Jose Padilla: New Leftist Hero On Ice

The Whistler • August 17, 2007

Jose Padilla

The left is in full meltdown today over Jose
Padilla’s conviction, pouring all their energy and passion into defending
an al-Qaeda operative now convicted of planning to murder our fellow citizens
with a dirty bomb. It is saddening and pathetic enough that they can only seem
to get worked up about excusing al-Qaeda members rather than fighting them.
What makes it more doleful is that their hand-wringing over Padilla is based
on misperceptions and misinformation fed to them by partisans more interested
in skewering President Bush than at arriving at the truth.

Here is the false leftist narrative on the Padilla case: President Bush is
using his unitary executive powers to arrest American citizens and hold them
indefinitely without charges, legal counsel, or regard for any constitutional
rights. A typical apoplectic
leftist response is this, from the Democratic Underground: "imprisoned
without charge for 3.5 years, physically and/or psychologically tortured ’til
he’s half-insane, and what do we do? Convict him anyway. Now he’ll face the
needle." This
Kos diarist warns: "everything points to a coming police state and
woe unto all dissenters, both here and everywhere."

Well, first of all, Padilla is facing life imprisonment, not the death penalty.
As for being imprisoned for 3.5 years without charges, it isn’t as if he and
his battalion of lawyers were not busy during that time: Padilla had a hearing
on his petition for a writ of habeus corpus, had questions over the writ heard
before the Supreme Court, and had a second appeal before the Fourth Circuit.
The wheels of justice turn slowly, but that is true for everybody, not just
al-Qaeda dirty bomb makers.

As for the claims of torture, these came from a forensic psychologist hired
by Padilla’s legal team. Enough said.

As for the overwrought fears of the Kos diarist, it is not true that the Padilla
case means "woe unto all dissenters." Only those ‘dissenters’ who
also happen to be al-Qaeda operatives need worry about being classified as enemy
combatants. It was Congress that passed legislation allowing this kind of detention
for American citizens, not some Executive Order from President Bush. The Authorization
for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
allows for military commissions to target nations, organizations or persons
whom the President "determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the September 11, 2001 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons."
The DUmmies and Kos Kultists might be surprised to learn that clownsuit-wearing
hippies on stilts leading International A.N.S.W.E.R. protests are exempt. Padilla,
being an al-Qaeda alum however, fits into that category quite nicely, and was
held as an enemy combatant, not as a criminal suspect. Only when he was handed
over to the Department of Justice for indictment did the time begin to toll
for speedy trial requirements.

Of course, facts don’t matter when there is a narrative to be propounded.

Crossposted from WILLisms.com

Tags: Uncategorized

http://Array jpe

As I stated, the AUMF gives the president authority to detain al-Qaeda terrorists, not just â€˜anyone if s/he feels it appropriate.’

Even if the Congress did what you claim it did, Congressional action can’t suspend constitutional rights. Didn’t you have to study some civics when you got your GED?
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

The location of the crime does not allow you to invoke constitutional protections. Constitutional protections are rights the government is obliged to grant because they make the charges.

Wait, just a minute ago you said that it was important that Haupt was caught within the U.S. Now you are saying that the location of the crime does not matter.

Make up your mind. Please.

Why, again, are prisoners of war entitled to constitutional protections? You guys keep failing to come up with any authority for your claims.

Because he did not sneak into the country with seven other guys and materials to commit sabotage.

So . . . if a guy sneaks into the country by airplane and plans an attack . . . that somehow means he cannot be an enemy combatant?

That makes no sense whatsoever. You have failed to distinguish airplane v. submarine. No wonder – there is no difference from a legal point of view.
jpe

There is no â€˜exception’ to the Constitution at work here, the Constitution just simply does not apply to unlawful combatants.

See, I must’ve missed that part in the Constitution, where certain citizens are exempted from the protections in the Bill of Rights. Is that section like the 7.5th floor in Being John Malkovich? Maybe I can’t see the exception because I don’t feel it in my heart or something.

I’ll work on that.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Yes of course you are correct JPE.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

He fits no traditional definition of Prisoner of War.

He was waging war against the United States and its allies. He was indeed a prisoner of war. Now he is an inmate.
ellinas

Please explain how airport v. submarine makes any possible difference.
Ken McCracken on August 16, 2007 at 07:59 pm.

