attack us is different. The Taliban, at least, were legal combatants. But Chicago?

Sherlock, I think it would certainly be different if he had been duly tried for treason, or the charges he was tried and obviously convicted of. It was the military part that seemed counter-legal, un-military, and (dare I say it here?) un-American, the part where an American citizen sat imprisoned and uncharged for three and a half years. I suspect you think "leftist" lawyers and judges have been sitting around drunk ready to hand him a Molotov cocktail upon his release, but his case (finally) came to trial, and apparently the government had enough evidence to convict, in a court of law, with lawyers and judges. Why sit on him for three and a half years? Could he really have been providing intelligence all that time? If you don't believe in our justice system, you must not think this conviction a just outcome. If they'd have had a capital case against him, they'd have tried him with it, and a lot sooner.

No, no, I do not defend al Qaida, I do not defend those who attack us; I do defend the Constitution, even in wartime. And if amorphous hate groups exist, we should be vigilant, and yes proactive, but as we'll be targets of such groups for the rest of eternity, we ought to be vigilant with our Constitution, else we suspend it permanently for permanent war.

skeptical,

The battlefield IS in Chicago. And LA, and NY, and WDC.

CBS Radio "News" had absolutely pathetic coverage of the verdicts this afternoon. They led off with the lawyers of the accused, whining about "how wonderful" they were, then brought in the biased "legal analyst Andrew Cohen. No equal time, of course, was given to the prosecuting side...

That's why we have to be especially vigilant about the Constitution, unclesmrgol. The war will never end, as there will always be hate groups more or less organized, loosely affiliated or confederated or trading in arms or bomb-making skills or whatever. If Chicago is now the battlefield, and L.A. etc., and always is the time frame, then everywhere (on American soil), and always we have to defend that whole bill of rights, the second amendment, and all the rest of them. This guy, pathetic loser that he is, had his trounced for no reason (as they obviously had the goods on him). That's just apalling, and un-American. He has the right to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but that isn't what happened.

Putting it another way, this guy could go free if the prosecution is found to have been illegal. You want that?

skeptical, seems to me that you'd fit right into that whole Shariah law crowd, where there's no rape unless three other men witness it and testify, where if you apologize hard enough you're automatically innocent, and where you can buy your way out of anything if you're rich enough to pay the blood money.

Just exactly what would it take for you, as a juror, to find someone on trial as a terrorist to convict? Would you accept a videotape (can be edited)? Would you accept a confession (undoubtedly tortured and/or waterboarded out of him)? Would you accept forensic evidence like blood spatter and gun power residue?

Or would you rather just release everyone charged with everything lest your so-called beloved Constitution be dented ... and America be protected?

You do realize, don't you, that you're a fool?

Then count me as another fool. I am glad that Padilla was found guilty. I am not concerned that the charges of torture during confinement are true - I'm pretty confident they aren't.

However I remain concerned that the Government kept a U.S. Citizen locked up for 3 years without charges and without access to the courts.

What's the difference between him and me?
Why couldn't the government do that to me?

I fully support the WOT and I don't give much of a damn what we do to foreign nationals no matter where they're captured, although I'd prefer to follow the Geneva Convention where it applies.

However, I very much care about the treatment of a citizen, even one as guilty (we now know) and scummy as Padilla. What is citizenship worth if we are not guaranteed the rights of a citizen?

"Terrorism is a crime. War is war. Blurring that distinction only makes this country a much less safe place."

Terrorism is not a crime, nor is it a war. It is a tactic. It is a means of committing a crime or fighting a war. The war on terror is an attempt to convince people, through the use of military and civilian force (the DoD and DoJ, for example), that these types of tactics are not effective and will get you killed or locked away for life (in theory anyways) so it would be a good idea not to use terrorism as a tactic.

"What is citizenship worth if we are not guaranteed the rights of a citizen?"

Joseph Padilla was working under the direction of, and in support of, a foreign power. al-Qaida has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization, aka a foreign power. This means he was working as a foreign agent and not as a criminal "citizen" in the US. He should be executed as a traitor.

