GameBanshee Forums

Does this bother anyone other than me?

Jose Padilla (aka Abdullah Al Muhajir) has been detained by the government and declared an "enemy combatant" which deprives him of civilian constitutional protections. Never mind that Padilla isn't a soldier, nor does he meet any of the criteria set down by the Geneva Conventions (ie-he's not in uniform, nor is he enlisted/commissioned in a standing army, etc.).

If Padilla's status is upheld by the courts, this is a dark day for our constitutional rights.

Has anyone got a link to the constitution, i would be very interested to see how this refers.

A transcript of The Constitution of the United States Of America

Links to The Bill of Rights and the 17 other Constitutional Amendments

Don't worry guys, it's okay, he's a "bad guy" and is "where he belongs-detained" .
Regretably I can't say I'm surprised at this.

Great thread HLD, it is definitely a complicated issue and throws a loop at consititutional law. Honestly, I don't know where I stand on this matter. Part of me sees the argument made he is not a soldier and is therefore entitled to his rights. The other part sees a man who is allegedly working with an International Terrorist Organization with an intent to blow up a device intended for mass destruction. On those grounds, I'd say you forego your rights. However, if they are wrong, it looks pretty awful for the government to wave a "Oops, my bad" flag.

Being a terrorist should not void his constitutional rights. We didn't withhold Tim McVeigh's rights. Nor do we prosecute abortion clinic bombers as "enemy combatants". Padilla is an American citizen. If the government can suspend his rights, they can suspend yours.

That's all true HLD and I understand that. I just believe that the events over the past eight months have changed the rules. Is it right? Hell if I know. I see where you are going though with the fact that anybody's constitutional rights can be voided. We can't live under a government who chooses to void some citizens rights while others are granted.

Do you want this guy free on bond giving what he is accused of setting aside of course the violation of constitutional rights.

Despite the 11 September attacks, I don't think that the rule of law has changed. I think at America's aura and self-image of invulnerability has been shattered, but I do not think that gives the government the power to stiffle our rights in the name of "protection". The logical extreme is a police state, something I abhor. Remember that the crime rate in Germany under the Nazis was very low, but would you want to live under those conditions?

I believe in the constitutional protections which we are guaranteed, and I believe that the due proces of law is one of the most important. I do not believe that Padilla is entitled to special treatment different from any other citizen accused of a crime. If he was planning to assemble and detonate a "dirty" bomb, he should be executed in the same way that Tim McVeigh was: as an American civilian accused (and convicted) of terrorist activity.

Robert A. Heinlein wrote, "You can have peace or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once." We live in a free society. I hope we always do. However, freedom brings with it dissention, and non-violent dissention is something that is good for everyone. I fear that if our courts allow Padilla to be denied a trial by jury or proper legal representation, we are taking the first step down a dangerous path, where the rights of citizens fall by the wayside in the name of "collective security". I see the potential for terrible abuse there.

As expected, I see your points and completely agree with them. Still, I'm torn despite the possibility of dangerous ramifications from the governments treatment of padilla.

These guys sum it up for me...

"The better the state is established, the fainter is humanity. To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

"You must know there are two ways of contesting, the one by the law, the other by force; the first method is proper to men, the second to beasts; but because the first is frequently not sufficient, it is necessary to have recourse to the second. Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man.

If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance. "
- Nicolo Machiavelli

Machiavelli principle...

...my PoV would be - it must established exactly how Padilla should be classified... btw, what if it is found out that Padilla is just a mercenary and is not into this thing out of principle/politics/whatever, does that change anything?

IMHO, a civilian is a civilian is a civilian. Otherwise, the deaths during 9/11 will be justified, afterall *sarcasm* those who died were taxpayers whose money is used to support the armed forces...

Originally posted by Maharlika
IMHO, a civilian is a civilian is a civilian. Otherwise, the deaths during 9/11 will be justified, afterall *sarcasm* those who died were taxpayers whose money is used to support the armed forces...

The day he decided to enter into a scheme to build and detonate a radioactive bomb on a heavily populated city he put himself in the proverbial line of fire. Let him rot (Sarcasm or not, there's no comparison between him and the people who were just sitting their offices doing their everyday jobs when a couple of planes rammed into their buildings).

True enough, let him rot...

Originally posted by Kayless

The day he decided to enter into a scheme to build and detonate a radioactive bomb on a heavily populated city he put himself in the proverbial line of fire. Let him rot (Sarcasm or not, there's no comparison between him and the people who were just sitting their offices doing their everyday jobs when a couple of planes rammed into their buildings).

...however, the point being raised here is how is he supposed to be tried? As a civilian or as an enemy combatant? Does the US now classify terrorists as legitimate enemies of the state such that its members when captured should be treated as enemy combatants and not as (civilian)criminals?

