http://msnbc.com/news/764658.asp?pne=msn


Al-Mujahir [Actual name: Jose Padilla] was arrested May 8, as he arrived at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport on a flight from Pakistan, Ashcroft said. He is in the custody of the Defense Department as an “enemy combatant,” the attorney general said, a move that suggests that al-Mujahir will be tried by a military tribunal.
At a later news conference at the Justice Department, Wolfowitz said al-Mujahir was being held at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., after being transferred from federal custody.

Two things bother me about this. First, it bothers me that MSN continues to refer to the man by the name al-Mujahir, instead of Padilla. They thought it was important enough to point out what his (apparently) legal name was, but throughout the piece refer to him in his "Islam" name-a practice I admit to not fully understanding. Either way, is this some sort of sanatation attempt by the news agency? I think that up until now, while we have not understood the causes for hatred and terrorism against the US, we have collectively thought that it was something "over there" and that we were either too refined, or had too much respect for life, or whatever else we needed to tell ourselves such that Americans would not participate in such a thing. Hearing the name Padilla in a list of terrorist names, then would seem to cast a shade of grey on the battlefield, that somehow not every 'normal' person is not a militant, and that not every 'Islamist' is a mad-eyed rabid killer.

Secondly, I can't tell exactly what crime he's commited. that might be why he's being held as an enemy combatant (whatever that means) and kept in a navy brig while the investigation continues, most likely denied due process and access to a lawyer. A front-runner would be conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism, but that would be in a civil court. However, the article makes it sound like he was arrested for knowing how to wire explosives and having knowledge of radiological dispersion devices.

So, now we are arresting our own citizens, and placing them in custody, with the intent of placing him before a military tribunal, as an "enemy combatant". What's next?

He tries to kill civilians. He deserves no sympathy. As an American tax payer I don't want to waste money on a trial.

Originally posted by Joeman
As an American tax payer I don't want to waste money on a trial.

As an AMERICAN tax payer, you should insist on a trial. To convict without a trial is UN-AMERICAN. . If anyone asks for proof on this, I refer you to "The Constitution of The United States of America".:bugeye:

I agree with Ratbat. But I have to add that it is not AMERICAN, it is HUMAN. It are his rights as a human to get a trial.

It is sad how people lose sight on things many people have died for to obtain.

When you get used to something, its value decreases rapidly...

A4ever, ratbat, you bring a smile to my face.

As human beings we have rights, and one of those is to due process of the law. That means that he has to be presented with a writ of habeus corpus, have access to an attourney, and be exempt from cruel and unusual punishment. All of which are denied when one is part of a military tribunal. The fact that he is an american citizen makes the notion of an "enemy combatant" simply absurd, unless the term gets broadened to include anyone the the US that disagrees with the bloodthirsty turn that our government has taken.

Originally posted by ratbat

As an tax payer, you should insist on a trial. To convict without a trial is . If anyone asks for proof on this, I refer you to "The Constitution of The United States of America".:bugeye:

But he is an enemy combatant. You don't need a civilian trial to kill enemy soldiers.

The guy very likely did something wrong. Why wouldn't FBI arrest me? Those terrorists are having too much right in US than in any other country. They are lucky they are in US. If they are in China, the police would have killed him first and ask questions later.

The whole constitution arguments are for lawyers. I don't buy that crap. NOT every law or policy in US are constitutional.(affirmative action). He must be put in jail for his conspiracy. If he is not guilty(high unlikely), it is his own fault for putting himself in this position. Gee, how hard is it to avoid putting yourself in that position? If I can do it, so can he.

It doesn't work like that.


The guy very likely did something wrong. Why wouldn't FBI arrest me?

You can not sentence a man for something he did 'very likely'. If you stand up to unfair trials, the FBI will never come to arrest you, cause there will be no point in doing so. They would have to prove something. But if we follow your line of thinking, they can give a shot at arresting you, if you are "very likely" to have done something wrong.


The whole constitution arguments are for lawyers

It's things like that that make society go down the drain. Society, with its laws, is YOU, ME and EVERYONE. Not just lawyers. Please consider this.


Gee, how hard is it to avoid putting yourself in that position?