Sneaking in with a sub one avoids US customs.
Coming in through the airport you have to go through customs and all the security checks enacted since 9/11.
docdave

then there is the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You’re joking aren’t you?! The UN wouldn’t know a real human rights violation if it hit them in the face. After all they have some of the worst human rights violators running the human rights commission. The UN and human rights!! Bwahahaha!!! I can’t stop laughing!!!
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

…al-Qaeda operative now convicted of planning to murder our fellow citizens with a dirty bomb. — Rob

Actually he wasn’t convicted of that at all.

Hey WOOF, since when are prisoners of war entitled to lawyers, or due process of law? — Ken McCracken

If he was a prisoner of war, then the US govt. has obligations as outlined by the Geneva Conventions. Since they failed to oblige with these conventions, then his detainees are war criminals.

And then there is the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

To all you leftists who just don’t understand how the law works here, you have to read Ex Parte Quirin, as Rodney Graves suggests.

You might not ‘feel’ that the law is right here, and you ‘feel’ that Padilla has constitutional rights, perhaps you guys should educate yourselves a bit and try to comprehend how the courts ruled instead of, you know, whining about things you don’t understand.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

If he was a prisoner of war, then the US govt. has obligations as outlined by the Geneva Conventions. Since they failed to oblige with these conventions, then his detainees are war criminals.

Now where in the hell did you come up with that? The Geneva Conventions does not extend protections to unlawful combatants. The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is to protect those soldiers who actually abide by its terms, which Padilla did not. The Bush administration, clearly, did not ‘fail to oblige with these conventions.’ And how do you conclude that if the Bush administration ‘fails to oblige with the conventions’ that means that detainees are therefore war criminals? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I must’ve missed that al-qaeda exception in the Constitution. Where was that again? Y’know, the part that says the President can lock anyone up if s/he feels it appropriate?

There is no ‘exception’ to the Constitution at work here, the Constitution just simply does not apply to unlawful combatants. Period. As I stated, the AUMF gives the president authority to detain al-Qaeda terrorists, not just ‘anyone if s/he feels it appropriate.’

You are a victim of leftwing mythology.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

LOL jurisdiction, clearly, is not the issue here.

You just don’t understand that there are cases when U.S. citizens are not entitled to constitutional protections. Just as there are times when Fourth Amendment protections do not apply (exigent circumstances, for example).

This, obviously, is one of those cases.

I suppose you think the Fourth Circuit erred. Maybe that is why they are on the bench, and you aren’t.
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

Why, again, are prisoners of war entitled to constitutional protections? You guys keep failing to come up with any authority for your claims.

What is more puzzling is the lefttards that want to give the Enemy combatants habeus corpus rights. The USA has never given enemy combatants Habeus Corups rights. If they are not American’s they aren’t entitled to constitutional rights.
jpe

Just as there are times when Fourth Amendment protections do not apply (exigent circumstances, for example).

This is incorrect. The Fourth Amendment isn’t rendered inapplicable; only the warrant exception is. The fourth still applies, and the search still must be reasonable.
HG

Well, first of all, Padilla is facing life imprisonment, not the death penalty.

Great. Now we have to suffer interviews with all the media personalities who will no doubt paint Padilla as a victim of the Administrations ‘unconstitutional’ policy.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Yes, they want to grant unlawful combatants rights that real POWs aren’t even entitled to!

And it completely undercuts the intent of their beloved Geneva Conventions.

Just . . . bizarre.
Lestat

And doesn’t the fact that Padilla was convicted of planning attacks outside the U.S. mean that he should enjoy even less constitutional protections?

Every statement you make just shows that you have no clue what you are talking about. The location of the crime does not allow you to invoke constitutional protections. Constitutional protections are rights the government is obliged to grant because they make the charges.

Please explain how airport v. submarine makes any possible difference.

Because he did not sneak into the country with seven other guys and materials to commit sabotage.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

lestat,

Padilla’s case does bear a striking resemblance to that of Haupt in Ex Parte Quirin et al. It is a true pity and miscarriage of justice that his fate is other than Haupt’s.
jpe

Good points above pointing to Quirin; Padilla isn’t as easily distinguishable. In Quirin, though, there was substitute due process (commissions / tribunals), whereas Padilla was simply held w/o any kind of due process, even of a lesser kind than the civil system would provide.

What’s galling about the Padilla affair is that the President simply refused to grant even a shadow of due process to Padilla. Due process can be satisfied through alternate measures (so Quirin tells us), but it can’t be eliminated (see Hamdi).
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

Great. Now we have to suffer interviews with all the media personalities who will no doubt paint Padilla as a victim of the Administrations â€˜unconstitutional’ policy.

Let them, this asshole is going to jail…
Lestat

The left is in full meltdown today over Jose Padilla’s conviction, pouring all their energy and passion into defending an al-Qaeda operative now convicted of planning to murder our fellow citizens with a dirty bomb.

