Jose Padilla decision

[sobo]

Just off the wires...

 

The article is about Jose Padilla, the dirty bomb suspect arrested in Chicago last year. A three-judge panel has determined that Padilla should be released from military custody (presumably into civilian custody) because he is a US citizen arrested in the US on terrorism charges. Note that this is different than being a US citizen arrested in a foreign country as an enemy combatant (remember John Walker, the "American Taliban").

 

Question: Does the President have the right to hold a US citizen, arrested in the US, as an enemy combatant? Discuss.

 

Even being politically middle right-of-center, I personally think the answer is "no". He should be turned over to the civilian justice system for prosecution. This is the sort of thing the Founding Fathers rebelled against. It amounts to "trial by the Crown".

[catbirdseat]

"Question: Does the President have the right to hold a US citizen, arrested in the US, as an enemy combatant?"

 

No, and it is a cut and dry issue. Padilla's civil rights were violated.

[Dave_Schuldt]

This is good news. Padilla is nothing more than a 3rd rate Mexican gansta wanna be. The charges against him are made up.

[Fairweather]

Just off the wires...

 

 

 

Question: Does the President have the right to hold a US citizen, arrested in the US, as an enemy combatant? Discuss.

 

 

Answer: No. He enjoys the benefits of US citizenship, and this includes access to our judicial system. GW is wrong on this one.

[marylou]

These are tough and trying times for the legal system.

 

The courts definitely did the right thing.

[HRoark]

Just off the wires...

 

 

 

Question: Does the President have the right to hold a US citizen, arrested in the US, as an enemy combatant? Discuss.

 

 

Answer: No. He enjoys the benefits of US citizenship, and this includes access to our judicial system. GW is wrong on this one.

 

Does anyone know how the whole "during wartime" deal applies if he is accused of treason? Are US citizens who commit acts of "treason" (applicable only during wartime) tried for treason under a military court or a criminal court?

[scrambler]

The following article discusses a related subject regarding a disturbing trend in domestic affairs during war time (hot war) or times subject to a war mentality (cold war).

 

Deployed in the U.S.A.: The Creeping Militarization of the Home Front

As its overwhelming victories in Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated, the U.S. military is the most effective fighting force in human history. It is so effective, in fact, that many government officials are now anxious for the military to assume a more active policing role here at home.

 

Deploying troops on the home front is very different from waging war abroad. Soldiers are trained to kill, whereas civilian peace officers are trained to respect constitutional rights and to use force only as a last resort. That fundamental distinction explains why Americans have long resisted the use of standing armies to keep the domestic peace.

 

Unfortunately, plans are afoot to change that time-honored policy. There have already been temporary troop deployments in the airports and on the Canadian and Mexican borders and calls to make border militarization permanent. The Pentagon has also shown a disturbing interest in high-tech surveillance of American citizens. And key figures in the Bush administration and Congress have considered weakening the Posse Comitatus Act, the federal statute that limits the government's ability to use the military for domestic police work.

 

The historical record of military involvement in domestic affairs cautions against a more active military presence in the American homeland. If Congress weakens the legal barriers to using soldiers as cops, substantial collateral damage to civilian life and liberty will likely ensue.

 

---- source

 

BTW, the acting President has extraordinary power. Suspension of the Constitution in whole or in part appears very possible even if only for a short while until reined in by the judicial branch.

[sobo]

Suspension of the Constitution in whole or in part appears very possible even if only for a short while until reined in by the judicial branch.

 

I didn't know that our Constitution could be suspended, in whole or in part. Wouldn't that take an Act of Congress, and not unilateral presidential action? I'll have to search that out.

 

Disturbing... when would "we the people" ever want to do that?

[sobo]

Well, a little googling brought back this site.

 

Nowhere did I see where the Constitution could be suspended, by anyone, but the Writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended by Lincoln twice during the Civil War. Scroll down and read the article, and follow links, for more discussion of habeus corpus. It is not what a lot of us have been told it is (it's got nothing to do with finding or not finding the body of a homicide victim).

 

In the Padilla case, it would seem that the three-judge panel voted for the petition of the Writ, effectively instructing the government to release Padilla, which is entirely within the bounds of our Constitution. It is now up to the civilian courts to pick him up, which is as it should be in this case.

 

Score 1 for correct interpretation of the Founding Father's intent of the Constitution. Time to go to my office Christmas party and get

 

Class dismissed.

[scrambler]

Suspension of the Constitution in whole or in part appears very possible even if only for a short while until reined in by the judicial branch.

 

I didn't know that our Constitution could be suspended, in whole or in part. Wouldn't that take an Act of Congress, and not unilateral presidential action? I'll have to search that out.

 

Disturbing... when would "we the people" ever want to do that?

 

So, you're saying this future action is impossible and outside the realm of possibility?

[sobo]

Suspension of the Constitution in whole or in part appears very possible even if only for a short while until reined in by the judicial branch.

 

I didn't know that our Constitution could be suspended, in whole or in part. Wouldn't that take an Act of Congress, and not unilateral presidential action? I'll have to search that out.

 

Disturbing... when would "we the people" ever want to do that?

 

So, you're saying this future action is impossible and outside the realm of possibility?

 

Huh? What part of "I didn't know..." don't you understand? I fail to make the connection that permits you to put words in my mouth to the effect that I said something is impossible. Where, pray tell, did I ever say that it was impossible to suspend the Constitution? I merely stated that I didn't know our Constitution could be suspended. I even supplied an event that would make it possible - an Act of Congress.

 

Please go back and reread my post, and score 0 for reading comprehension.

[scrambler]

Weasel words...

 

So are you saying it is possible?

[sobo]

OK, everybody knows anything's possible. I could foresee, say, a Constitutional amendment to suspend the Constitution, but how likely is that? It would require ratification by a 2/3(?) majority of the States.

 

For the President to unilaterally suspend the Constitution is unthinkable in my mind. He may be able to get his way for say, 10 seconds, before the remaining cooler heads in this land quietly escort him from office and to his impeachment. I just can't see our military leaders, to a man, joining in with a president bent on suspending the Constitution. And he would have to have the support of the military; no other way. And our Constitution does provide several methods for the removal of the President from office.

 

Our Constitution has never been suspended, but I'll admit that our Constitutional rights have been suspended at times. Just ask Japanese Americans, for one.

 

And remember also where I pointed out in a post above where Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus twice during the Civil War, a protection of our civil liberties thought so sacred by the Founding Fathers that it is the only one of all the civil liberties we have today (as part of the Bill of Rights) that was important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

 

I think you might be thinking more of Martial Law than suspension of the Constitution. You can have both simultaneously. A land under Martial Law while its Constitution is still in force (although its Constitution has no effect at that time) still has a Constitution that has not been suspended. And isn't that what this discussion is about - suspension of the Constitution?

[catbirdseat]

Thank you, sobo.