I guess that is where its heading.
I for one beleve that the Congresses resolution authorising Bush to bring those responsible for 9/11 equals a declaration of war-there is no state to target so how do you say "the United States declares war on___?"

Also, in 91' Congress approved war against Iraq with a resolution that did not include the words "declaration of war". Does a declaration of war [i]need[/i] the words "delcare" and "war" in it?

Then there is the matter of the War Powers Act that we have thrown in there. Its never been tested, when Congress acts to wave it as they have in the current situation, does THAT mean we are at war?

Keep in mind, that the characters in office will swing left again one day.  They will enjoy this wider scope of power.

 

A person is not guilty of treason simply because he has been accused of it by Ashcroft and you.



Then here is some stuff you have not seen:

Associated Press: "the Justice Department handed ... Padilla to the Pentagon for [b]indefinite imprisonment[/b]."

U.S. Constitution: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a [b]speedy[/b] and [b]public[/b] trial...."

U.S. Constitution: "... by an impartial [b]jury of the State[/b] and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...."

U.S. Constitution: "[b]... to be confronted with the witnesses against him....[/b]"

U.S. Constitution: "[b]No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....[/b]"

Also:
"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"

Show me where I stated that this maggot IS guilty of treason.

In this thread I DID call this maggot a "suspected traitor" and said he "probably HAS committed treason".

I also said that we should "...wait to see what this guy is charged with..."


So what is YOUR point you're making in your above statement of the obvious???

Where in the article did you read there would be no trial??

Where in the article did you read exactly what State and district his crimes actually occurred in??

All I saw is that he was detained in Chicago. I think entering the country with plans to commit acts of war fall under Federal jurisdiction, not State.

Where in the article did you read he would have no witnesses against him??

Where in the article did you read he was deprived of "due process"??

He [i]MAY[/i] actually be getting all the due process he's Constitutionally entitled to (see [b]ArmdLbrl's[/b] citation)

It seems there's a debate brewing here as to whether the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions actually entitle this maggot to the same civilian due process for acts of war against the USA that a dimestore shoplifter regularly enjoys.

The only thing that didn't happen here is the 'dirty bomb' actually going off. I'm sure theres several thousand potential targets that would think DK-Prof's head is waayy up his ass.

Level 3

The news media happens to be wrong
If you read the story instead of just the headlines you will find that they are citing their "unnamed sources" again.

They put headlines like that to get suckers like you to buy their papers.

He has already been transferred to the Department of Defense. He is in the brig at Charleston Navy Yard. He would not be there if he was not going to be tried in the military system. He will not be held indefinently without trial.

And you are wrong in your interpretation of the Constitution, I have already posted the controlling Supreme Court cases here. Read them before you spout off again.

Here:

My point is that you advocate denying a citizen his Constitutional rights simply because he has been accused by Ashcroft.

"indefinite imprisonment" and "speedy trial" don't go together.

I didn't read that, but this Constitutional clause asserts the right for the accused to be judged by citizens, not military officers.

I am supposing that in a military tribunal he would not be confronted with the witnesses against him.

You had raised the question of whether the accused should lose his Constitutional rights simply because he has been accused. This would constitute the deprivation of due process.

No. He is innocent until proven guilty. BUT - the mechanism and due process used to prove his guilt is very different than trying to prove the guilt of OJ Simpson.

Because he probably committed treason AND because this is "wartime" AND because of the SCOTUS precedent cited by [b]ArmdLbrl[/b], it seems he [b]MAY[/b] not be entitled [u]under the Constitution[/u] to the same due process as your average every-day criminal.

It very well may be that he really IS getting all the due process he is entitled [u]under the Constitution[/u].

Based on SCOTUS precedent, this treatment may be all that this maggot is Constitutionally entitled to.

Do you understand this position now?

So, which one of these is the supreme law of the land?

A)The UCMJ.
B)The Hague Convention's "laws of war."
C)All executive orders of the president.
D)Whatever Ashcroft says it is.