@Kayless:
So then should all terrorists be stripped of their rights? What about Ted Kaczynski? As our friend Maharlika says, a civilian is a civilian is a civilian, whether they are declared enemies of the state or not. Is justice not better served by giving him his day in court? If he has a viable defense, let him present it for the world to see. We tried (and convicted) Omar Abdul Rachman and his cohorts (the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center attack) in open courts and justice was served.

Padilla is not a soldier as defined by the Geneva Conventions. He cannot be detained or tried as such. If he is not treated as every other accused criminal, our proceedings will be tainted with accusations of vengeance, not justice. For our enemies, it will only lend them the credibility they crave and give credence to their claims that the US is a corrupt, hypocritical bully.

Now HLD is really speaking sense. Your last statements on how the US'es actions give credence to the 'cause' said terrorists fight for convince me. Padilla should be held and tried as a US citizen. Changing the rules for one man is not the correct way to go about bringing Padilla to justice.

Well said, HLD...

Originally posted by HighLordDave
For our enemies, it will only lend them the credibility they crave and give credence to their claims that the US is a corrupt, hypocritical bully.

... my (other) point here is that don't give these terrorists any excuse to hit more civilians since technically speaking, Padilla is a civilian and should be treated as such.

Originally posted by Kayless

The day he decided to enter into a scheme to build and detonate a radioactive bomb on a heavily populated city he put himself in the proverbial line of fire.

I'm not sure that's the issue. After all, we don't know he did anything that the government says he did--the government (and not the Bush administration, here, but US governments, and for that matter, many governments I can think of, elsewhere) has been repeatedly wrong in its accusations, before. The American legal system is also founded on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Or has that been forgotten?

But the real issue here (which the government is trying to cover with an emotional plea) is a Constitutional one. The law is supposed to safeguard all citizens from unfair detention. No provision is made in the US Constitution, however, for what to do during wartime. The current administration would have you believe that a war is in progress, and maybe it is; but to my knowledge, it hasn't been proven.

During the Civil War, President Lincoln ignored the writ of habeus corpus to keep what he regarded as a citizen acting in a potentially seditious manner behind bars. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Taney immediately declared the writ valid, and ordered the prisoner released. Lincoln responded, in effect, this is war, and I will do what is necessary in wartime, and abrogated the writ in a wide series of instances. Some people were held without legal proceedings for more than two years, before being released--at least one I know of was cashiered from a high Army rank without charges being brought, only to have rank reinstated twenty years later.

Lincoln thus created a legal nightmare and set a precedent which are still with us, today. To what extent are we at war? And if we are at war, what measures are necessary to preserve the wellbeing of the state? Would that wellbeing be served by keeping a single US citizen behind bars, without legal representation, and without charges?

I can't help thinking that we're all being kept far too much in the dark, being asked to travel down a series of steps in the dark based on leaders who cite "restrictions of war" as the cause for never telling us what lies ahead. It bothers me greatly, and without regard to who is occupying the White House.

Re: True enough, let him rot...

Originally posted by Maharlika
...however, the point being raised here is how is he supposed to be tried? As a civilian or as an enemy combatant? Does the US now classify terrorists as legitimate enemies of the state such that its members when captured should be treated as enemy combatants and not as (civilian)criminals?

Does he consider himself an American citizen? I tend to doubt it, since most of the Al-Qaeda supporters seem to put very religion as their first and only devotion, forsaking all others (while America is seen as the land of pure evil). Personally I don’t think he should be considered a citizen anymore. He committed treason by plotting to slaughter thousands of people, not because he’s a psychotic criminal, but because he believes that this nation is the enemy and needs to be attacked. Since he renounced America let America renounce him.

Re: Re: True enough, let him rot...

Originally posted by Kayless

Does he consider himself an American citizen?

Again, this is a matter of law. What the suspect considers is irrelevant. If he were a Belgian citizen, he would be tried under Belgian law. He's an American citizen, unless he took citizenship in another nation, and should be tried in American courts by American law.

Remember, "innocent until proven guilty" is never more needed than when a suspect gives every appearance of being guilty. The law is meant to restrain emotions, and let evidence and reason hold sway.

Re: Re: True enough, let him rot...

Originally posted by Kayless

He committed treason by plotting to slaughter thousands of people, not because he’s a psychotic criminal, but because he believes that this nation is the enemy and needs to be attacked.

Then let him be tried for treason (or whatever crimes they can lawfully bring against him). Treason is (I believe) the only crime specifically addressed by the Constitution and many, many people have been tried and convicted under its precedent (the latest being Robert Hanssen, who did more real damage to the United States than Padilla could ever hope to). However, that does not give the government the ability to abrogate his inalienable rights.