Padilla indicted!

[rick_reno]

Proof postive to all you Bush bashers that the system works.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1336845

WASHINGTON Nov 22, 2005 — "Dirty Bomb" suspect Jose Padilla, held by the U.S. as an enemy combatant for more than three years, has been indicted on federal charges in Miami, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was expected to discuss the indictment at a news conference in Washington.

Padilla, a Brooklyn-born Muslim convert, has been held as an "enemy combatant" in Defense Department custody for more than three years. The Bush administration had resisted calls to charge and try him in civilian courts.

The indictment avoids a Supreme Court showdown. Padilla's lawyers had asked justices to review his case last month, and the Bush administration was facing a deadline next Monday for filing its legal arguments.

"They're avoiding what the Supreme Court would say about American citizens. That's an issue the administration did not want to face," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor who specializes in national security. "There's no way that the Supreme Court would have ducked this issue."

The Bush administration has said Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, sought to blow up hotels and apartment buildings in the United States and planned an attack with a "dirty bomb" radiological device.

Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002 after returning from Pakistan. The federal government has said he was trained in weapons and explosives by members of al-Qaida.

Although the Justice Department has said that Padilla was readying attacks in the United States, the charges against him and four others allege they were part of a conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country and provide material support to terrorists abroad.

 

[Dannyboy]

Wow! All the rancor that this story has caused and no one else has posted yet!
I guess they want everybody to think that they're working right now. We know the truth, though.
As to the article, it's about time.

 

[sumpnz]

I'm not exactly a "Bush Basher" but 3 years is WAAAYYY too long to hold an AMERICAN CITIZEN in jail with no charges or even much access to legal counsel. Padilla is a bad man, I have no doubt of that. He may even be guilty of trying to set of a "dirty bomb". I have no problem with him, if he's guilty, rotting in federal prison for the rest of his life. But only after a trial and conviction by a jury of his peers as the constitution demands. It is unconscionable that he has been held by this administration for 3 YEARS without even charges being brought.

 

[GTSteve03]

Proof postive to all you Bush bashers that the system works.

WASHINGTON Nov 22, 2005 — "Dirty Bomb" suspect Jose Padilla, held by the U.S. as an enemy combatant for more than three years, has been indicted on federal charges in Miami, according to an indictment unsealed Tuesday.

So let me get this straight. He gets arrested, held for 3 years without being indicted on a charge and only under threat of a Supreme Court review do they finally charge him on something.

And you all consider this a good thing? Color me confused...

 

[Lone_Gunman]

No, this is a very bad thing.

The whole affair with Padilla is blatantly un-Constitutional.

 

[boofus]

Put him before 12 Americans and if they find him guilty let him hang.

 

[hillbilly]

While I think that the way Padilla was handled is problematic...held for three years before being charged......this case is going to do nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, when it comes to the question of constitutionality of holding somebody for so long with no charges.

To put it simply, nobody gives a rat's rear end about Jose Padilla, especially if and when evidence comes out that he's a homegrown jihadi who wanted to detonate a radiological bomb in an American city.

He'll be even less attractive than Randy Weaver was as a symbol for needed change.

At least with the whole sordid, ugly Randy Weaver mess there was a dead woman and a dead kid to feel sorrow over. (I know how callous that sentence makes me sound, but hey, it's the truth).

With Jose Padilla, no matter what constitutional abuses may have taken place, this case is a loser to try to make any sort of constitutional point over.

You'll have better luck using a Nazi party parade to make a point about free speech.

hillbilly

 

[Telperion]

Looks like Bush figured he standed a fair chance of losing the ability to detain Americans as "enemy combatants" in front of the Supreme Court, and decided to fold and kick Padilla back to the civilian system. Live to detain citizens in a military brig another day, it seems.

 

[mtnbkr]

3 years is WAAAYYY too long to hold an AMERICAN CITIZEN in jail with no charges or even much access to legal counsel.

Even Noriega got a trial before going to jail.

With Jose Padilla, no matter what constitutional abuses may have taken place, this case is a loser to try to make any sort of constitutional point over.

He's exactly the kind of person the Constitution should protect. If we find it possible to ensure his Contitutional protections, then you and I will find it even easier to maintain our rights under the law. Once his rights are eroded, it's a short trip to begin damaging the rights of everyone else.

Chris

 

[Cosmoline]

Exactly--the administration is just playing games. It does not want to give up the right to hold any American without charge or trial. Not that a Democratic administration would be any better.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

 

[boofus]

Not that a Democratic administration would be any better

Actually if it was a Democrat in charge they would just burn his house down and shoot him and his family as they came out ala Waco and Ruby Ridge. Trials? We don't need no stinkin trials!

 

[Biker]

Actually Boofus, if my memory serves me correctly, Bush Sr was POTUS during Ruby Ridge. In truth, I could be wrong.
If so, this message will self-destruct in...oh, I dunno..a little while.
Biker

 

[Sindawe]

Biker is correct. The "standoff" 'tween the Weavers and the FBI, BATF and Federal Marshals at Caribou Ridge occured summer of '92. Bush the Elder was sitting President than.

 

[Daniel T]

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

[Standing Wolf]

He's exactly the kind of person the Constitution should protect. If we find it possible to ensure his Contitutional protections, then you and I will find it even easier to maintain our rights under the law. Once his rights are eroded, it's a short trip to begin damaging the rights of everyone else.

Actually, his loss of constitutionally protected civil rights is everyone's loss. There are no short steps. There's no mere beginning of damage.