This means he was working as a foreign agent and not as a criminal "citizen" in the US. He should be executed as a traitor.

Fair enough, Ray, and I don't disagree, but a citizen charged as a traitor deserves a trial.

He can't just be summarily confined and executed without a trial.

The problem here is that Padilla was A) an American citizen and B) captured on American soil. The Supreme Court has already said that foreign nationals captured on foreign soil do not have habeas rights under the US Constitution (Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)). However, the Courts have said that if an American citizen is captured on American soil, and American courts are open, that person must be tried in a civilian court (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)).

I think Justice Scalia puts it best in his dissent in Hamdi -- the Constitution is clear. Either the Congress has to expressly suspend habeas corpus, or these suspects have to be tried in civilian courts. Yes, we're in a war against terrorism, and yes the stakes are high. However, it is a form of judicial activism to argue that special rules that contradict the Constitution have to be invented. If Chicago really is a battlefield just like Tora Bora (or at least legally speaking), then the Congress should suspend habeas.

I consider myself to be a strict constructionist, and strictly construing the Constitution makes it clear that what the government did with Padilla was the legally responsible call.

No, no, nahncee, I didn't object to the conviction or the trial; I objected to holding him without charges or trial, without access to courts or legal counsel, for three and half years. I object, as Lokki says, to a citizen denied Constitutional rights. I didn't see the evidence, I wasn't at the trial, I wasn't a juror, and so I can't say it was bad verdict. I wasn't objecting to any of that. I was objecting to the three years, moving him, shopping for a venue, changing the charges just before they were going to lose the "illegal combatant" claim in the Supreme Court. There are all kinds of names to call someone who thinks the Constitution only applies when the Attorney General says it applies, but Captain Ed discourages name-calling. I'll take the Constitution straight, thank you, without Sharia or excuses.

Hey, Jay Reding, I don't follow. Your last sentence contradicts the whole rest of your comment. He's an American citizen captured (or anyway arrested) on American soil, and he had no access to courts or counsel for over three years. How is that the legally responsible call if you respect the Constitution as much you say? Was that a typo?

I wonder if the American military supports all of the interrogation techniques used on Padilla for captured American soldiers. That Common Article 3 seems like good law to me (I'm certainly not a lawyer) with the business of humane treatment. Seems like we're powerful enough, and ethical enough, to use interrogation techniques that don't skirt, shred, blur, or otherwise minimize our obligations as a sovereign nation defending itself. I heard an interview with the chief Israeli interrogator talking about what makes for a good interrogation, and he didn't need anything like what this administration claims to need to get information on terrorist cells, arms transfers, training, etc., from captured Hezballah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aksa, Fatah Hawks, Fatah al-Islam, etc.

Lokki posted:

I very much care about the treatment of a citizen, even one as guilty (we now know) and scummy as Padilla. What is citizenship worth if we are not guaranteed the rights of a citizen?

When you take up arms against the government, you can't demand "rights" and protection from them. Our founders realized that. They understood that once they took up arms against Britain, all bets were off and they would be treated as the enemy. They won...and created a government to protect rights they deemed important. Padilla lost and he should be treated as an enemy of America.

I seriously doubt any of our founders would have supported anything but a trial by rope in Padilla's case. They wouldn't be interested in his motivations and NONE of them would be the least bit concerned about any "rights" he claimed. He would have be hanged in the public square, and rightfully so.

skeptical,

I do believe in the Constitution. I see no Constitutional problem in detaining without trial an enemy combatant attempting to enter our country. Where was Padilla apprehended? Look at Hamdi v. Rumsfeld -- the Supreme Court has already ruled on the correctness of military detention of American citizens who are combatants for an enemy power. Other precedents dating from the Civil War allow military detention even when the citizen is apprehended on our own soil (ever wonder why the Union Army was able to detain Confederate soldiers without handing them over for trial in the courts?).

Examine this: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060104.html

While I disagree with Dorf's opinion on this matter, he certainly has the facts lined up in this article.

I think the 4th Circuit was absolutely correct in its original determination concerning Padilla, and that the Supreme Court would have upheld the 4th Circuit, given similar rulings dating back to the Civil War concerning American citizens acting as combatant agents for an enemy power. Stare decisis seems to be quite consistant here.

