Posted on 11/30/2003 7:19:22 AM PST by buffyt
A chief architect of the USA Patriot Act and a former top assistant to Attorney General John Ashcroft are voicing concern about aspects of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policy, the LOS ANGELES TIMES reported on Sunday.
At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the New York-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the United States -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution.
Viet Dinh, who until May headed up the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said in a series of recent speeches and in an interview with the LOS ANGELES TIMES that he thinks the government's detention of Padilla is flawed and unlikely to survive court review. The principal intellectual force behind the Patriot Act, the terror-fighting law enacted by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Dinh has steadfastly defended the Justice Department's anti-terrorism efforts against charges that they have led to civil-rights abuses of immigrants and others.
In an interview, Dinh, now a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said the Padilla case was not within his line of authority when he was in the department, but that he began to think about the issue after leaving the government, and came to the conclusion that the administration's case was "unsustainable."
Another top former Justice Department official, Michael Chertoff, who headed the department's criminal division, has said he believed the government should reconsider how it goes about designating enemy combatants. "Two years into the war on terror, it is time to move beyond case-by-case development," Chertoff said.
In the interview, Dinh said he believed the president had the unquestioned authority to detain persons during wartime, even those captured on "untraditional battlefields," including on American soil. He also said the president should be given flexibility in selecting the forum and circumstances -- such as a military tribunal or an administrative hearing -- in which the person designated an enemy combatant can confront the charges against him.
The trouble with the Padilla case, Dinh said, is that the government hasn't established any framework for permitting Padilla to respond, and that it seems to think it has no legal duty to do so. "The president is owed significant deference as to when and how and what kind of process the person designated an enemy combatant is entitled to," Dinh said. "But I do not think the Supreme Court would defer to the president when there is nothing to defer to. There must be an actual process or discernible set of procedures to determine how they will be treated."
Developing...
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "
That's their Constitutional guarantee. It has not been "dispensed with" LOL!
Padilla is making full use of it.
How people can pretend otherwise is beyond me.
PADILLA HAS A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION IN THE COURTS RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I repeat:
PADILLA HAS A HABEAS CORPUS PETITION IN THE COURTS RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Could make anyone ask if the Patriot Act had suspended Habeas Corpus is, I confess, beyond me.
Neither the treatment of enemy combatants, the Patriot Act, nor any other law or act of the government has suspended Habeas Corpus.
If Habeas Corpus is ever suspended you'll definitely hear about it.
WHAT?!!!
Under that specious logic, any one of us could be arrested, but not charged and be denied our 6th Amendment rights indefinitely!
Give me a break!
I knew that Dubya was power hungry. But, even der Schlickmeister, himself (klinton), didn't have the gall to propose such an absurdity. I'm sure that der Schlickmeister is now kicking himself for not trying of that one, because he could have used it to get rid of a lot of his political enemies, who were otherwise untouchable.
This is not about Jose Padilla, the probable terrorist, but about Jose Padilla the US CITIZEN.
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others." --- Thomas Jefferson
Padilla is probably guilty. But, he's a US citizen and entitled to the same guarantees that you and I expect, until such time as the administration can show just cause to a court, why those guarantees should not apply to him. As Jefferson's statement suggests, if we allow Bush and Ashcroft to get away with this, we open the door for future usurpations of our own rights.
It's not just the fact that Dubya and th' boyz are denying a US citizen his 6th Amendment rights, that should concern us, but that the reason they give for denying him his rights, represents a serious threat to EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN!
Even if we now grant Padilla access to an attorney and the court, but fail to hold those responsible for this blatant abuse of power, to account, then we have achieved nothing, but to restore the rights of a probable terrorist. To protect our own rights and insure that such abuses will not be tolerated in the future, not only must Padilla be granted access to an attorney and the courts, as the 6th Amendment dictates, but those responsible for this blatant abuse of power, including Dubya and Ashcroft, must be held legally accountable, just as we hold a policeman responsible, who beats a suspect who is not resisting arrest. Otherwise, we send a message to future administrations, both Republican and Democrat, that you can get away with violating the rights of citizens, as long as you eventually come around, when the pressure is on.
To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not agree with what Padilla probably did, but to my death I will defend his right to the protections guaranteed him under the laws of our nation. But, even after such a strong statement, I must admit to a selfish motive, since to do anything less, would be to accept this foul argument as a precedent and thereby ascent to allowing the government to do the same to me at some future time.
LOL!
It is the courts who have declared that the Sixth Amendment means what it says: "In all criminal prosecutions..."
(Yes, it's hard to believe the Supreme Court ever supported the Constitution... )
If any criminal prosecutions are commenced against Padilla he will enjoy his Sixth Amendment rights just as he is currently enjoying his right to petition for Habeas Corpus.
"It is the courts who have declared that the Sixth Amendment means what it says..."
That's the way it should be, at least. In fact, some time back, the court ruled that the Justice department had to allow Padilla access to an attorney. But, Dubya and Ashcroft have decreed that the courts may not review their decision and is now pulling a klinton (stonewalling).
Dubya knows that the court, alone, has no enforcement power and is therefore, dependent upon the Justice Department, that Dubya and Ashcroft control, to enforce court rulings. Dubya has figured out that since he controls the enforcement arm of the court, he can just ignore the court. After all, what are the justices going to do - strap on six-shooters, march into the Whitehouse, arrest him and throw him in Leavenworth?