Newsflash: A4Ever has been arrested for knowledge of how to make a nucleair bomb. He obtained this information from the internet. He will now be trialed as an enemy of the state, without without due process. For security reasons, the internet will be shut down.

The whole constitution arguments are for lawyers


This is exactly why the constitution exists, and is exactly why the founding fathers made it so damn hard to change. These rights exist for a reason, Joeman. Maybe these terrorists are lucky to be in the US where we do have rights and we are obligated to follow our own due process system. The fact of the matter is that this man is an american citizen, and that changes things. He cannot be held without being charged with a crime, and he can not be denied his rights. Think about it for a minute. What defines "enemy of the state"? Well, by golly gee, the state does. Right now it means people who may have information about dirty bombs. Maybe later we'll hold members of organized crime in military custody because they're dangerous to the people of the country, and they're probably guilty of all sorts of things. And then, really, anyone who is arrested is probably guilty of something. Why waste time on trials? They just let the guilty go free. And really, if you think about it, anyone who disagrees with what we're doing... well they're really no better than terrorists, right? People that criticize what the government is doing are basically committing terrorism, at the very least encouraging it and condoning it. Why don't we put them into a navy brig too? And then, all that's left is to invade the Rhineland. i'm sure you see where this is going.

It is a slippery slope. Take for example this from todays MSN report:

Sources told NBC News that the weekend transfer to military custody was ordered after Padilla refused to cooperate during a month of questioning by federal investigators in New York
http://www.msnbc.com/news/764658.asp?pne=msn

A MONTH OF QUESTIONING. A MONTH of FEDERAL questioning. And since he wasn't telling them everything they wanted, they decided to ship him off to the military, and let them have a crack at it. This is nothing more than a strongarm tactic now. He has the right against self-incrimination-in a civilian court, in civilian custody. Of course, once he gets to the navy brig the gloves can come off and the rubber hoses can come out! The navy knows how to get men to talk, and in a military tribunal or a military interrogation a person has no rights. Hell, after a few weeks in the brig of a ship, I'd probably confess to being the captain at the Valdez wreck.

In cases like this where we're talking about criminal offences, it is a general principle of law that the one who is being charged does not have to cooperate. It is also formaly stated in the fifth amendment, no?

The frustration of the justice department can not make these rights vaporize.

I think what makes me uncomfortable is the nicely circular situation which arises because of the nature of the allegations. Any information about the specifics of the crime is sensitive and related to terrorism and al-Qaeda, so this guy will be held by the military and thus any requirement for legal process and a public airing of the evidence in a trial evaporates.

I for one would not want to be charged with plotting with al-Qaeda. There seems to be no presumption of innocence.

Peace.

...But he is an enemy combatant. You don't need a civilian trial to kill enemy soldiers. Those terrorists are having too much right in US than in any other country. They are lucky they are in US. If they are in China, the police would have killed him first and ask questions later. The whole constitution arguments are for lawyers. I don't buy that crap. NOT every law or policy in US are constitutional...
Joeman,

One reason we have battles instead of trials in times of war is that enemy soldiers are rarely guilty of any crime at all. They are simply defending their country as you would defend yours. Yes, soldiers kill each other in battle, but civilized men frown upon the practice of executing prisoners of war.

If you despise the Chinese system of justice, why would you have us emulate it?

The American Constitution is my greatest source of pride in my country. It is one of the finest documents ever written by man. I'd fight against anyone who would have us chose to ignore it. It is not crap. Other countries have adopted constitutions based upon our model, yet others often choose to ignore their own constitution. If we are better than them, it is only because we choose to live strictly by the words of this wonderful document, rather than use it for window-dressing.

Yes, we are all lucky to live in North America, though I'm afraid Bush and Ashcroft are making me feel less lucky with each new day.

Joeman, I'll end with a well-known quote which has particular relevance for us today.

"When they arrested the communists, I said nothing because I wasn't a communist. They came for the socialists and I said nothing because I wasn't a socialist. They came for the union leaders nd I said nothing because I wasn't a union leader. They came for the Jews and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me. And there was nobody left to say anything." Martin Niemöller

Michael

What the U.S. should say is that the GMR (Global majority Rule) is in a silent covert war with GROUPS of NATIONS (The Axis of Eeeeevil) wishing to disrupt the governments within the GMR's member nation states. Weapons employed include raving mad suicidal lunatics with at least college level intelligence and brain washed refugees who would give their left nut for a slice of bread. In this case, Al-Mujahir (Jose Padilla) aligned himself with said nations and is now a combatant of said silent covert war.

