Article

2003-11-18 Home Front

Court to Rule on âEnemy Combatantâ Label

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-18 1:31:15 AM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 You have to remember that the Quirin Court observed that the charge of unlawful combatancy is distinct from treason and those who commit acts of unlawful combat or assist enemy states in the conduct of such operations are subject to trial as unlawful combatants.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-18 2:12:02 AM|| 2003-11-18 2:12:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 If the dark side wins, then Congress might just have to redefine jihad criminality. I would include financiers of jihad, or: damn near every American Muslim. Avicenna's (ibn-Sina) book on "jihad" clearly links finance and support, with jihad. Hey, the good guys can't lose.

Posted by Anonon 2003-11-18 2:34:28 AM|| 2003-11-18 2:34:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm not torn by this at all. Padilla went to a foreign element to propose a strategic weapons attack on the USA. It is cut and dried in my view. He is a traitor and the USA best be rid of him.

I am afraid the legal profession in this country has lost its way. They would rather be enablers of foreign terrorist elements then to do the necessary work of killing them.

Posted by badanov 2003-11-18 5:53:35 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-11-18 5:53:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Unfortantly they are correct,Padila is not an enemy combatant,he is a traitor.He should be tried as a traitor and if convicted of treason,hung by the neck until dead,dead,dead.

Posted by Raptor 2003-11-18 7:59:04 AM|| 2003-11-18 7:59:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Padilla is clearly a treasonous bastard. That's not the issue here. The question is whether we're going to give the President or the Attorney General the right to hold American citizens incommunicado indefinitely with no judicial review at all. That's not been our practice in this country, and we should think long and hard about whether we want to accept it. There are a lot of options short of this extreme that can be used (even if a trail per se is impractical) to keep this guy and the scum like him out of circulation and extract whatever information they have without roundfiling the Bill of Rights.

Posted by VAMark 2003-11-18 8:18:09 AM|| 2003-11-18 8:18:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 VAMark, elaborate. I'm tired of people saying there are other options but not providing any. It's lazy. And you just said trailing him is impractical. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, it's just I'd like an alternative but I can't think of any that would be less 'offensive' to the Bill of Rights. But to be honest, if you aren't a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer I have yet to see any real effect on the Bill of Rights. It's all 'crying wolf' as far as I can tell.

Posted by Swiggles 2003-11-18 8:46:24 AM|| 2003-11-18 8:46:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Yeah, VAMark, you have a point. We shouldn't be holding these traitors. We should have shot them on the spot like we did when we caught U.S. citizens fighting for the Germans in WWII.

Posted by Parabellum 2003-11-18 9:08:50 AM|| 2003-11-18 9:08:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 The question is whether we're going to give the President or the Attorney General the right to hold American citizens incommunicado indefinitely with no judicial review at all.

To me, that is a contraditction. And a contradiction is nothing more than an attempt to deceive and a deception is nothing more than a lie. The facts are that Padilla is not held incommunicado, otherwise no one would be aware of that condition. So let's get that straight once and for all. Were this Iraq or some other mobocracy, Padilla would be dead already and the government would deny having killed him.

If Padilla is being denied a lawyer as a prudent and minimal measure intended to prevent a character from going underground to plot more attacks against his country using strategic weapons, it is becuase the judicial system has been demonstrated time and again to be not up to the task of defending the USA against homegrown terrorists. The great expansion of criminal rights of the 60s and 70s is coming home to roost.

Detaining Padilla pending completion of a prosecutorial review of what to do with him is a sensible measure.

Detaining people whose release would constitute a danger to the public good is a long established means of preventative measures. You should read case law on this very matter where some folks have been held a lot longer for a lot less than Padilla and it was upheld by SCOTUS.

This isn't like somone rounded up a Mexican coz he looked like he may be Muslim. This guy was plotting an attack against the USA, which results would have been life-taking radiation in a city lasting thousands of years. Is Padilla's crimninal rights really worth that?

Posted by badanov 2003-11-18 9:11:12 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-11-18 9:11:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Give the guy a trial for treason. I suggest someplace in Harris County, Texas. It ain't the ~~execution~~ "Fair Trial" capital of the nation for nuthin...