Of course not. He's King George I and has no need for courts.
There is, at least, one positive side to all of Dubya's unconstitutional chicanery - klinton didn't think of it... or at least, if he did think of it, he didn't have the gall to actually try it, as did Dubya.
At least, now we know why Dubya didn't have klinton prosecuted for his gross abuses of power. Dubya was establishing precedent, so the next President won't go after him, when he is out of office. That's a sad statement about the state of our government. What makes it even sadder, is that it has to be said about a President who claims to be a Republican, even though he is not.
The Founders had good reason to limit the Sixth Amendment to criminal cases.
If you disagree, then try to amend the Constitution.
Too much ignorance of the facts too.
If the administration loses it's appeal, Padilla will be the first combatant given access to a lawyer to challenge his detention.
In this particular case that is probably a good idea if done carefully.
"There's just too much ignorance- or is it hatred?- of the Constitution in your posts."
Reality Check.
Who is it who pushed the Anti-4th Amendment, (ANTI)Patriot Act through Congress so fast that not a single Congressman had a chance to read the final version before it was brought to a vote? Dubya, you or me?
Who is it who has flagrantly ignored the 6th Amendment rights of a US citizen and has further flaunted his utter contempt for a court order, demanding that the US citizen be allowed access to a lawyer? Dubya, you or me?
Who is it who has called upon Congress to ratify the European Cybercrime Treaty, that includes some very severe Anti-1st Amendment language, to restrict what speech can be posted to the Internet or sent by email. Dubya, you or me?
Who is it who has been decrying those and other lesser assaults on the Constitution? Dubya, you or me?
It should be quite clear that if anyone in this debate hates the restraints of the Constitution, it is Dubya.
On the other hand, if anyone in this debate cherishes and wants to protect the Constitution, it is me.
Since I have no evidence that you either attempted to subvert the Constitution, as has Dubya, nor attempted to expose those attempts, as have I, one can only assume that you either must not care about the Constitution or you have been thoroughly duped by Dubya's propaganda folks.
"The Founders had good reason to limit the Sixth Amendment to criminal cases."
Duh!
So are you suggesting that Dubya is holding an American Citizen in prison, without access to any type of legal recourse, on CIVIL grounds? Give me a break! I've heard some really stupid things from some of the liberals who occasionally post to FR over the years. But, that suggestion ranks right up there with the craziest of them. Even if it were a CIVIL case, it would only make things even worse for Dubya.
If you disagree, then try to amend the Constitution.
That's what you should be proclaiming to Dubya. Since he obviously has no use for the Constitution in its current form, rather than just ignoring or subverting the sections that he doesn't like, the proper action would be to try to amend the Constitution to fit his big-government agenda. But, he knows that, although he could never get such an amendment past the people, he can have essentially the same effect, by just ignoring the Constitution and daring the court to take any independent action against him. In fact, Dubya has taken steps to preclude that scenario, by claiming that the court has no oversight into his actions. What arrogance! What unmitigated gall!
If the administration loses it's appeal, Padilla will be the first combatant given access to a lawyer to challenge his detention.
That was a court order. If a judge issues a restraining order against you and you appeal it, you are still subject to that court order until such time as a higher court overrules the lower court. But, King George I seems to think that he is immune to the law and can just ignore that court order.
The point that is important here is not Dubya's many individual infractions against the Constitution, but rather the "pattern of behavior", which demonstrates that he has no respect at all for the Constitution, when it is in the way of his acquiring more power. When klinton was in office, many people who now excuse Dubya's many assaults on the Constitution, as unimportant and unrelated, were then loudly proclaiming klinton's "pattern of behavior" as evidence against him. I was one of those who denounced klinton for his appalling "pattern of behavior". It is because I don't have the double standard that many Republicans appear to have, that I now denounce Dubya for his appalling "pattern of behavior."
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The 6th Amendment is about much more than just the right to council. The tenor of the whole thing is about making certain that EVERY US citizen (not just those that you and I like - EVERY citizen) is assured that a compulsory and speedy process for redress exists, should he feel that his arrest is not justified. According to what Ashcroft has told us, Padilla is probably guilty and should be held under high security. But then, you have to consider the source of that information. There are only two other people in the United States who are more untrustworthy than Ashcroft and that's bill and hillary. I would feel much better about the Padilla case if they were to let him have an attorney (even a retired JAG officer whose clearance is still active) and let him present his side to the judge (even in a closed court). The fact that Dubya and Ashcroft have now held Padilla for well over a year and seem to be afraid to let him present his case in court, even to this day, leads me to believe that they are seriously afraid that they just may not have the case that they claim to have and are in cover-up mode.
It is at least evident that you are too ignorant of the Constitution to know that you hate those who uphold it.
And such an obstinate ignorance, it also seems to include every fact of Padilla's case!
BTW: anyone who wishes to read the judge's explanation of why he did not require the administration to allow access to counsel while they appealed the case can read his words here: Order Certifying Govt's Interlocutory Appeal (PDF) April 9, 2003
(Your insanely false version was hilarious.)
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.