Padilla Indictment

[Leif]

As the title says:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/padilla.case/index.html

About **** time! I don't care what the circumstances are, 3+ years is way too long to hold an American citizen without an indictment.

If these people indeed are guilty of the crimes of which they are accused, I hope that they throw the proverbial book at them. I wonder if the circumstances of Padilla's lengthy detention will undermine the case against him or them ...

 

[Long Path]

I don't care what the circumstances are, 3+ years is way too long to hold an American citizen without an indictment.

Agreed. This "enemy combatant" status that is neither fish nor fowl (neither criminal defendant nor prisoner of war) is BS. This is the United States. Either we charge you and send you to a trial, or we blow your butt up as an enemy; we do NOT put a man in prison for years without indictment. Not just a man-- a citizen!
Padilla is, in all probability, a scuzbag. If so, let's prove it in court. If we can't, let him walk, and we'll catch him again next time. That's how it works in our court system. It's a crappy way to run a railroad, but it's the best one around.

 

[USP45usp]

I agree. As a US Citizen, no matter what he has done, has the right to a speedy trial and to be informed of the charges within a reasonable amount of time.

Wayne

 

[Eghad]

so only if they are a U.S. Citizen ? anybody else we just deny them access to the legal system and they can be held for as long as somebody wishes? A couple here have used that as a qualifier????

I agree with Long Path...

 

[Leif]

Long Path and Eghad, good points. It'd be a shame to see this country become one of those that locks up people, citizens or not, and throws away the key without a fair and speedy trial. Let's leave that tactic to our enemies.

As I understand it (and I may well not), the charges against Padilla do not include the "dirty bomb" plot. Is this correct?

 

[azredhawk44]

It's about time that he was charged. Good.

I think they are only partially charging him. This gets him in a situation where he will be held without bail since he is a flight risk, the trial takes forever because it's so high profile, and the government can (and should) dig for more charges on this guy.

He had a rock-solid case for the supreme court to be let free, otherwise. He still may have a case, but it is now outside of the charges filed against him, rather than associated to them. It's a civil liabilities lawsuit rather than an improperly implemented arrest and criminal process.

Imagine if he were not charged, but ordered free by the supreme court? That's scary...

 

[GoSlash27]

Y'all already know I agree.
It's disgusting that our government would dare abridge the constitutionally protected rights of a citizen for any reason. And Americans would let them get away with it because they're skeered. Even worse, they'd actually cheer them on! Americans!!

We really slipped off the deep end after Sept 11th.

 

[USP45usp]

Eghad,

so only if they are a U.S. Citizen ? anybody else we just deny them access to the legal system and they can be held for as long as somebody wishes? A couple here have used that as a qualifier????

I'm torn on this one. On one hand, those that are not American Citizens aren't subject to our Constitution. They didn't help to fight for what we have now and made it so.

On the other, our Constitution should be open to all, Americans or not.

Yet, we can't even afford our own cases and courts for American Citizens in a timely manner, why should we put aside the Rights of the American Citizen over those who aren't? As in, why should we fill up our court systems with non-Americans first and then get around to the American Citizen after it's all over.

In a way you have to look at it fully. If we were to enable all protections of the Constitution, the US Constitution, than we would have to bring to court every country in the world and it's key players, why?:

1st amendment violations
2nd amendment violations
3rd amendment violations
Etc.. for all the amendments

You get the point. We don't have the court systems or the money to enable us to do this.

You also noticed that those that are charged with being terrorist are NOT on US property (well, in country). That is why the folks at Gitmo are at Gitmo and still in the Middle East.

I would love to give every human being the protections of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but we don't have the money, the court systems, to do so.

If you wish to make it so, pay the tax increases for the rest of us that would have to pay, I have compassion but I like to eat also.

Wayne

 

[Rob P.]

The whole thing is just more overzealous overreaching and mismanagement by our justice dept. They charged him with some minor stuff just to try to avoid the issue about a speedy trial. According to the news, the guy was asking to be either charged or released. Well, they charged him and the Justice dept is hoping that will make the SCOTUS appeal moot.

Unfortunately I don't think it will. First if I was the guy's atty, I'd amend the appeal and drop all reference to "being charged" and just go forward on the speedy trial issue. I don't think the court will be impressed with the justice depts argument either. 3 1/2 years is plenty long enough IMO to say that his right to a speedy trial was violated.

The real issue is the "enemy combatant" label. Imagine a country where you have certain rights UNLESS the gov't just slaps a label on you when they arrest you and that label voids your rights. What's to keep the gov't from just doing that to everyone they arrest? "enemy combatant", "homeland terrorist", "gang member", "security risk", etc.

Worse, doesn't anyone realize that our gov't just overthrew our gov't? By executive order the constitution is no longer applicable to U.S. citizens at the whim of the government.

 

[Al Norris]

Rob, I hardly think that the DOJ will get out from under scrutiny by the SCOTUS. Like it or not, and I'm sure that the executive would like this case to be moot, but Padilla has a potential Bivens claim to add to an amended cert.

As for the Habeas claim, I suspect it is still good to go. None of the charges that have (finally) been brought up relate to the original reasons for the, um, detention. Which is just the reason I think the court will be interested in granting cert on this case. It is something that can come up, again and again, as long as the 4th's Hamdi ruling holds sway.

If, on the other hand, the Court denies cert, then the Government can now use the 4th as a constitution-free zone. Arrest someone and spirit them off to the 4th's jurisdiction, label them as an enemy combatant and hold them however long you want. No charges forthcoming.

The habeas case alone begs for justice.

 

[zejs1]

Imagine if he were not charged, but ordered free by the supreme court? That's scary...

To be perfectly honest, it's not that scary. If the government can't come up with enough evidence to indict someone in three years, I'm not convinced there was a case in the first place.

I find holding people for years without charges, or, apparently, evidence, scarier.

 

[USP45usp]

The real issue is the "enemy combatant" label. Imagine a country where you have certain rights UNLESS the gov't just slaps a label on you when they arrest you and that label voids your rights. What's to keep the gov't from just doing that to everyone they arrest? "enemy combatant", "homeland terrorist", "gang member", "security risk", etc.

Worse, doesn't anyone realize that our gov't just overthrew our gov't? By executive order the constitution is no longer applicable to U.S. citizens at the whim of the government.

I have a feeling that it's been this way for along time, they just made a law to ensure that they could "enforce" it.

And I have heard rumors that they want to use the Patriot Act to go after gang members and label them "enemy combatants" so they can hold them indefinitely without charges also.

If they are illegals, than I would be torn on what to think/do. If they are natualized or American's, I would demand their Constitutional Rights no matter what they did.

Wayne