Padilla v. Rumsfeld - aka: American Democracy v. Rumsfeld

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

Padilla v. Rumsfeld:
The 'Lords of the U.S. Bar' Take on the Bush Regime


Nat Hentoff writes: "Ignored by most media, an array of prominent federal judges, government officials, and other members of the legal establishment has joined in a historic rebellion against George W. Bush's unprecedented and unconstitutional arrogance of power that threatens the fundamental right of American citizens to have access to their lawyers before disappearing indefinitely into military custody without charges, without seeing an attorney or anyone except their guards. The case, Padilla v. Rumsfeld, is now before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In a compelling friend-of-the-court brief on Padilla's behalf ...legal luminaries of the establishment bar, they charge:'{We} believe the Executive's position in this case threatens the basic 'rule of law' on which our country is founded, the role of the federal judiciary and the separations in our national government, and fundamental individual liberties enshrined in our Constitution.'"

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0339/hentoff.php

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Wow!

I've been depressed, thinking that the media takeover has drown out all hope of dissent. It's really good to hear that justices and other members of the bar are out there to stop the excesses. Maybe somewhere, sometime, this will become "news".....

[DEMActivist]

2. But when you have people

like some of our own DUers who have convicted this man without a trial, John Ashcroft and his courts have the support they need to do exactly this.

[david_vincent]

3. It's kind of beside the point

As long as prisoners are held in Guantanamo Bay, U.S. law doesn't apply, and the rights in question can be considered nonexistent, or at least treated as such, for a simple reason: who's gonna stop them? It's the American military machine we're talking about. If the prisoners have been basically kidnapped, well, who's gonna rescue them? No one. This is simply a case of power doing what it wants, because it knows that it can get away with it. From their point of view: got a problem with it, let's discuss it over some hot lead.

[DEMActivist]

5. This AMERICAN CITIZEN is not in Guantanamo

He is being held in a military brig in SC without access to family, courts, attorneys or the legal system.

Yes, he's an American citizen who is ACCUSED - nothing more.

[proud patriot]

20. He's not even accused or charged or anything

he has illegally been named "enemy combatant" by bush
nothing more has been brought forth.

[jiacinto]

4. Never mind

I won't say what I think of Padilla.

[thebigidea]

7. something like...

I'm shocked that any of you would have any sort of compassion for Padilla, after all, he's a terrorist and for any one to have sympathy for a terrorists over the victims is beyond the pale. This is what drives people away from the Democratic party. However, I am thankful that fringe leftists like those on this thread are in the minority and think Ralph Nader is their God.

--

yes, he may be a VERY NASTY MAN with BAD, BAD INTENTIONS. But we still have some quaint belief in antiquated rights in this country, and it would be nice to have that trial sort of stuff. You know, evidence. Stuff like that. Yawn, yeah.

[MisterP]

9. *snort*

[jiacinto]

10. Again

It is sad that you support Padilla more than you support the victims of terrorism in this coutnry. It really is.

It's like a man gets shot and is bleeding on the street. The shooter is then arrested by the police.

You then come on the scene and the person who has been shot expects you to help. Instead you ask the people on the scene how you can help the shooter?

Why do you care so much about Padilla? Do you sympathize with traitors like that?

[thebigidea]

12. its like a scene out of "Life of Brian" with you

"Yes! We're all individuals!"



the dimestore rent-a-republican rhetoric is more easily understood if flag is first removed from mouth.

I'd like to see where you extrapolated the "you support Padilla more than you support the victims of terrorism" bit.

Then I'd like to see a less predictable line of gibberish, you need new writers to punch up your dialogue.

[jiacinto]

14. It's obvious

That you are even worried about his rights is offensive. Why do you prefer him to the victims of terrorism?

[thebigidea]

15. hmmm

"Why do you prefer him to the victims of terrorism?"

again, where does this bit come into play? Is it a popularity contest between Padilla and the Amorphous And Yet Oh-So-Sympathetic Victims of Terrorism As Defined By GWB?

Is there some limited amount of worry and sympathy that we must draw from? What about concern for "rule of law," uhhh - "due process" uhhhh - courts and stuff, trials ya know, come into play?

Carlos, I'm half Cuban. So forgive me if I get a little worried when I see some latino guy dissappeared by Ashcroft on scant evidence. What did he do, anyway? Google "dirty bomb" or something? We don't really know.

But hell, join Ashcroft on his PR tour. Add your voice to his rousing chorus of support.

"be seeing you..."

[DEMActivist]

16. Only in your small mind

Padilla is an ACCUSED terrorist. He has been convicted of nothing. He has not been convicted of terrorism.

Hell, he hasn't even been ACCUSED OF COMITTING TERRORISM. Just thinking about it.

And your small, uninformed, closed mind has tried and convicted him without trial or access to the American legal system.

You need to change your screen name to John Ashcroft, Jr.

[IrateCitizen]

25. If the legal system fails for Edgar Padilla, it fails for all of us.

That is the reason that so many of us are still up in arms about this, Carlos. It has nothing to do with sympathy for Edgar Padilla, ASSUMING (and yes, it's an assumption) that he did what the Justice Dept. said he did. What is central to this argument is that our legal system is based on a clear rule of law -- and that in order for it to function the way it is supposed to, that rule of law MUST be followed.