Oh, there's another possible choice: E)The Constitution of the United States of America, but you really don't want to pick that one.  It might mean that you'd have to TRY people accused of crimes PUBLICLY, by a JURY of thier peers.  And a jury, btw, is a a group charged with deliberating on both matters of fact AND LAW, anything else is not a 'JURY,' by definition.

Picking choice (E) means you're relying on an outdated document, the meaning of which 'changes with the spirit of the age,' which was origninally designed to SEVERELY LIMIT the power of governments, written by a bunch of guys who believed that all governments eventually deteriorated into tyranny, and who sought to put enough checks an balances in there to postpone it indefinitely.

I am under the impression that the Constitution offers no less protection to those accused of treason than to OJ.

I am under the impression that Congress has not satisfied the Constitutional requirements for this to be "wartime".

I am under the impression that the Constitution does not permit SCOTUS to overrule the Bill Of Rights.

Ok this thread is done with.
These guys Prudent and Level3 are trolls and nothing more.
I have posted what is the law of the land. Those Supreme Court decisions ARE what the Constitution means neither more nor less.

And the Bill of Rights doesn't enter in to this.  Treason is covered by the Constitution ITSELF.

The Constitution isn't just what you feel like beleving in today.

from EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) [url]laws.findlaw.com/us/317/1.html[/url]

for certain posters who seem to be unable to read

Like they were supposed to wait until he had one all ready to set off, and then at the last minute, wrest it out of his control?

I think there's been case(s?) where that approach may have been tried and found wantng.

I didn't think the constitution could be changed,so easily without radification or even a promise of a vote to come but guess what?

I  didn't think Blaze Of Glory could come back so quick,guess what Hello BOG.

And to ETH whoso shedeth mans blood,by man shall his blood be shed.   For in the Image of God made he man.   (Genesis 9)     So all this blood letting goes back and forth you might say untill somebody gets the picture!

 But yes with the picture in your mind of Janet Reno and Martin Sheen as Gov and Hubby well thats enough to make you lose your cookies!

 Bob [8D]

This guy is probably guilty as a catholic priest,but he could have been set up.As in like the drug war,one semi gets caught 10 more get through.        BTW-Here is something I found being an online PI,don't know how creditable it is.[url]www.cnn.com/US/9811/30/autos.holocaust[/url]
From what i see in the article this falls under the treason laws.

Or [url]www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/naziczar30.htm[/url]
Clinton and mr.reno must have give this clowns a get out of jail free pass,like ford did nixon.

Fuck'em all   burn it.[}:D]

OH. hi old buddy  blaze good to have you back.

It looks like the "unnamed source" was correct.  They are just going to hold this guy without trial.  If they do try him, it will be in the regular courts, not a military tribunal.

Paul Wolfowitz is the Deputy Secretary or Defense.

I still do not get how an international treaty, which allows enemy combatants to be held until the cessation of hostilities, trumps the US Constitution, which preserves the privilege of habeas corpus.

ArmdLbrl, I know how much you like that Quirin case, but it really looks logically inconsistant with Covert, and Covert is the more recent precedent.  Bush & Co. at least are not going to take the risk of picking the wrong horse legally.

It probably will have to go back to the regular judicial system.  ANy of the "wartime" exceptions could be overturned because war has not been officially declared.  Yes, we are at it, but the legal technicality.  Probably a good idea for the military to hold him for now.  Could you see a "Turn 'em loose Bruce" (remember the judge fron years ago in NYC?) letting him out on $2,500. bail?

Feel free to talk amongst yourselves, B.O.G. is stuck on the sidelines up in the stands.  I figure he'll be e-mailing you his replies but feel free to delete them.

That's strange, I don't remember reading in the Constitution where any citizen "forfeits" rights enumerated in that document. Could you please point it out to me? While you're at it, read Art. 3 Sec 3, Art. 6 cl.2, Bill of Rights Art. 5, Art. 6, and Art. 10.
I just love when you liberals throw away our Constitution for expediency.....

