Posted on 12/19/2003 4:09:46 AM PST by Elkiejg
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:06:15 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Yesterday's big legal news--no, not the charges against Michael Jackson--is that two federal appeals courts issued decisions ignoring the fact that the U.S. homeland was attacked on September 11.
From New York comes a ruling by the Second Circuit ordering the release of alleged dirty bomber Jose Padilla. In San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit decided that the detainees at Guantanamo must have access to lawyers and the federal courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This seems simple to solve.
Congress should take up another bill that would specifically address the Padilla case.
Lets get Kerry, Lieberman, Gephart, Kuchinik [sp?], Edwards, etc. all to vote on whether the Dirty Bomber should be released into the public.
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk
If we adopt the stance that American citizens can be detained indefinitely by the government on no more than the government's say-so, what precedent will be in place for future administrations with whom the people on this forum strongly disagree?
If he's done something wrong, charge him in a court of law and let the process provided for in the Constitution take its course.
Last time I checked, this is still a nation of laws. At least I thought that's what we're all striving for.
Dick Morris had an interesting analysis of this very matter. The Clinton administration treated the original WTC bombing as a legal matter, not a political one. The likely reason is that since Clinton had only the economy going for him, he did not want to do anything that might disturb oil prices and so, the economy. In other words, for personal political reasons he allowed an act of war to be treated as a criminal matter. That gave the terrorists the time needed to organize the 9/11 attacks: Clinton set the United States up for the attack that would kill thousands. Bill Clinton - and self-serving liberal policy - resulted directly in the deaths of thousands of at the hands of foreign enemies.
Judges (and others) having the 9/10 mentality are doing the same thing, refusing to see the peril we are in now. I can only hope the Supreme Court sees things differently.
However, I do think that there is less basis for holding Padilla indefinitely. If he is truly an enemy combatant, he should be charged with treason.
From Article III of the Constitution:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
It is a difficult charge to prove, but appropriate in this case.
Thank you for the correction. I see now that it was the 2nd Circuit in the Padilla case.
The 9th, as usual, got it wrong. HUGE difference between American citizens and enemy combatants, IMO.
Even if Padilla was/is collaborating with the bad guys, he is entitled, by the Constitution, to a trial within the court system of this country. And you are spot on with the charge that should be brought: treason. Personally, I hope he is charged.
But if we start to disavow the Constitution in the name of "saving the country", then haven't the terrorists actually won?
If they have evidence to prove that he was/is engaged in a conspiracy to explode a dirty bomb, then let them bring charges and present that evidence to a jury in a court of law.
Let's keep one thing firmly in mind here: The precedents established by this administration will also be in place for future administrations. Are you sure you want a Democratic president (and we WILL have one, at some point in the future) to be able to lock up anyone he or she deems a threat to the security of the nation without the protections of the Constitution being afforded to that person?
I am appalled that people think it's a good idea for a citizen of this country to be held in prison, indefinitely, on no more than an accusation by the government. That's something I would expect from Stalinist Russia, not America.
They are prisoners of war... illegal combatants which gives them even fewer protections. The fact that they were US citizens operating as a clandestine saboteur and made it to the US gives them no special protections. (What about Japensese and German soldiers in WWII who were US citizens and were captured? Did they all deserve trials?) They can be held in detention until the end of the conflict just like with any other war. Its a military and national defense matter, not a matter of crminal defense. The ACLU wants to lawyer us into national self destruction.
The Supreme Court decided this in WWII already. At that time some Nazi saboteurs (in the US) were captured and given the death penalty by a military court. Some of them were US citizens. The US citizens wanted a criminal trial. The USSC upheld the military tribunal and the saboteurs were hung. The same thing with Padilla. We was a sabotuer captured during a war. He belongs under military NOT civillian jurisdiction.
Your psuedo-libertarianism is going to get thousands of people killed. You can't present half the intel they have on Padilla without blowing sources and methods which will be very difficult to recreate. Al Queda wants a trial so they can get info on how much the US knows.
This is exactly why liberatians should never be in charge of foreign policy or national defense. They cant tell the difference between a criminal matter and a military matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.