Call it a war and all is fair...
Constitution... what's that?

A4ever:
It is explicitly stated in the Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Here's another idea, which may be more on the border of conspiricy nuttiness. We have been hearing more and more and more about the so-called "dirty bomb" of which only one has ever been detonated (because they're generally worthless weapons). Could it be that Mr Padilla-as a resident of several correctional faciliities-was offered an opportunity to disappear into another city with a new identity and clean background if he would play a part in this arrest? It would bring attention back to the dirty bomb theory and inject a little more fear into the people, since the popularity of a war in iraq is waning a bit.

goofyfish:
In Padilla's case, there's not even the presumption of a crime after a MONTH of questioning. A local DJ here said "Je even looks evil" referring to Padilla. I think we're all in a lot of trouble.

In a CNN poll today.

Should the U.S. government be allowed to hold 'enemy combatants' without a trial?

So far 77% voted yes.

I am glad I have the backing of 112989 votes

It's like saying "ten million Germans couldn't have been wrong" when Hitler was elected. You know he was elected, don't you?

I have doubts about a poll though. It is not a vote. Do people have to call in?

I know a poll isn't the same thing as a vote, but it still scares me. The question arises wether a state of law can end itself by vote.

What if the majority of people vote for a president and a parliament who create a new legal categorie named 'enemy combattant' and apply different rules to them than to other accused. It would mean the end of equality of people. I hope the Supreme Court would put an end to that if it ever happens.

Goto http://www.cnn.com and vote for yourself


Originally posted by A4Ever
It's like saying "ten million Germans couldn't have been wrong" when Hitler was elected. You know he was elected, don't you?


I don't think Hitler was elected. People elected Hitler analogy is absord. This has nothing to do with Hitler. Before WWII Hitler became powerful and Europe did nothing. Before entire Europe get butt raped US come to rescue. Europe has a bad track records in dealing with threats. We must kill terrorists before they kill us. That is the essence of Bush's first strike policy.

That Jose Padilla dude was in and out of jail before he got brained washed by Islam - most retarded religion on earth. Therefore he doesn't get any sympathy.

You are right about Hitler not being elected. I should have checked first. He was appointed in a legal way.

Which still supports my point that the power of the state should be limited by principles of law, like the presumption of innosence.


That Jose Padilla dude was in and out of jail before he got brained washed by Islam - most retarded religion on earth. Therefore he doesn't get any sympathy.

This quote shows that you have no trouble with totalitarian reflexes and that you don't support the principles of law needed to keep power between the lines of reason.

I think my Hitler analogy stands:

That Michael Weinstein got arrested several times by the ss officers. He is a Jew.He is brainwashed by the most stupid religion on earth. He will not get any sympathy, nor will other people who are like him.

Sounds familiar?

That Jose Padilla dude was in and out of jail before he got brained washed by Islam

Great... just great.

There is a significant difference between "sympathy" and being granted the rights which he is entitled to as a human being. I don't know if I have sympathy for him. That's irrelevant. People are entitled to their basic human rights whether or not we sympathize with them.

Frankly, I don't care what 100,000 people with the ability to click on a link say. If you gathered 20 million people together and said the sun went around the earth, that wouldn't make it any more correct of a statement. If the man is classified as a POW, he is gauranteed protection by the Geneva convention (including protection from interrogation). So of course we are reluctant to classify him in that manner. And remember, for a month he was the guest of federal investigators (of course unnamed) held as a civilian criminal. Doesn't that bother you, that after a month he was "reclassified" and will be held until the "War on Terror" is over. The same "War on Terror" that our leaders say will probably never end.

If the government gets away with this, they're going to broaden it more and more. Maybe not in the next weeks, but you'll see it. This is carte blanche for the federal government to arrest and indefinitely detain ANY person they deem necessary. Right now, it's an alleged al-Queda operative. Tomorrow it could be anyone who disagrees with the president's war. The evidence connecting people is all "classified" information, so the evidence they're being held on is not available to the public.