I just love it when you reactionary nutcases call arch-conservatives "liberals."  It makes you look so incredibly idiotic...

Please delete Art. 3 Sec.2 from the Constitution.....[b]FOOLS!!!!!![/B]

The framers of the constitution built in a mechanism to settle disputes by creating the judicial branch.  They were created and empowered with the ability to interpret and, yes, limit the scope of the rights that were outlined in the BOR.  If a perceived violation of our rights is challenged but ultimately upheld by the courts then that perceived violation is, by definition, constitutionally permitted.

Consider the following:
1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble....

Yet we have laws that limit what you can say or print (slander, libel, inciteful or "fighting" words, shouting "fire" in a theater, etc).  We also have laws prohibiting us from peacably assembling in the middle of the freeway or on somebody elses property.  If we took the amendment literally then those acts would be permissible.

2nd Amendment, taken literally, guarantees everybody the right to keep and bear arms.  Yet a person on trial for murder isn't afforded this right even though he is only an "alleged" or "suspected" murderer.  I happen to be in agreement with this particular restriction but we had to look to the legislative and judicial branches for it because its not spelled out in the constitution, is it?  

The constitution contains a built-in mechanism for interpretation and, in some cases, limitation of the rights enumerated.  As long as this process is followed then the result is (once again) by definition constitutional.

I think the craziest thing about the whole deal is the irony of the situation.

When Ashcroft was being confirmed, the liberals hounded him on his ant-abortion efforts in the senate. They speculated that his personal view of right and wrong would interfere with him upholding the laws of the land.

Now, when Ashcroft is exercising a law of the land (as decided by the S.C.), the liberals are getting all worked up because it offends their personal view of what's right and wrong.

Speaking of idiotic...

I just love when "arch-conservatives" do everything in their power to [i]defend[/i] the actions of the government.

When the President's party starts with an R, the gov't just can't be wrong.

Now that's a post!

No that is impossible. Think about it. Having been in military custody, possibly interogated without lawyers present. He would walk. As soon as he was put back in the civilian system he would counter sue that his civil rights were violated.

If the Bush admin THINKS they can bounce people back and forth between the military and civilian systems they are SADLY mistaken and are not going to get a lot of convictions. Lost of people are going to walk on technicalities.

If you are saying that politics makes strange bedfellows (ACLU and RKBA) you are correct.  I personally find them repugnant and would find some other defenders.

He will likely be tried in a regular court from what I can gather.

I think the Pakis just arrested some more of these al-Qaeda/mericans.  Check out the message list on Hack's site.

The comment about Cheney may be out of context.  He may be saying "terrorists" do not deserve the rights because he is referring to foreigners.  

Even though militant actions can cause loss of citizenship I doubt that mere assertion can do the same.  I'm counting on the government to deal with these people in ways that are consistent with the past and consistent with the prevailing interpretation of applicable laws.  If there weren't some benefit in interrogating these guys and their cohorts, I'd prefer they be held under water.[;)]

There is a hierarchy of rights accorded to people depending on their status:

1. Non-citizen, captured outside the US, never set foot in the US. These are the people at Guantanamo. They are illegal combatants, and have no recourse to US courts.

2. Non-citizen captured in the US. The 20th hijacker guy falls into this category. He gets most of the rights accorded US citizens simply by the virtue of his being in the US at the time of capture. The supremes have increasingly said the BoR applies to aliens who have formed a substantial attachment to the US.

3. US citizens. These have, generally, the highest rights level. It doesn't matter where they are captured; there was one guy at Guantanamo who was found to have been born in the US. That makes him a citizen and he was transfered out of Guantanamo to the US.

Jose is a citizen, but he's also effectively a member of a hostile armed forces. Think of a German-American captured fighting for Hitler. I think he'd spend time in a prison camp rather than county lockup.

