The Bush Junta insisted that this guy be tried in some kind of Star Chamber military tribunal because some terrible 'secrets' might be revealed. Eventually he made it to a regular court...after being held for over three years without a lawyer in a navy brig. An American citizen stripped of his rights...it gives me the creeps. Does it bother you?
2007-08-18 14:38:38 · 10 answers · asked by Noah H 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Very good points - the paranoid nut cases in charge, aided and abetted by Congress [both major parties], enacted legislation that allowed the Star Chambers.
It wasn't necessary. If the Padilla case proved anything, it is that the Courts are open and functioning and that the US Attorneys are perfectly capable of trying cases in accordance with our Constitution and getting convictions. There is no need whatsoever for the special court system and its ability to set aside all our Constitutional guarantees in order to convict American citizens.
Later addition - I agree with Coragryph [Answerer immediately following] that there are significant and troubling questions about whether or not Padilla got a fair trial.
2007-08-18 14:44:14 · answer #1 · answered by Prof. Cochise 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bush government didn't really want to try Padilla at all - It just wanted to keep Padilla isolated so that it could try to get information out of him - using techniques which most people would say amounted to torture. The Bush government probably figured out fairly quickly that this former worker at Taco Bell - didn't know much - but by then the Bush government was in an awkward position. What could they do with the guy after they had told the public how dangerous he was and after they had tortured him? - - It was only when the Supreme Court was about to hear his case, that the government transferred Padilla into the civilian criminal system and added his name to a case that was already pending - A case that had nothing to do with what Padilla was originally arrested for.
Padilla wasn't a foreigner arrested on a battlefield. He was an unarmed American citizen arrested in the Chicago airport. He was then held in isolation for over 3 years under conditions amounting to torture. The people who did this to him should be tried as war criminals.
Its not really relevant to the treatment Padilla received- (He didn't deserve it no matter what he did) - but you should think about what Padilla was not convicted of. - He was not convicted of making war on the U.S. He was not convicted of planning to attack Americans. He was not convicted of planning to make a dirty bomb. He was not convicted of treason. He was not convicted of planning any particular terrorist act or planning to kill any particular person. He was convicted of filling out a form to train at a Mujaheddin training camp in Afghanistan (prior to 9/11) with intention of going to Bosnia or Chechnya (places where Muslims have been persecuted) in order to fight and kill.
If he had instead filled out an application to train in the Israeli Army, with the intention of fighting in the occupied territories, he never would have been arrested.
2007-08-20 18:27:51 · answer #2 · answered by Franklin 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Padilla and co-defendants Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face existence in penal complex because of the fact they have been convicted of conspiracy to homicide, kidnap and maim human beings remote places. All 3 have been additionally convicted of 2 terrorism fabric help counts that carry ability 15-3 hundred and sixty 5 days sentences each and every. The decide set a Dec. 5 sentencing date for all 3 defendants. the main important piece of actual info grew to become right into a 5-internet site style Padilla supposedly crammed out in July 2000 to attend an Al Qaeda guidance camp in Afghanistan, which might link the different 2 defendants as nicely to Usama bin encumbered's 17 November. the type, recovered via the CIA in 2001 in Afghanistan, includes seven of Padilla's fingerprints and quite a number of different different own identifiers, which includes his birthdate and his means to communicate Spanish, English and Arabic. additionally FBI Wiretap intercepts. A victory interior the war on terror, albeit a small one. EDIT- Fingerprints on a bite of paper, sure. besides the undeniable fact that it grew to become into something plenty greater devious than that! end beating around the bush his own archives and and fingerprints have been got here upon on a bite of paper in Afghanistan! He grew to become into in mattress with the Taliban, who're nonetheless shooting at our boys over there and blowing them up. Taliban=terrorist. in case you consort around with terrorists you're one. Now for the checklist he would not have been held for those 3.5 years without criminal professional or trial.
2016-12-13 11:52:32 · answer #3 · answered by burrough 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The presidence is now set to allow the President to accuse a citizen of aiding the enemy. This allows you or me to be:
- Held without charges indefinitely.
- Denied access to legal counsel.
- Tried by a tribunal within the executive branch. (no consitutional separation of legislature, judiciary, and executive)
- Be held in solidary confinement.
- Be "interrogated" using what the president deems to be not torture.
- Captors will ignore the Geneva Convention, so you can forget about international law and what is considered human rights.
- The United States constitution appears to have been suspended.
The only remedy to this situation is to impeach the president for abuse of power. He needs to be held accountable for his many abuses. If not, it will be no better under Hillary.
2007-08-18 14:50:35 · answer #4 · answered by Skeptic 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, both because he was held for years without charges, and because of what he was eventually convicted of.
He was convicted of providing material support to terrorists -- namely, himself. And the proof was solely that he filled out a form to attend a training camp, that he never actually attended.
So, based purely on his intent to associate with people -- without ever having committed any violent action and without ever having actually helped anyone else commit any violent action -- based solely on who he was planning to associate with, he gets life in prisonment.
That's purely guilt by association -- which is not supposed to be allowed under the US Constitution. But he's not the first to be convicted under that 1996 law, and won't be the last.
2007-08-18 14:46:21 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually what bothers me is why he wasn't put into Guantanamo Bay with the other alleged terrorists I wonder if it was because he was American double standards here once again.
2007-08-18 15:01:30 · answer #6 · answered by molly 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because he is so lucky to be in the US. Here even criminals and murders have rights. I would like to see him in one of those country where he will be hung. If he wanted to die and kill thousands of people, what is he doing alive, and why we have to spend money on him? Kill him, because he wanted to die. We see this only in the US. He is a terrorist. He doesn't deserve to have rights, to be alive, and wasting our tax money.
2007-08-19 13:47:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It does not bother me at all. Personally I think the military should have handled this.
2007-08-18 14:43:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes it does bother me..it gives me the sense that any american can be wiped out the earth or even their rights and no one can do anything about it!
2007-08-18 14:53:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No because he's a freakin' murderer - murderer's should have NO rights
2007-08-18 14:47:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