Reagan-appointed judge has words for Ashcroft

Seattle Post-Intelligencier ^ | JOEL CONNELLY

[freeeee]

So your new claim is that the Constitution should be changed to give the Judicial Branch exactly what new power so they can do more than hold a habeas corpus hearing for an accused citizen combatant?

No. My claim is that Mr. Padilla is accused of levying war against our country. And the Constitution explicitly defines this behavior as the crime of Treason. Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees those accused of Treason a trial, during which no fewer than two witnesses must testify in order to gain a conviction.

That is what the Constitution says, in very plain words that even the most obtuse individual can understand. I advocate no changes to the Constitution, rather I would prefer that our government adhere to its crystal clear mandates in this case.

This really isn't all that difficult to understand.

[habaes corpussel]

"Congressional authorization for the president's use of military force and Habeas Corpus to object to it's use against citizens- that's a commendable process that is being followed."

It is???? Where? Please show me this? If your referring to EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). you are absolutely wrong.

[AmishDude]

And, no matter your politics, (unless your name is Scalia!) I think you would agree that chaining a prisoner to a hitching post all day in 100+ degree heat without food or water would constitute as cruel and unusual punishment.

You wacky right-wingnut, you. Gratuitous ad hominem and ungermane swipes at Scalia are right out of the VRWC handbook, aren't they?

The ACLU took those cases, too.

Man, is this the civil-rights-movement tactic of referring to decades-old actions to ameliorate current sins? And talk about your non-sequitors!

But what's interesting is that the first 6 items I found were the first 6 distinct items I found on a Google search. I didn't look past the fifth page. I didn't pick and choose. I expected to see some very boring, pedestrian and non-political decisions. Silly me.

[jwalsh07]

Congressional authorization for the president's use of military force and Habeas Corpus to object to it's use against citizens- that's a commendable process that is being followed.

Exactly so mrsmith.

[AmishDude]

What lawyers really learn in school, is how to 'legally' plunder the system.

Some of my best friends are lawyers. No, really. Not criminal defense attorneys, of course . . .

But I should have added at least half a
:-)

[mrsmith]

"If there was no violation of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment there would be no standing for a writ of Habaes Corpus in this case. "

NO.

If there was no claim of a violatin of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment there would be no standing for a writ of Habaes Corpus in this case.

He has the right to claim that he should not be held as a combatant. The court has the power to decide the worth of that claim.

If the military does not convince the judge that he is lawfully considered a combatant the judge will order that he be released; if they do he may be held until the Congressional authority is rescinded.

That is not only the proper Constitutional way to handle this- it is a dam* impressively fair one.

[mrsmith]

"Please show me this? "

Show you what- specifically. Your question is, to me, ambiguous.

And thanks for being specific in your earlier question!
I'll try to be too.

[Shryke]

The 4th Circuit panel noted, however, that the Supreme Court has shown great deference to the federal government in deciding matters of national security.

Imagine that. Perhaps we should entrust national security to attorneys??

[habaes corpussel]

With all due respect. I am a former JAG Officer. The military is NOT charged with trying Americans in this case. Congress has NOT authorized the Military to do such and the President has NOT charged the military with doing such either. Matter of fact the President did the opposite. Even if this was the case under the UCMJ a detaniee has the right to counsel within 48 hours. There is no charge filed in any Military Tribunal nor is there any charge pending in any Military Tribunal. Whether the tribunal is lawfully or unlawfully conviened.

Show me where Congress or the President has charged the US Military with trying Americans arrested on US Soil as either Lawful or Unlawful belligerents?

[Illbay]

No. Have you ever been a female child? Then don't complain about child rape.

[habaes corpussel]

"If there was no claim of a violatin of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment there would be no standing for a writ of Habaes Corpus in this case."

What? If the claim did not have merit there would be no standing.

[mrsmith]

mea culpa!
If the military Executive Branch does not convince the judge that he is lawfully considered a combatant the judge will order that he be released; if they do he may be held until the Congressional authority is rescinded.