The real question is under what circumstances a citizen can be moved to the category of "enemy combatant". We want some sort of check against arbitrary proclaimations by the executive branch. In one sense the check is public opinion; they should be held accountable for the reasoning of moving every citizen into this category. But I think something further should be required. Say, the guy gets a habeous corpus hearing before a judge in which the government presents some evidence that he is an enemy combatant. If the judge buys it he can be transfered to military custody for the duration. This gives at least a judicial branch check, and presumably a public check as well, since the fact that the hearing occred would presumably be public.

Note that (2) or (3) could be moved to military custody. whether they are or not would depend on circumstances.

I guess we will see.  The government's intentions seem pretty clear at this point.  They want to prevent crime rather than convict people for it.  As far as sending him to district court, maybe there would be a more relaxed standard as far as holding without trial and the right to an attorney; some of the other constitutional rights are relaxed at borders and airports.  Plus the war (?) factor.  Courts sometimes really go out of their way to bend the rules during wartime, and then have to bend them back after the peace.

And if we are not at war, we should be.

As far as him suing the government for deprivation of his rights, I bet that is probably in the works right now.  If his lawyer is worth her salt, she is also preparing a petition for habeas corpus.  I'd hate to be that judge!

On another note, I wrote above about how I was disturbed how this guy is being held without even a hearing.  I guess he his arrest was made public so that they could declare him an enemy combatant, with the hope of avoiding a preliminary hearing.  Anyway, the right not to be held without trial (habeas corpus) can be suspended under the constitution only during times of rebellion or invasion.  But didn't this guy "invade" us?

Just a thought.

[i][url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com-END Of Script Attempt-
s/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=1]Ex Parte Quirin[/url][/i] is really well worth reading.  Those who are discussing this and haven't read it should go and do so.  Those, like liberty86, who are saying that the Constitution is being brushed aside are wrong.  And they would benefit by reading [i]Ex Parte Quirin[/i].  Not reading the homework assignment and trying to participate in the class discussion is foolish.  The [i]Quirin[/i] case specifically addresses Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

I was pretty opposed to the Bush administration's handling of this yesterday.  I thought they were denying Mr. Padilla his constitutional rights.  Then I did some reading and learned that the Supreme Court makes a very good point in [i]Quirin[/i].  It ruled that, in the case before it, citizenship was irrelevant because Mr. Quirin and his six companions were accused of a crime for which the Constitution does not grant the civil courts jurisdiction, namely being belligerents and breaking the laws of war.  In [i]Quirin[/i], they refer to [i]Ex Parte Milligan[/i], also worth reading, and note that the circumstances between the two cases were very different.  In [i]Milligan[/i], the court ruled that Mr. Milligan could not be tried by a military court because he was not a belligerent.  He was arrested in his home in a state that was not at war.  In [i]Quirin[/i], the seven men did not dispute that they landed in German military uniform from a German submarine to commit acts of sabotage against the United States.  They subsequently violated the law of war when they discarded their military uniforms, rendering themselves subject to military justice.

Imposter, [i]Reid v. Covert[/i] does not apply to Mr. Padilla's case, assuming that he is going to be charged as a belligerent with a violation of the laws of war.  The two women in [i]Covert[/i] were charged with the civil crime of murder, over which the civil court system has jurisdiction.  Were Mr. Padilla to be charged with treason, or some other crime under civil law, he would be subject to the civil court system rather than the military courts.  I'm guessing here that if he is to be tried by the military, he will be charged with conspiring to commit acts of war against the U.S. while entering our territory not in uniform, a violation of the laws of war properly tried by the military courts.

I think Jose Padilla's case falls somewhere in between the [i]Quirin[/i] and [i]Milligan[/i].  It's not clear whether he violated the laws of war or not.  He was arrested on return from Pakistan, which isn't quite the same as being arrested after landing in enemy uniform from an enemy submarine, but neither is it the same as being arrested while staying at your home in Indiana.  I think, after reading [i]Ex Parte Quirin[/i], that the military court does have jurisdiction over the crime he is being charged with, but I'm still not terribly comfortable with handing him over to that court until it is established in the civil court that he was actually a belligerent and not merely a citizen peacefully returning from Pakistan.