Note that the reason Judge Luttig got upset was the Administration's decision to hand Padilla over to the civilian courts for trial without a determination of his combatant status by a military tribunal. The implications of that decision was that the Administration had either sandbagged his court, or had discovered new facts about Padilla, or was attempting to avoid the attempt by Padilla to challenge the legality of his military detention through the civilian court system.

Notice what Luttig does -- he doesn't demand Padilla's immediate transfer to civilian custody as a man wronged -- no, Luttig orders the Administration to continue Padilla's military detention! Such a decision definitely forced the game onto the Supreme Court. That Court basically said (in the notice declining to hear the case) that once a charge was lodged in the civil courts, the defendant should not be transferred back into military custody, and that they would respond should any attempt be made to transfer Padilla out of civil custody into military custody. Note: The Court left standing Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

From the above, military detention of an enemy combatant at a US point of entry certainly seems legal to me, and, until the administration attempted transfer to the civilian courts, to the 4th Circuit and the Supreme Court as well. So I think I'm on quite good ground in thinking Padilla's detention to have been Constitutional.

Then I guess we've got to refer to the "alleged" attacks of 9/11, because nobody has been convicted of organizing them. We'll have to wait years for twelve jurors to let us know what happened. Unless of course they acquit everybody, in which case we'll have to spend the rest of our lives searching for the real killers.

Nuts.

It was a Chief Justice who said the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Sarah, et al -

I guess I just don't know how to say this, but I'll try again:

One branch of the government can ACCUSE any citizen of crimes against the state.
If that accused is kept incommunicado and without access to the courts, what chance does that poor citizen have of proving their innocence? Not all administrations can be assumed to be totally ethical. Perhaps you'll recall the Nixon "Enemies" list.

I'm sure that the founders would have agreed with hanging Padilla. I do too. After a trial.

Now, I've said my piece, and have explained it as many ways as possible, so I'll stop here. I don't wish to be considered a troll.

I do ask everyone to ponder the implications of allowing one branch of the government to capture any citizen and then hold that citizen in a prison without charges and without any way to challenge the detention.

I hate to personalize the debate, but perhaps this will help clarify the issue.

In this example, you have a young son in college. He gets involved in a student group - say protesting against the Vietnam war. One day he simply disappears. You find out that he was arrested. "Why?" you ask. No answer. "Where can I see him?" No answer. "Can I get him an attorney?" "No" is the answer. "When will he be released?" No answer.

Think about it. Padilla is scum, but he is convicted citizen scum.

Now the necessary disclaimer, that I am not arguing this for anyone who isn't a citizen captured on U.S. soil.

Sarah, et al -

I guess I just don't know how to say this, but I'll try again:

One branch of the government can ACCUSE any citizen of crimes against the state.
If that accused is kept incommunicado and without access to the courts, what chance does that poor citizen have of proving their innocence? Not all administrations can be assumed to be totally ethical. Perhaps you'll recall the Nixon "Enemies" list.

I'm sure that the founders would have agreed with hanging Padilla. I do too. After a trial.

Now, I've said my piece, and have explained it as many ways as possible, so I'll stop here. I don't wish to be considered a troll.

I do ask everyone to ponder the implications of allowing one branch of the government to capture any citizen and then hold that citizen in a prison without charges and without any way to challenge the detention.

I hate to personalize the debate, but perhaps this will help clarify the issue.

In this example, you have a young son in college. He gets involved in a student group - say protesting against the Vietnam war. One day he simply disappears. You find out that he was arrested. "Why?" you ask. No answer. "Where can I see him?" No answer. "Can I get him an attorney?" "No" is the answer. "When will he be released?" No answer.

Think about it. Padilla is scum, but he is convicted citizen scum.

Now the necessary disclaimer, that I am not arguing this for anyone who isn't a citizen captured on U.S. soil.

Damn - Double Post. I didn't mean to emphasize it that much.

Captain - Can you clean this up please? If not, my apologies to all for the double post.

Read the first one once and just think about it twice.
thanks,
Lokki