My point stands- he is getting his H_C rights. Didn't you claim he wasn't? Forgive me if I misunderstood- that certainly seemed to be your point.

If we are finished with that, as a JAG vet, you could tell every one here what Constitutional rights an unlawful combatant has.
That's going to be a matter of interest very soon.

[AmishDude]

With all due respect. I am a former JAG Officer.

Not what I was thinking. I had left off "former". As well as "icer".

[mykej]

"About the judge in question:

1. Ruled with the ACLU in a solicitations permit case."

Yes, and he ruled correctly. You shouldn't have to go to the government, hat in hand, to get a permit to exercise your free seech rights. How is this a liberal ruling?

" 2. Ruled against Microsoft on a copyright case."

Micrsoft claimed to own the word "window", even though they never even filed for a copyright on "Microsoft Windows Operating System" until 1995. In fact:
"Through its own use of the evidence, Microsoft essentially admits that these terms refer to the genus of computer software products that have windowing capability," he wrote.

Another good call. I didn't know all conservatives were slaves to Microsoft.

" 3. Ruled with the ACLU keeping a school from suspending a student based on his web site."

In his own time, at home, away from school, a student wrote something. The school tried to punish him for something that didn't even happen at school. You have to hate free speech to be a conservative? I don't think so.

" 4. After an armed standoff, the judge sentenced the Freemen to stiff sentences, one to 22.5 years to send "a loud and clear message". Interesting contrast to the last case."

How is that a contrast? They were convicted of fraud and conspiracy, and wanted to bring down the US banking system. Seems like they desrved a strong sentence.

" 5. Ordered the EPA to be MORE strict on pesticides."

He said the EPA has to perform the function it is mandated to perform.

6. But my favorite: "The Seattle judge has been an outspoken critic of federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums that have eroded the discretion judges have in punishing offenders, particularly in drug cases."

I think mandatory minimums are idiotic myself. If judges consistantly do a bad job there are ways to get rid of them. They should be allowed to do their jobs. The federal sentencing guidelines should be just that: guidelines with room for discretion.

[AmishDude]

Read the rest of that post as well as #43.

[mrsmith]

"If the claim did not have merit "

Whether the claim has merit is what is to be determined by the court.

That is what our right to Habeas Corpus secures us- a petition. It does not give every claim merit.

[mrsmith]

"The judge has said he doesn't know if or when he'll rule on it. "

I'm so glad you've learned that Padilla has exercised his Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, as guaranteed him by the Constitution, to petition a court for his release

So you no longer claim that he has been denied it?
Or, as a ACLU devotee, does the fact that you know he has exercised his habeas corpus right not matter to your complaint that he has been denied it?

[Viva Le Dissention]

I'm admittedly a little unsure about what you were saying about Google, but I can say most definitely that there was not an ad hominem attack towards Scalia.

I didn't take a personal attack to try to disprove a position--an ad hominem attack would be, for example, that "handcuffing a prisoner to a hitching post, et al., should be unconstitutional because Scalia thinks it should be allowed, and Scalia smokes crack, and we can't believe anything a crack smoker says." (Disclaimer: I am not claiming that Scalia smokes crack--this was just simply a personal attack that came to mind. I use it only as an example.)

All I was pointing out was that Scalia found the practice of chaining a prisoner to a hitching post all day in 100+ degree heat without food or water well within the government's right.

Off the subject, although I believe that Scalia usually finds the Bill of Rights a cumbersome inhibitor to the government's iron fist, I enjoy his opinions, as they are unusually witty and generally the most entertaining to read of all the Justices--so he's got that going for him, which is nice.

[Viva Le Dissention]

He has not had his hearing. Until he does, he has been denied his legal right.

This dates back to 1215, for God's sake.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The only really traditionally liberal causes it champions are gay rights, but as a true conservative, I recognize the government has no business regulating the sexual activities of its citizens

So who should do it, the Catholic heirarchy?

ACLU=NAMBLA