I should add that none of what I referenced gives them any right to hold Mr. Padilla indefinitely without trial.  That's a different kettle of fish.

This is a distinction, but not a distinction that was drawn by the court in Reid v. Covert.  Justice Black's words are much broader than that, and the opnion by its own terms would ban trying US citizens who are civilians in military courts.

From a strict construction perspective, Reid v. Covert is very persuasive.  Which is a strange thing coming from J. Black.  He argues, the old hypocrite, that the you can not trump the plain words of the constitution with irrelevant distinctions.

The interesting point is that the two justices writing concurring opinions were very careful to limit the applicability of the case.  They did not say the logic would necessarily apply to other circumstances, so it is hard to say how far the case extends.

I think it is wishful thinking to dismiss Reid v. Covert out of hand, either in terms of its logic or as precedent.  But it is a free country, at least for the time being, so feel free to do so if you like.

Anyway, it is kind of pointless to argue which case applies; men wearing dresses will decide that.  The larger issue is whether you are comfortable with the government holding a US citizen without trial, or even worse trying a US citizen before a military court, with only a "finding" made by the executive.  That makes me a little queezy.  Maybe the public safety does demand that Mr. Padila not be running around, and it does not sound like they have the evidence to convict him of anthing more than wishful thinking, but something more than an executive finding should be necessary to hold him indefinately.

Why does everyone keep mentioning Ashcroft??

He has nothing to do with it, anymore.

Padilla belongs to the Dept. of Defense now.
Have at him, Don.

All this whining is sickening.

If Padilla shouldn't be before a tribunal, I guarantee that his lawyers will argue just that.
Believe it or not, military judges and juries aren't inherently evil.
In fact, they're a lot more rational and educated than your average civil jury.
If the judge sees this as more appropriately placed in a civil court, he will order such.
If not, Padilla's lawyers can(will) appeal to the Supreme Court.

Jesus!
You guys suck.

I studied these non Article III courts in school, and they are very nice in theory.  Very efficient, more knowledgable, etc.

It was not until I actually experienced them that I learned their real purpose:  to deny people their day in court because the government would lose in a real court.  It is as simple as that.

Like I said, Art. 3 Sec. 2, throw in Sec. 3 also. Jurisdiction is the first thing that needs to be established. That is the prerogative of the courts, not the Attorney General, or the President. It's my understanding that a writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed, it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Thank you for making my point.....[:D]

It is because a republican administration is doing these acts. If it were a democrat admin pulling the exact same thing, they would be screaming bloody murder.

I almost wish Al Gore would have won, just so we could all see these "arch-conservatives" (ohh, scary!) rip him a new one for most likely the same actions.

Padilla isn't a civilian.

Yes I am.  I haven't made alliances with foreign terrorist organizations.  He did.  Deal with it.

Since when have enemy POWs been presumed innocent? Did we previously, in ANY war, have a trial for enemy soldiers or spies we captured before putting them in POW camps?

Rik:  it depends on what you think the key distinction is.  You are saying it is whether he is an enemy combatant or not.  DK is saying the distinctions is whether or not he is a citizen.  Whether enemy POW are presumed innocent is not really the point - they were not US citizens.  Whether you buy yours or DK's theory, foreign POWs can be held indefinately.  The issue is whether citizens - whether they are POWs or not - can be.

I assume a writ of habeas corpus will get filed, and a judge will make the decision if this guy can be held indefinately without trial.  I hope the judge at least takes it upon himself to make some kind of finding that the guy is an "enemy combatant," and does not just take the executive's word for it.  It would also be good if the judge defined the very limited circumstances where something like this can take place.

I am unconfortable with them holding a US citizen indefinately just because the executive has made a finding, but I also do not want Mr. Padila let go to go about his business.  Hopefully, the courts will strike a good balance that will not come back to bite us, one way or the other, later.