Sad to say, I believe there are no Fourth Amendment civil rights left.

 

[Henry Bowman]

And we have yet to see "anti-terrorism" laws in the hands of the likes of a Clinton or Reno.


We should not give the goverment any power than we would not want the enemies of freedom to have when they are in charge.

 

[Flyboy]

this case is going to do nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, when it comes to the question of constitutionality of holding somebody for so long with no charges.

Of course it won't; the Bush administration backed down specifically to avoid a precedent that might limit its powers. Now, when the issue comes up again--and it will, mark my words--the Administration will be able to violate basic human rights again without violating a Court precedent.

And GTSteve03 is right on: Bush's backing down is in no way a vindication; if anything, it's proof that he is wrong. If he was right, he'd have stood his ground in court.

 

[RomanKnight]

More details from AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/terrorism

Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held in a Navy brig as an enemy combatant for more than three years, was charged Tuesday with being part of a North American terror cell that sent money and recruits overseas to "murder, maim and kidnap."
However, absent from the indictment were the sensational allegations made earlier by top Justice Department officials: that Padilla sought to blow up U.S. hotels and apartment buildings and planned an attack on America with a radiological "dirty bomb."
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wouldn't say why none of those allegations were included in the indictment, commenting only on the charges that were returned by a Miami grand jury against Padilla and four other alleged members of a terror cell.
"The indictment alleges that Padilla traveled overseas to train as a terrorist with the intention of fighting a violent jihad," Gonzales said.
The charges are the latest twist in a case pitting the Bush administration's claim that the war on terrorism gives the government extraordinary powers to protect its citizens, on one side, against those who say the government can't be allowed to label Americans "enemy combatants" and hold them indefinitely without charges that can be fought in court.
By charging Padilla, the administration is seeking to avoid a Supreme Court showdown over the issue. In 2004, the justices took up the first round of cases stemming from the war on terrorism, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, wrote, "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
Eric Freedman, a professor at Hofstra Law School, said the Padilla indictment was an effort by the administration "to avoid an adverse decision of the Supreme Court."
http://wid.ap.org/documents/051122padilla_indictment.pdf

The second paragraph is the $zillion question.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Proof postive to all you Bush bashers that the system works.

I try to stay as neutral as possible about personalities, since I refuse to join either of the two parties. I don't consider myself a "Bush basher," but I do think the way the government has treated Padilla is shameful and criminal.

You think the system works? An indictment is what comes out of a grand jury. In cases that go before a grand jury, usually there isn't even an arrest before the indictment. This man has been in prison for THREE YEARS, during much of which he was denied access to counsel, and after three years he has finally been charged. God only knows how long it'll take to conduct a trial. Is this the way you would like to be treated if the government suddenly decided you are a terrorist?

Let's not forget, by the way, that this particular scumbag IS a United States citizen. His human rights and his rights as a citizen have both been trampled.

I would not say that an indictment at this stage in any way shows that the system works.

 

[Zrex]

Proof postive to all you Bush bashers that the system works.

Lets see.... american citizen... held for 3 years without being charged... yeah ... things are working just great.

 

[skidmark]

Has anyone else noticed the subtle shift in the Jose Padilla case - that the guy's name has changed all of a sudden?

Yesterday his name was PA-DEE-YAH, and he was a Hispanic-American.

Today his name is PA-DILL-AH and there is no mention of any ethnicity.

Is it just me, or could there be some sort of significance to the change in how his name is pronounced? Seems to me if the MSM had started out calling him PA-DEE-YAH and that was not how he pronounced it, the message would have gotten to the MSM. But for three years he has been PA-DEE-YAH, so the MSM must have been pronouncing it correctly all along. Right?

So why is he now PA-DILL-AH?

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[Flyboy]

On pronunciation:

Actually, people have been mispronouncing his name since the beginning. I've been following this case pretty much since it started, and I, too, originally thought it was pronounced "Pa-dee-ah." That would be a conventional pronunciation for a Spanish or Mexican name, and I was only reading about the case in print/electronic media. However, a couple of years ago, I heard an interview with his lawyer on the radio; after the first question was asked, and before he answered, the lawyer corrected the pronunciation. It's always been "Pa-dill-ah," but between the fact that such is a nonstandard pronunciation, and the fact that the mainstream media is little more than a big echo chamber, the erroneous pronunciation has been accepted as correct. It's only getting corrected now because more and more people are hearing about it--his lawyer has been talking more lately, as has the government (you might recall that the government, for the first year or so, refused to even acknowledge that Padilla was being held).

No, it's not a conspiracy, just the usual ignorance and nonexistent fact-checking.

 

[skidmark]

Flyboy - thanks for the info. Looks like I need to loosen the chinstrap on my tinfoil hat.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[GT]

OK got it; his lawyer changed the pronunciation to make him seem more anglo.

However, how come we all refer to Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay, remember?) but we don't refer to Abdullah al-Muhajir (Jose Padilla, Padoolah, Padillio, whatever)?

I mean, isn't he PROUD to be a mooslim?

G

 

[outofbattery]

I had the news on in the other room last night and wasn't really paying too close of attention to it but thought I caught a new suspect being named and went out to look at the story.Sure enough,the newsidjit pronounced the name Josey Padilluh 3 more times.:banghead:

Regarding name changes: the VP's family had always pronounced it as "Chee-nee" but it's become "Chainey".We won't even get to football players and why the letter switch places in Favre.