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2003-11-18 9:18:07 AM|| 2003-11-18 9:18:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 interesting that it was brought in Manhattan, and not South Carolina - judge shopping?

Posted by Frank G 2003-11-18 9:29:45 AM|| 2003-11-18 9:29:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Try him for treason. Get this thing going. I thought his citizenship was in dispute but was wrong. He's a U.S. citizen which, I believe makes him treason material. He'll be found guilty, locked up or executed. If locked up, the prison population will take care of him if you know what I mean. If he gets off on some unforseen b.s. techno, he's deadmeat on the outside, rest assured. The guy is screwed either way - I feel better now.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-18 9:50:00 AM|| 2003-11-18 9:50:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Precedent has been that anyone who fights for another nation or militant group loses his/her US citizenship. Once citizenship is gone, then anyone attacking the United States would be a "foreign combattant", regardless of where they were born or call home. Dozens of Japanese and Germans who were INVOLUNTARILY inducted into the armies of Japan and Germany because they held dual citizenship and happened to be in those countries at the outbreak of hostilities were classified as 'foreign combattants', and it took direct action by Congress to restore their citizenship - usually on a case-by-case basis.

In this instance, the guy deliberately planned to wage war against his homeland for another political group. It should be the considered the same way Southern soldiers fighting for the Confederacy during our civil war were considered. The guy has relinquished his rights as a US citizen, and should reap the rewards of his stupidity.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-11-18 10:21:41 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-11-18 10:21:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Judge Parker's a moron, it seems. If there's anything that's pure executive branch, it's the war-making powers. Commander-in-chief and all that, maybe you twits will recognize the phrase, huh?

Congress funds, or not. That's their power.

Posted by mojo 2003-11-18 10:46:45 AM|| 2003-11-18 10:46:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 doesnt the US have to declare someone a non-citizen for whatever reason. AFAIK Padilla was a citizen at the time of this arrest, and the admin considers him one to this day.

And of course the Pres has full power to wage war. he doesnt have unlimited power to decide what constitutes waging war. Can he decide that any terrorism related arrest that takes place on US soil is part of the war, and so he can determine that ANYONE arrested is an enemy combattant. IIUC the appeals court is saying that if the US homeland is to be considered the "battlefield" for the purpose of classifying someone as a non-combatant, congress needs to be involved in such declaration.

I see NO good outcome, either way. I see no clear means of trying Padilla that doesnt interfere with interrogations. OTOH I dont want to see the precedent of US citizens taken on US soil held as enemy combatants, without due process rights.

Hopefully more will become clear when this goes to the SCOTUS.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-18 1:19:52 PM|| 2003-11-18 1:19:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 "What'd they call 'em at Andersonville"

POW's.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-18 2:51:20 PM|| 2003-11-18 2:51:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 What'd they call 'em at Andersonville

Even the Swiss guy? (a fine point for sure)

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-18 5:59:26 PM|| 2003-11-18 5:59:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Returning late, let me clarify my point. Try him as a traitor if you can, but it may not be possible to allow him more than a sham defense without compromising security/classfied information. If that's the case, there should be some middle ground between the routine justice system that can't handle the situation and an unreviewable executive declaration that puts you away with no contact with the outside world indefinitely. Some kind of review, maybe similar to the "intelligence court" (FISA?) should be possible without compromising either security or interrogation.

Badanov - Webster's defines "incommunicado" as being held without contact with others. Without the knowledge of others isn't part of the definition. Calling somebody a liar over a fine point of definition is bad enough, but at least get it right.

Posted by VAMark 2003-11-19 12:13:28 AM|| 2003-11-19 12:13:28 AM|| Front Page Top

03:36 jimmytheclaw
02:54 Igs
01:24 Lucky
01:06 Lucky
00:41 LeftEnd
00:30 ISLAM SUCKS
00:26 alzaebo
00:23 Atomic Conspiracy
00:14 alzaebo
00:13 VAMark
23:50 Anonymous
23:40 alzaebo
23:30 Aris Katsaris
23:18 alzaebo
23:11 PBMcL
23:06 alzaebo
23:05 VAMark
22:58 Anonymous
22:48 Daniel King
22:16 Mark
22:15 Vlad the Muslim Impaler
22:08 TPF
22:02 Alaska Paul
21:40 Steve White