Do you do any research or just make shit up? Go look up what he was convicted of.

Hey WOOF, since when are prisoners of war entitled to lawyers, or due process of law?

He fits no traditional definition of Prisoner of War.
Lestat

Padilla’s case does bear a striking resemblance to that of Haupt in Ex Parte Quirin et al. It is a true pity and miscarriage of justice that his fate is other than Haupt’s.

Actually there are significant differences. Haupt came into the US in a foreign submarine, Padilla through an airport. Haupt was turned in by a fellow conspirator, Padilla was not. The authorities were found the explosives that Haupt was going to use, with Padilla they did not.

Padialla was never charged with planning any attaqck within the US.
ellinas

Again, please explain what possible difference this makes.

Ken McCracken on August 17, 2007 at 06:43 am

It is different. You just refuse to see the difference.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Please explain how airport v. submarine makes any possible difference.

Also, are you saying that only those caught red-handed with explosives can possibly be considered enemy combatants?

And doesn’t the fact that Padilla was convicted of planning attacks outside the U.S. mean that he should enjoy even less constitutional protections?

Your argument cuts against the point you are trying to make.
Lestat

You might not â€˜feel’ that the law is right here, and you â€˜feel’ that Padilla has constitutional rights, perhaps you guys should educate yourselves a bit and try to comprehend how the courts ruled instead of, you know, whining about things you don’t understand.

Perhaps you should educate yourself since you have not had the facts right in any of your posts. Ex Parte Quirin was about a group of men who had the plans and the instrumentation to conduct sabotage within the US. While there were accusations about Padilla being a dirty bomber, those charges never materialized. There was no evidence that he ever had the instrumentation or ability to carry out any plan. The government didn’t go to court to establish him as an enemy combatant, because they knew that legally it was unsustainable.
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

Ken: You called him a “prisoner of war”. I personally disagree.
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml Angry Vertebrate

Docdave: The point being that the US govt. has accepted the Declaration. To sign something saying you’ll obey these rules, and then not to obey, is a little cheeky.
Lestat

Wait, just a minute ago you said that it was important that Haupt was caught within the U.S. Now you are saying that the location of the crime does not matter.
Make up your mind. Please.

Every court in the US is obliged to recognize the Constitutional rights of anybody charged. I am not being inconsistent, you just don’t understand jurisdiction.
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Hey WOOF, since when are prisoners of war entitled to lawyers, or due process of law?
docdave

He fits no traditional definition of Prisoner of War.

Right, he is a citizen that committed treason against his country. In days past, that crime was an automatic hanging. Pity we have become too ‘civilized’ for that brand of justice.
jpe

I must’ve missed that al-qaeda exception in the Constitution. Where was that again? Y’know, the part that says the President can lock anyone up if s/he feels it appropriate? I guess I better download your new and improved Constitution v2.0.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

To the absolute surprise of absolutely no-one who regularly reads SayAnyThing poodle opines:

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

which, as usual, has no direct correlation to reality.

Padilla, as in illegal combatant under the standing precedent of Ex Parte Quirin was entitled only to a military tribunal followed by a shortish drop at the end of an even shorter rope. Far from being deprived of his “rights”, Padilla was afforded rights he forfeited when he became a member of al Qaeda and waged war against these United States.

Ah, but fear naught, for due to the difference in jurisdictions he can still be tried as a war criminal should he manage to serve his “life sentence” and remain alive at the end of it.

And poodle, stick to whatever it is you know, which most certainly does not include matters such as this.

Semi-Live from Wilmington, NC
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Sneaking in with a sub one avoids US customs.
Coming in through the airport you have to go through customs and all the security checks enacted since 9/11.

Again, please explain what possible difference this makes.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Jose Padilla…because Mumia Abu-Jamal is soooooo last year!
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Perhaps if you could explain the difference, I could see it.
WOOFX

For nearly two years — from June 9, 2002 until March 2, 2004, when the Department of Defense permitted Mr. Padilla to have contact with his lawyers — Mr. Padilla was in complete isolation. Even after he was permitted contact with counsel, his conditions of confinement remained essentially the same.

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
WOOFX

Graves Detail, Bush declared Padilla an enemy combatant and held him inncomunicado.
Just before attorneys got to Federal court Padilla was transfered to Federal prison and charged in a civilian court.

This prevented the Supreme Court from ruling on Padilla indefinite detention without charge.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Jose Padilla: New Leftist Hero On Ice

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments