R7

"Ain't Gonna Study War No More"

My Photo
Name:
Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States

Right-To-Life Party, Christian, Anti-War, Pro-Life, Bible Fundamentalist, Egalitarian, Libertarian Left

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Thanksgiving Table Blessing

Praising God at Mealtime


Be present at our table, Lord,
Be here and everywhere adored.
Thy creatures bless, and grant that we
May feast in paradise with thee.



-John Wesley

Citizen Padilla

"The Padilla case is a sobering lesson in how much leeway the President has to imprison and detain people for long periods of time in violation of the Constitution. The fact that the government's story about why Padilla was a threat has changed so frequently should give us pause the next time the government asserts that we should trust it when it rounds up U.S. citizens and claims the right to hold them indefinitely for our protection. Padilla may well be a very bad fellow, but we have a method of dealing with such bad fellows. It is called the rule of law, and we should not surrender it so readily merely because the President desires it."

The Padilla Debacle

Who knew Jeff Gannon had a blog? And, really, who cares? It's only interesting because if such a shill for the Bush White House as Gannon is praising the indictment of Jose Padilla as a "gain" in the "war on terror," then you know there's trouble. And there is. The imprisonment for three years without charges of U.S. citizen Jose Padilla stands as one of the most glaring examples of the Bush administration's disregard for the Constitution and the civil liberties it enshrines. Many observers believe Tuesday's indictment was motivated by Bush administration lawyers hoping to squelch Padilla's case in front of the Supreme Court. Balkinization , one of the best blogs on constitutional law issues, had this response to Padilla's indictment:

Today the U.S. government formally indicted Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested in the United States who had been held as an enemy combatant for three years outside the reach of the criminal justice system.

Originally the Justice Department claimed that Padilla had planned to detonate a "dirty bomb" (i.e., one that would explode radioactive nuclear waste) in the United States. Later the Justice Department changed that to an allegation that he planned to set fire to (or blow up) an apartment building in Chicago. In today's indictment, the Justice Department alleges neither act; instead it claims that Padilla had traveled abroad to become "a violent jihadist" and that he had conspired to send "money, physical assets and new recruits" overseas to engage in acts of terrorism."

Since 9/11 the Bush Administration has sharply criticized others for daring to suggest that citizens accused of terrorism should be dealt with through the criminal justice system. It has insisted that 9/11 changed everything and that terrorism must be dealt with through novel methods that dispense with the ordinary protections that the Constitution affords the accused. Now it has backtracked in one of the most prominent cases and done precisely what it said it could not do-- treat Padilla as a criminal defendant.

The reason is not difficult to discover. The Administration counted votes and figured that even with a replacement for Justice O'Connor, it would likely lose in the Supreme Court. (The four dissenters in Rumsfeld v. Padilla thought Padilla was unconstitutionally confined, while Justice Scalia, who joined the majority, made clear that the September 18, 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force did not justify detaining a U.S. citizen, because the AUMF was not a legitimate suspension of the writ of habeas corpus).

By indicting Padilla now, The Bush Administration moots Padilla's appeal to the Supreme Court. It also leaves standing the Fourth Circuit's decision in the Padilla case, which broadly upheld the President's power to detain U.S. citizens like Padilla as unlawful combatants. (See Marty Lederman's post here for an analysis).

That result is particularly worthy of note, for the Fourth Circuit opinion may yet come in handy if the Administration needs to hold another U.S. citizen within the geographical boundaries of that circuit. The Administration now knows that the Fourth Circuit is a Constitution-free zone. It can, if it needs to, declare someone an enemy combantant, thrown them into a military prison, and interrogate them at its leisure. It will take years for a citizen to exhaust his appeals and reach the Supreme Court; and when the citizen finally gets to the Supreme Court, the Administration has the option to indict and moot the case (as it did with Padilla) or, if the Court's personnel have changed sufficiently in the interim, risk an appeal to the Supremes.

You may recall that, following the Hamdi decision last year, the Administration decided not to give Yaser Hamdi a hearing, but instead released Hamdi to Saudi Arabia, extracting in return a surrender of Hamdi's U.S. Citizenship and a promise that he would not sue. Now it has indicted Padilla to avoid facing a simliar rebuff by the U.S. Supreme Court. In both cases, the Administration argued that that it was of the utmost necessity to detain them indefinitely and that it could not give these men the constitutional protections ordinarily afforded criminal defendants without severely damaging national security. These assertions now ring hollow-- Hamdi is free, and Padilla is in the criminal justice system.

The Padilla case is a sobering lesson in how much leeway the President has to imprison and detain people for long periods of time in violation of the Constitution. The fact that the government's story about why Padilla was a threat has changed so frequently should give us pause the next time the government asserts that we should trust it when it rounds up U.S. citizens and claims the right to hold them indefinitely for our protection. Padilla may well be a very bad fellow, but we have a method of dealing with such bad fellows. It is called the rule of law, and we should not surrender it so readily merely because the President desires it.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051123/the_padilla_debacle.php

Bush Knew No Iraq Link Pre-9/11: Report

US President George W Bush was informed 10 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks that US intelligence had no proof of links between Iraq and this act of terror, The National Journal reported today.

Citing government documents as well as past and present Bush administration officials, the magazine said the president was briefed on September 21, 2001 that evidence of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network was insufficient.

Bush was also informed that there was some credible information about contacts between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that showed that the Iraqi dictator had tried to establish surveillance over the group, according to the report.

Saddam Hussein believed the radical Islamic network represented a threat for his secular regime.

Little additional evidence has emerged over the past four years that could contradict the CIA conclusion about a lack of a collaborative relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq, the Journal quotes a high-level government official as saying.

The magazine believes the evidence raises yet more questions about the administration's use of intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq.

AFP
http://smh.com.au/news/world/bush-knew-no-iraq-link-pre911-report/2005/11/23/1132703230171.html