Special tribunals may be appropriate for foreign nationals taken in acts of terrorism overseas or while they are in the US illegally, but whatever their actions, unless they renounce their citizenship, US citizens should not be held without due process or tried in anything other than a normal jury trial. Even in the case of foreign terrorist subjects, we ought to keep in mind the maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" and speed up the process by which their status is resolved and they are brought to trial. Then we just have to figure out how to get their terror-shy home countries to take back the ones who are acquitted.
Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - handyguy
A 'fair trial,' maybe, after being held incommunicado in a military brig for a couple of years, and subjected to questioning which may or may not have yielded 'evidence,' since no court would have allowed the results of those interrogations as testimony.
So the original reason Padilla was picked up [the alleged but completely unproven 'dirty bomb' plot] was never allowed to be mentioned in the courtroom. He will go to jail for life, probably, because of a faded document in Arabic that the government claimed was proof he is a terrorist. And the only reason he got even this 'fair trial' was that the Administration feared the Supreme Court was about to declare his detention what it was: illegal.
As for the 'overwhelming evidence' and swiftness of the jury verdict, I can only ask: who would want to be on a jury that acquitted an alleged terrorist, if there was even an inkling of doubt as to his innocence? I'm not sure even I would. But this turning of 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head is still disturbing.
If all this makes you feel perfectly fine and comfortable, and glad to be an American, great. I don't have that reaction.
And no one in Guantanamo will get even this kind of 'fair trial.' Most [possibly as many as 70% or or more] won't get a trial at all. No, they're not citizens, but it's still a blot on any ideals of freedom or democracy we may still want to claim.
2 - Dave Nalle
A 'fair trial,' maybe, after being held incommunicado in a military brig for a couple of years,
Three, actually, as noted in the article. Followed by 2 years of law suits initiated by Padilla to try to prevent a trial.
and subjected to questioning which may or may not have yielded 'evidence,' since no court would have allowed the results of those interrogations as testimony.
Which is why they were not used and he was charged on a lesser charge using evidence entirely gathered from other sources.
So the original reason Padilla was picked up [the alleged but completely unproven 'dirty bomb' plot] was never allowed to be mentioned in the courtroom.
Yes, and even without it there was enough evidence to obtain a conviction.
He will go to jail for life, probably, because of a faded document in Arabic that the government claimed was proof he is a terrorist.
No, because of 7 recorded phonecalls in which he discussed terrorist operations and the testimony of his co-defendants and other witnesses.
And the only reason he got even this 'fair trial' was that the Administration feared the Supreme Court was about to declare his detention what it was: illegal.
I wonder if you actually read the article or just reacted to the subject matter regardless of what I actually wrote. Even the title refers to my main point in the article which is that bringing Padilla to trial was the right thing to do and should be what's done with similar cases in the future without Did you not see my introduction of the concept of 'justice delayed is justice denied' in the final paragraph?
As for the 'overwhelming evidence' and swiftness of the jury verdict, I can only ask: who would want to be on a jury that acquitted an alleged terrorist, if there was even an inkling of doubt as to his innocence? I'm not sure even I would. But this turning of 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head is still disturbing.
Who would want to be on a jury which convicted an innocent man of terrorism? I don't think there's really much question that Padilla was not only guilty of what he was charged with but likely of much more.
If all this makes you feel perfectly fine and comfortable, and glad to be an American, great. I don't have that reaction.
I guess you really didn't read the article, or the title for that matter.
And no one in Guantanamo will get even this kind of 'fair trial.' Most [possibly as many as 70% or or more] won't get a trial at all. No, they're not citizens, but it's still a blot on any ideals of freedom or democracy we may still want to claim.
From what research I've done on Guantanamo hundreds of those there would have already been released for cooperating or because they are not that much of a threat, but the government of Afghanistan or their countries of origin won't take them back.
Dave
3 - Dr Dreadful
Good article, Dave, and I'm glad to see that you found the Bush admin's mooning at due process as unamusing as many of us did.
I rather think, though, that all the legal wrangling was less about Padilla trying to avoid trial altogether than it was to actually get one.
Incidentally, I'm assuming that the ad for the CD beneath the article is not the same Jose Padilla. Mind you, he has been cooling his heels behind bars for quite a while. You've got to do something with all that free time...
4 - Dave Nalle
I thought that after years of having his name associated with the terrorist, it was only right to try to help the singer of the same name sell some CDs, Dr. D. Plus no one seems to have written a book on the Padilla case yet.
Dave
5 - bliffle
Where can one see the evidence against Padilla?
6 - Dave Nalle
I was working from summaries of the trial in the MSM. FindLaw doesn't have the case documents and transcripts processed and available yet, though they do provide some more detailed description of what evidence was provided.
The most damning item seems to be a form Padilla filled out which was essentially an al Qaeda job application which has his signature, fingerprints and other verifiable personal info on it.
I'll look around some more, but if you want good descriptions of the trial check FindLaw, and I'm sure they'll eventually have the evidence and transcripts as well.
Dave
7 - handyguy
The descriptions of the wiretapped phone calls I read said they were all or almost all between the two co-defendants, and Padilla was allegedly implicated, although the implications sounded fuzzy and ambiguous. But the calls were not only in Arabic...they were alleged by the government to be in code, so that words like 'football' had some sinister meaning.
In addition what Padilla is 'guilty' of is basically thought crime. He's not alleged to have killed anyone or even to have bought materials for a dirty bomb. His crimes involve alleged, unproven plots, not actions.
The fact that his lawyers chose not to produce even character witnesses in his behalf probably didn't help.
And the prosecution was allowed to present in evidence a videotape of Osama bin Laden making threats, when bin Laden had no direct bearing on the case. Utterly prejudicial.
If after all this, you have no doubts, bully for you. I think it smells very unappetizing.
8 - bliffle
It may be that Padilla has no character witnesses. So what?
OK, so we have some Arabic documents of doubtful provenance.
What do the transcripts of the intercepted phone calls say? And who were the participants?
Surely there is no National Security reason for withholding them, since the Bad Guys already know what they say.
9 - bliffle
It's bothersome that Padilla was locked up for 43 months on 'dirty bomb' charges that were so unsound that they couldn't be brought to trial. Isn't there some penalty to be brought against prosecutors who commit such egregious acts?
10 - steve
padilla may have been held for a decent amount of time without a trial...but if you care to consider the swift nature of his trial, it's a wash! =)
11 - Dave Nalle
I'm sure that Padilla can apply his time served to his likely life sentence. Seems only fair. He might be out in 18 instead of 20 - with good behavior
Dave