What happens if they come for you, Joeman?

Originally posted by A4Ever
This quote shows that you have no trouble with totalitarian reflexes and that you don't support the principles of law needed to keep power between the lines of reason.

I refuse to let laws or constitutions or whatever handcuff our war effort. Just like any war, people must be sacrificed. US can't risk having the dirty bomb exploded in NY. The probability of him being guilty is very high. If not, he has to be sacrificed for greater goods. It is his own fault to putting himself in that position. There are a lot of things you have to do wrong to be black listed by FBI.

We can't fight those terrorists fair and square. We must fight dirty to terrorize the terrorists. The ends justify the means. We must search and destroy. I have this same debate with coworkers before. They say if we go down to their level they already won or some crap like that. Dennis Miller said if that is the case it would be nice to have less of them in their championship celebration :D

ok when they make being a "terriorst" mean dissagreeing with the goverment you will see

rember Rome was a rebublic before the first cesa

he found an enermy to threaten the people with then gradully took over

Question: If a foreign warship is approaching the USA uninvited, and military intelligence has reason to suspect that ship intends to launch a nuclear missile at Washington DC, does the USA have a right to stop it? Or should they simply sit back and wait for the nuke to hit, wait until some civilian court of law finds them guilty of trespass?

I am sure there are laws for suspicious ships, as there are laws for suspicious citizens.

It is not that you have to let them go free. You can arrest the citizen, you can halt the ship and search it. A judge will sign a search warrant within minutes.

It's what happenst AFTER that. The citizen should get a fair trial, no matter what. For the ship crew, there are two options: they carry a nuke: they get a trial. The threat is stopped. They don't carry a nuke: FBI apologises and let it get to shore.

Joeman,


I refuse to let laws or constitutions or whatever handcuff our war effort

You just said laws do not necessarily apply to the government. Totalitarianism... I can't believe you agree with that.


The probability of him being guilty is very high. If not, he has to be sacrificed for greater goods.

The presumption of innoscence. Unless laws do not apply anymore of course.


There are a lot of things you have to do wrong to be black listed by FBI.

I am of course not American, but we too have something like a National Security Agency. I can assure you that it is not difficult getting blacklisted by them. Just go to two left wing manifestations: they'll have your picture and know who you are. They'll keep track of your activities.


The ends justify the means. We must search and destroy

No it doesn't. We should show that we are better than them and apply our value system. This will also not let them go unpunished. We will just be more human about it.

Remember Machiaveli?

And if the ship/person is sailing/flying directly into Washington? What if there is no time for getting a warrant? What if your only choice is to wait, or to take the initiative? If you wait, they may strike while you are trying to get a warrant for that legal process you mentioned. If you don't wait, you set a precedent for trampling peoples' right. Which is better?

Your version of fetching a warrant and all takes time and assumes a case with the most freedom to take the more desirable course of action. Assume not enough time for happy procedures.

happy procedures

Do I hear cynism there? :)

I am sure there are laws for when direct action is needed, without a warrant. It's what you do AFTERWARDS that counts.

I refuse to let laws or constitutions or whatever handcuff our war effort. Just like any war, people must be sacrificed. US can't risk having the dirty bomb exploded in NY. The probability of him being guilty is very high. If not, he has to be sacrificed for greater goods. It is his own fault to putting himself in that position. There are a lot of things you have to do wrong to be black listed by FBI.

We can't fight those terrorists fair and square. We must fight dirty to terrorize the terrorists. The ends justify the means. We must search and destroy. I have this same debate with coworkers before. They say if we go down to their level they already won or some crap like that. Dennis Miller said if that is the case it would be nice to have less of them in their championship celebration I would go alnong with the above if I knew for certain that he was guilty. A claim by the government is not enough for me.

I just plain do not trust politicians, police, justice department personnel, district attorneys, et cetera to be honest. They often have motives not related to a search for truth and justice.

In my city they put a man (Neil Ferber) on death row after a trial that was outrageous. The prosecutors used perjured testimony and supressed evidence they know would result in a not guilty verdict. Neil won a law suit for several million dollars after spending a few years on death row. He was not a model citizen, but had never commited a violent crime.

