Did anyone catch the prosecution of Jose Padilla in yesterdays press conference? A whole laundry list of accusations have been leveled upon Padilla in a venue where the accused has no reasonable chance to defend themselves.

And before anyone starts tossing around ignorant accusations of terrorist supporter my way, I would love to see Padila in court to face his accusers and answer these charges and, if found guilty by judge or jury, appropriately punished. The way justice is supposed to work here. Justice in America doesn't happen in press conferences, but in F'n courtrooms.

Links

[ 06-02-2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color=deepskyblue>For the last two years, there have been numerous threads on this forum regarding the enemy combatants being held without being charged. And the recurring demand was "Tell us what crimes these people are accused of. Tell us WHY they are being held indefinitely and what justification the U.S. Gov't has for doing so".

And now you are upset with Deputy Attorney General James Comey for doing just that. :confused:

That's no different than the police bringing in a suspected murderer and holding a news conference to announce that the person is going to be charged with the murder of Jane Doe. The accused WILL get a chance to answer those charges in a court of law eventually, but it does not violate their right to justice for the authorities to hold a press conference detailing what charges they are being held on and/or will face in court.

And it especially is not a violation of the persons right to justice when a Senate Committee AND the general public have repeatedly made demands that they be told exactly what crimes these enemy combatants are being charged with and the Deputy D.A. holds a Press Conference to comply with those demands.</font>

You have missed the points Cerek. The problem was not with the press conference in and of itself, but the contents of the press conference.

Padilla has not been charged with any crime to date nor are any charges pending. He is still being held as an "enemy combatent", indefintely and without the same access to a lawyer any murderer would recieve.

Furthermore when the police hold a press conference to announce charges, they usually do not sound like an opening statement of trial.
In otherwords the press conference was like the title of the thread implies- A trial-a one-sided trial- in a case where the accused has no veneue to defend himself from these accusations.
**************************************

Here is a transcript of the press conference:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/01/co...la.transcript/

[img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Does it use carbon paper? [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Damn that pesky Constitution.

<font color=deepskyblue>But the "contents of the press conference" were a detailed explanation of why the decision was made to classify Jose Padilla as an "enemy combatant" in the first place. And this is something the public has been demanding ever since learning about Padilla.

It's true he wasn't given access to a lawyer during his questioning, because that is a right that an "enemy combatant" is not entightled to, as I understand. However, it also means that NOTHING Padilla has said in any of those interrogations can ever be used against him in a court of law if his case ever does go to trial.

I admit I am very "uneasy" with the possible ramifications of the Patriot Act and I also don't like the idea of somebody being held indefinitely without any recourse or hope of release. However, given the training Padilla recieved along with his admitted intent to use that training in one or more terrorist acts here in the U.S., I also feel that Department of Defense IS justified in the actions they took.

The Senate Council held recently to "investigate" the events leading up to 9/11 was not concerned with learning valuable information from the events leading to 9/11. Instead, it was more concerned with just finding somebody to blame. President Bush has taken a LOT of criticism and accusations that he did not do everything possible to prevent 9/11. Well, I see the case of Jose Padilla as an attempt to do just that - use every measure in his power to prevent future terrorist attacks. Padilla has proven to be a very valuable source of information on Al Qaeda and it's members, including information on other operatives that may be in the U.S. at this time and clues to what types of acts they may be considering.

America has never really faced this type of internal threat before, and I do believe the Dept of Defense had an obligation to learn everything they could from Padilla in an effort to prevent any future attacks. If that means declaring him as an "enemy combatant" so that he can be detained without facing formal charges, then so be it. The information provided by Deputy D.A. Comey certainly seems to justify that decision.

And now that Dept of Defense feels they have learned everything they can from Padilla, he has been granted access to counsel - even though it seems unlikely he will actually face a trial.

Yes, that violates our Constitution, but the Constitution does not apply to military law - and THAT is what Padilla is being held under as an "enemy combatant". And given his training, skills and knowledge along with his admission of researching how to build a nuclear bomb on his own initiative - I firmly believe he does represent a material threat to the safety of American citizens.

One thing the Dept of Defense DOES need to be cautious about, however, is what they do with Padilla now. Technically, they can hold an enemy combatant "for the duration of the war"...but the War on Terrorism is an open-ended conflict that will never have a specific "ending date". So measures will have to be taken to find some type of resolution to Padilla's detainment. I don't know exactly what avenues they can pursue, but Comey implied there are a number of options available.

<font color=deepskyblue>Well, I saw it as a release of information explaining the justification for declaring Padilla as an "enemy combatant" - which is what the public has been demanding for two years now. As for Padilla not getting a chance to defend himself against these accusations, much of the information released came from his own confessions. I don't see that there is a reason to allow him to defend himself against his own confessions, but that's just me.</font>

statements made without access to a laywer and in secret and quite possibley under duress are not considered admissible evidence in democratic countries.

So you are right, he has nothing to defend himself from.

Well, no shit. If you read the speech made by the AUSA, you will find he states this at least 4 times, mentioning that those statements cannot be used in a prosecution because he did not have a lawyer.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't like him being denied counsel either. Here's what is likely to happen with this, like it or not: he will be continually detained in a jail of one form or another for years until the "war on terror" blows over, at which time he will likely be released with nary a charge ever being filed. He committed no acts to garner him a prosecution, except perhaps a charge of "conspiracy." Regarding such a charge, it is highly unlikely that proof will be available to effectively prosecute him (because the conspiracy had not progressed far enough in action to be criminal under the law, I believe). So, he will likely be set free at the end of it all.

Is it a travesty of justice? You decide. While I highly support the rights of individuals against any government, I must say that he gave up some very useful information in bringing high-level terrorists to justice. Is it worth the trade-off? Sadly, only time will tell. If his years in jail and his interrogation result in high level A.Q. members being caught, then in my mind, yes, it was worth commuting his rights for a few years, and it was worth foregoing a real criminal charge against him.

[ 06-04-2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]