Last week, DealsGapRider started a thread bemoaning those who would condemn the way in which the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been treated. But what is lost in this kind of passion is the reasoning that tells us that for the rule of law to function properly, it must be followed EACH AND EVERY TIME. This is because if you start making exceptions to it, where does it end? And it is also because our system was set up so that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

If Padilla truly did what he is accused of, then why the visceral reaction to having him stand trial? If he is truly guilty, then he should be proven so. It has nothing to do with favoring Padilla over the victims of terrorism. It is all about preserving a legal system in which the burden of proof is on the accuser, and keeping ourselves from going down the slippery slope toward authoritarianism in which anyone can be snatched up and disappeared at any time.

[Orangeone]

19. Innocent until proven guilty

Jiacinto you just don't get it. So Padilla is a terrorist just because Ashcroft said he was. How would you like it if the government decided you were a terrorist? Wouldn't you at least like to have a trial?

[thebigidea]

23. hmmmmm

"How would you like it if the government decided you were a terrorist? Wouldn't you at least like to have a trial?"

Hmmm, what if Jiacinto were accused of plotting a radiological bomb attack on Jeb Bush - held without lawyer, trial, famiily being notified... for a coupla years... based on an internet chat room log about some campaign misinterpreted by Ashcroft...

would he even have any sympathy for himself, you think?

CJ: "I am shocked at this turn of events, but must remain firm in my resolve to care more about the victims of terrorism. It is disgusting that I am shocked, shocking that I am disgusted at my shock. Truly this turn of events will trigger memories I don't really have about McGovern."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. Except no one has been shot and there is not even a gun

just some 'loose talk' about maybe manufacturing an improvised gun.

[Zhade]

22. Hope you're never on a jury considering MY case...

With that in mind, the next question is: what evidence does the CIA have that Padilla planned to explode a "dirty bomb," and how far did he get in his preparations? Undersecretary of State John Bolton asserted that Padilla was carrying plans to make a dirty bomb when he was intercepted and arrested by FBI agents. Later, US officials backtracked and admitted that Padilla had no papers on him; the bombing was in the planning stages. A little while later, US officials backtracked even further and said that, well, you know, it was in the very early planning stages.

What does all that mean, exactly? When pressed for evidence, US officials quietly admitted that Padilla had been caught looking at information on dirty bombs on the Internet.

http://eatthestate.org/06-22/WhoJosePadilla.htm


The investigation into Jose Padilla, who is accused of planning to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the US, has found no evidence that he was preparing such an attack and little to suggest that he had any support from al-Qaida to do so, according to FBI officials.

<snip>

Mr Ashcroft hailed the disruption of "an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States" as a textbook example of collaboration between the FBI and CIA.

But FBI officials, speaking to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said their investigations had concluded that Mr Padilla was probably no more than a "small fish" with no ties to al-Qaida cells in the US. Any plot to detonate a dirty bomb had probably never gone beyond the stage of being "thought out", they said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,774684,00.html



I thought we were "innocent until PROVEN guilty" - not SUSPECTED guilty. I mean, how do you know he's a traitor? Are you taking RUMSFELD at his word? You're not stupid, so I assume you're not.

[Bush_has_Parvo]

6. Disappeared in America.

I never thought it could happen here. We truly have reached banana republic status.

[jiacinto]

11. This sickens me

I don't understand why people sympathize with Padilla and not the victims of terrorism.

[thebigidea]

13. tainted mustard or a bit of undercooked potato, I imagine.

[Padraig18]

17. Let me put this VERY simply

I could give a rat's behind about *Padilla*, but I care VERY much about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; if Shrub, Asscraft and Darth Rummy can do this to Padilla, they can do it to YOU, to ME, to my NEIGHBOR or WHOEVER they want, simply by alleging that they're a 'terrorist'--- no grand jury, no open, public trial, nada!!!

Does that clear it up at all for you?

[thebigidea]

18. yes, exactly

Carlos just prefers to interpret it as "supporting Padilla and hating the victims of terrorism."

its very similar to the "then you support Saddam Hussein!" ploy they tried on anti-war types...

[IrateCitizen]

26. Don't hold your breath on this one, Padraig18...

If you're waiting for Carlos to acknowledge that your point of view is valid, you'll be waiting a helluva long time.

And you should also be ready for him to be accusing you of caring more about Padilla than the victims of terrorism. No matter the fact that you explicitly stated the contrary in your post, he will infer it from what you wrote SOMEHOW. :eyes:

Just speaking as someone who has had quite a share of run-ins with Carlos on these boards -- and who has actually come to like him personally although I find his stubborness and closed-mindedness to be absolutely infuriating.

[Brucey]

8. arrogance of power is the operative term here.

[7th_Sephiroth]

24. This has me afraid

Ashcroft, The chimp, and heart attack Dickie are terrorists, comply or your going to be imprisoned for the rest of your life, when the terroristic act (i dont want to call it by its real name cause it insults true patriots) gets repealed, and it will, the current abomination will be boarding thier planes for saudi arabia.