The above is not the only case like this. The FBI has knowing let innocent men be convicted. To enhance their image, they put a German informant in Jail for espionage in the forties. This poor guy had lived in the US from infancy and was taken back to Germany by his parents when he was a teenager. When the Nazis sent him to the US with a group of spies and saboteurs, he told the FBI everything because he sympathized with the USA, not Germany. Hoover and the FBI wanted credit for uncovering the plot and put him in jail with the others.

The above are only a few instances of gross miscarriages of justice. I do not want any bureaucrat, judge, prosecuter, politician, et cetera to be allowed to put somebody in jail without trial or due process.

The government should be viewed as a necessary evil to be constantly watched and held in check. While I would not trade our current system for any other (although Switzerland looks good), I consider our government as potentially more dangerous than almost anybody else. They have the legal right to use guns and lock people up. If they do somthing outrageous, you can be in trouble for shooting back. If the mafia comes after you, you can plead self defense if you survive after wasting a few of them.

I refuse to let laws or constitutions or whatever handcuff our war effort. Just like any war, people must be sacrificed.
... he has to be sacrificed for greater goods. It is his own fault to putting himself in that position.
...We can't fight those terrorists fair and square. We must fight dirty to terrorize the terrorists. The ends justify the means. We must search and destroy.
Joeman,
As an 18 year-old Italian girl, my mother-in-law watched the Nazi's drag her fiance around the town square tied to the back of a truck, until he was obviously dead. He was a Partisan. They thought of him as a terrorist.

They refused to let laws handcuff their war effort. Just like any war, people were sacrificed. He was sacrificed for the greater good. It was his fault for putting himself in that position. They didn't fight the Partisan's fair and square. They let the ends justify the means. They searched and destroyed.

Michael

They refused to let laws handcuff their war effort. Just like any war, people were sacrificed. He was sacrificed for the greater good. It was his fault for putting himself in that position. They didn't fight the Partisan's fair and square. They let the ends justify the means. They searched and destroyed.

I think that Joeman would be ok with that, Orthoganal.


And if the ship/person is sailing/flying directly into Washington? What if there is no time for getting a warrant? What if your only choice is to wait, or to take the initiative? If you wait, they may strike while you are trying to get a warrant for that legal process you mentioned. If you don't wait, you set a precedent for trampling peoples' right. Which is better?

Sweet zombie Jesus on a pogo stick, do you honestly not see that there is a difference between putting a man into a navy brig after a month of interrogation because he may have possibly met with al-Queda leadership and shooting down an enemy plane on its way to the government headquarters? I sure as hell do.



Ladies and gentlemen, Freedom has a cost. Freedom is scary. Yes, freedom means that people can kill one another, and then we have to prove that they are guilty. Our rights mean that occasionally people will abuse them, take advantage of them and cause great harm to us. But that is no excuse to abandon freedom. That is no excuse to embrace totalitarian government because people may harm us, and they might be guilty of bringing in the flavor of the month terrorist threat.


I refuse to let laws or constitutions or whatever handcuff our war effort.

So, I suppose it would be acceptable for all of us to wear identification badges, with GPS beacons on them? After all, if we're not doing anything wrong, what should be the problem? Plus people who have no badges would simply be refused all services, and it would be quite impossible for terrorist networks to exist. It's almost brilliant. Let's all go down to the local FBI building and leave off a sample of DNA and our fingerprints. After all, if we're not rapists or murderers, what is the problem? In fact, really, wouldn't it just be so much easier if the government assigned us duties and jobs, then payed us what the work was worth? Or just gave us enough food and lodging to survive? In fact, why not just kill everyone we think might be a rapist, murderer or thief? I mean, if there's any motive or even the most rediculous shred of circumstancial evidence that I was involved in a theft, I am probably guilty. And if I don't want to talk about where I was or what I was doing, well then I'm just proving my guilt by my silence. It all makes perfect sense. It was my own fault for putting myself in a position like that. Bad me. No one to blame but myself for any of it. In fact, lets just dispense with a trial, and execute people right off? That would streamline justice immensely...