Case Not Closed (Padilla - WH will still hold indefinitely as "enemy"

[UpInArms]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10184957/site/newsweek/

The Bush administration, determined not to yield any ground on the constitutional issues in the case of Jose Padilla , has indicated it may still hold the accused “enemy combatant” indefinitely—even if he is acquitted of the terrorist conspiracy charges he was indicted on this week.

Jonathan Freiman, a lawyer for Padilla, told NEWSWEEK that a senior lawyer in the Solicitor General’s office told him Wednesday that the government still asserts it has the power to hold his client—regardless of the outcome of the criminal case against him.

“I was told, ‘he’s still an enemy combatant according to the president and therefore they can still detain him at anytime,” Freiman said.

Freiman declined to identify which senior lawyer in the Solicitor General’s office made the assertion. The Justice Department’s director of public affairs, Tasia Scolinos, would not say today whether Padilla, a U.S. citizen born in Chicago, would be freed were he to be acquitted in the criminal case announced Tuesday by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. “The prosecutors believe this is a very strong case,” she said when asked what would happen in the event of an acquittal. “We’re not going to talk about hypotheticals.”

...more...

(Note to Mods: I realize that I am 2 hours past the 12 hour limit - but this is IMPORTANT information (imho) - do as you will with my thanks for all you do - UIA)

[harrison]

1. Someone please tell me how this differs from what they

would do in a totalitarian state? My God, are these Stalinists or something?

[area51]

2. It is totalitarian. Bush is insane & evil. (n/t)

[54anickel]

3. Something "smelly" in that article. The 2nd page reads like an

advertisment for the Patriot Act.

But, in a possible additional irony in the case, the records reviewed by NEWSWEEK also show that just as the FBI probe was moving closer to the heart of the Al Qaeda network, the FBI terminated the long running investigation—apparently because officials, operating under the rules at the time, concluded it could no longer be justified.

As a result, the bureau appears to have missed an opportunity to track Padilla’s movements just as he was allegedly starting to associate with senior Al Qaeda leaders.

snip>

Killinger said he could not explain the “circumstances” by which the FBI terminated the case. The surveillance was stopped, however, during a period that senior Justice Departments and a federal judge were raising concerns that FISA wiretaps were being overused—and potentially violating the rights of innocent citizens.

In addition, at that point, the intelligence case had not appeared to yield any fruit. “Once the Patriot Act and other tools came into play after September 11, it became easier to connect the dots,” said one senior Justice official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the case.

Still, the indictment shows just how close the bureau may have come to Padilla years ago without realizing it. ...

[54anickel]

4. Padilla case tests the Patriot Act

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/24/padilla_case_tests_the_patriot_act/

snip>

Before the rudderless, dysfunctional Congress limped out of town last week, this was the principle behind what would have been a filibuster against an extension of the Patriot Act's major provisions. From the left and right -- uniting senators as diverse as Idaho's Larry Craig and Wisconsin's Russ Feingold -- the purpose of the filibuster would have been to review at least a few provisions, affecting individual rights and freedom, of the law that was enacted in such unseemly haste in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

There's still a chance of success when Congress returns, and the Padilla case is a wonderful example of why supervision is always a good idea where the power of the state is involved.

The Bush administration dumped the case it once trumpeted rather than face Padilla's diligent attorneys before the Supreme Court on a basic question, which they framed with commendable precision: ''Does the president have the power to seize American citizens in civilian settings on American soil and subject them to indefinite military detention without criminal charge or trial?"

The administration was facing a Monday deadline for making its own legal case to the court for the extreme proposition that any American could be held merely on its say so that the person was ''an enemy combatant" in an undeclared war.

more...

[pennylane100]

5. If he is found not guilty in a US court

there will be quite a few public officials serving contempt charges if they try to keep him in jail. Even the current supreme court
would have a hard time justifying such a blatant power grap.

Bush is not above the law and if he tries to do this, everybody should be very concerned, as these are the actions of a dictator-in-training. If he gets away with it, he will take it as a signal that he has a wide open field to trample on the rest of our freedoms.

[wakeme2008]

6. Right if found NOT guilty.....

It would be next to impossible for Bushie to hold him....

[annabanana]

7. The question is: Can the President declare anyone an

"enemy combatant", even an American Citizen on American soil, and throw him in prison, refuse to charge him, deny him council.. and hold him indefinitely..?

If he can do it to Padilla, he can do it to YOU.

If this question comes up before the Supreme Court after O'Conner is gone, will they grant him this untrammeled power?

on edit: nominated

[Thom Little]

8. So what is this, a SHOW TRIAL???

How is this any different from Hitler?

[ozymandius]

9. This would effectively suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

Lincoln was the last president to do this. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus while Congress was in recess and just as the Union was fracturing. He knew that if Congress were in session while he suspended the writ that he would likely be censured over this measure, possibly even impeached. Somehow I do not believe that this Congress would move to stem the tide of totalitarianism, making us a nation governed by men - not of laws, as long as this specific act does not affect them personally.

[Orsino]

10. When they charged him with a crime, he ceased to be...

...an enemy combatant. They gave him up to the criminal justice system, having found enough evidence to get an indictment.

The * Administration, however, will not risk the derision and loss of face that an acquittal would bring upon them. They believe that they have gathered--or manufactured--enough evidence to justify their secret imprisonments with a criminal conviction.

[annabanana]

11. too late to recommend... but needs visibility... . n/t