From the AP/Breitbart:
Jose Padilla was convicted of federal terrorism support charges Thursday after being held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration’s zeal to stop homegrown terror.
Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face possible sentences of life in prison if convicted of all three charges in the case.
The three are accused of being part of a North American support cell that provided supplies, money and recruits to groups of Islamic extremists. The defense contended they were trying to help persecuted Muslims in war zones with relief and humanitarian aid.
Anybody else guessing Russ Feingold won’t be particularly eager to read the verdict into the congressional record?
Allah sums this up nicely, I think:
Big win for Bush. A win too for Bush critics, in a sense: this will “prove†that the administration doesn’t need military tribunals to convict jihadis.
Sure. And a fish doesn’t “need” a bicycle.
Which doesn’t mean that if a fish is tasked with peddling somewhere he wouldn’t do better to find himself a Schwinn than to waste time tearing two wheels and the undercarriage off of a Saab, then using his tiny flippers to propel the cumbersome wreck about like he’s some strange aquatic Fred Flintstone.
Which I’m pretty sure makes a great deal of sense if you squint hard enough.
Also, it doesn’t hurt if you’re a fish, either.
****
update: More, from Ace:
the Daily Kos — the new center of American politics — is almost unanimous in their previous hopes for acquittal and current heart-ache over his conviction.
Now that’s what I call patriotism — emotionally investing in the fate of a Al Qaeda terrorist who conspired to craft a dirty bomb with which to kill or at least terrorize Americans.
[…]
Is it too much to ask that those who pose as favoring law enforcement over military measures in fighting terrorism take the next step and actually, you know, support law enforcement measures and hope for good outcomes?
The fact that you “ask” in the first place only shows your weakness, Ace.
Ideology, it is a bloodsport. And the Kossacks, they are known to sup on the iron-rich blood of Van Damme.
See also, STACLU.
****
traitorous cousin of update: Maha asks, why do Malkin and Allahpundit hate America?
Which, I wasn’t aware they did. But if I had to guess? I’d pin it on Obamamania!
****
Benedict Arnold’s even MORE traitorous friend of update: In response to my comment — which asked why she didn’t finish Allah’s quote (she cut out the part where he calls this a win for the President’s critics, as well) — Maha rails against “radical and un-American right-wing blogs like Protein Wisdom.”
Radical and un-American. This coming from the douchenozzle who professed her intolerance of intolerance, then closed her comments to keep out dissenting voices — a move she repeated today.
While, you know, calling those who are relieved that a court convicted an American who joined with an enemy that has declared war against us un-American.
Up is down. Black is white. The sound of one hand clapping is T’Pau’s “Heart and Soul.”
Padilla may be an American citizen, but he joined a group that is bent on destroying the US, one that appeals to shari’a law, which supersedes the authority of the state. Padilla’s status took some time to sort out — but the argument that, as a member of al-Qaeda, he was a prisoner of war, making it illegal for him to receive representation, was a reasonable one.
I think Congress could address the future security problems we’ve left ourselves open to here by declaring that any US citizen who joins al Qaeda immediately forfeit his or her citizenship and will be treated as an enemy combatant and held as a prisoner of war. The question is, how would we set up a system to adjudicate such an inquiry into that relationship without burning intel sources and methods?
I don’t know how it could be done, but under such a system, the benefits of recruiting US citizens — who receive criminal trials where disclosure is required, including disclosure of sources that would allow the enemy to suss out surveillance methods — could be effectively counteracted.
If, of course, we wish to counteract such terrorist strategies.
Could be that it’s only un-American radicals like me who are into that kind of draconian Constitution shredding.
From comments in the Kos link, two conspiracy theories are trotted out:
@@ Because, you know, either of those is much more likely than Padilla being a part of a Islamic terrorist organization. The only evil in the world exists w/in the US government.
Well, that and plyometrics, Carin. Which, given that I no longer get much traffic, I figure I’ll go and do right now.
The news can take care of itself. But for those who need it summarized, John Hawkins at Right Wing News recently announced his list of 50 or so sites that do it much better than do I.
So go bother them for a bit.
From the AP article:
After a conviction, don’t they usually drop the “supposedly” business?
Oh, were we bothering you?
John Hawkins at Right Wing News recently announced his list of 50 or so sites that supposedly do it much better than do I.
Who is this John Hawkins?
Good Pilgrim name, that.
I agree with Allah on this one. This is good news, not just for the administration, and much more importantly the nation, but also for the left who want to see these cases tried in criminal court. I was always among those that thought that this douchebag should be tried in criminal court because he was a citizen. I hope he enjoys his time in the joint as someone’s bitch (oops, my apologies to the NY city councilwoman) and gets to think about his actions for the remainder of his life. However long that may be.
The depraved kossacks can go to hell. Unbelievable that they can never think that the dumbshit was what he was; a freaking terrorist. I don’t even understand those people.
That the MSM can have Kos on there and give him a forum to proclaim themselves as being the political center speaks volumes to where the media views themselves.
I guess we will not have to hear about how he was detained illegally, and was just some innocent Muslim-American citizen, falsely accused.
He is an undercover CIA agent that went rogue so they decided to destroy him.
Was he on the CIA hit team that’s searching for the Mahdi? That would explain a lot.
He was undercover, working directly for Larry Johnson and Vaerie Plame. Had they just left him alone, he would have been settled in at Brewster Jennings by now, were it not for that traitor, Libby.
I really don’t think it’s too much to ask that an American citizen detained on American soil should not held in held in solitary confinement for three years without charges.
Wait a minute, who broke his cover?
Kark Rove is still in the White House. Look, look, they’re sealing a new indictment.
THERE WILL BE FROG MARCHING! BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAHA
The preceeding brought to you by the the lemon yellow jello that is Jason Leopold’s brain.
What’s that smell????
tw: caught intercept as long as it takes, Rove!
Isn’t it a victory for the classical liberalism that values the separation of powers? Accusation plus arrest should not produce indefinite imprisonment. It’s just too easy for any executive power to haul away inconvenient people or an easy mark, so they can say, “See? We’re doing our job!” Or, “I say he’s a terrorist, so he is.” We don’t want either a liberal or conservative establishment to get away with saying, “These are the bigots/terrorists/good guys/bad guys, because I say so.”
T&T
AJB, this isn’t a typical case. It’s a symbol of President Bush’s zeal. Not holding Padilla without charges in solitary confinement would have drained the case of much of its symbolic import, which the left got a LOT of mileage out of. Don’t you listen to NPR? Whose side are you on here?
Yup, we should give him free access to his jihadi brothers. How is one convicted without any charges being filed, dumbshit? Is there anything that this administration could do that would please you, AJB?
War is hell, AJB. And in this case, it really sucks of you’re on the other side.
Interesting tidbit from Maha’s About Me:
Education
Bachelor of Journalism degree, University of Missouri / School of Journalism, Columbia, MO, 1973
Doesn’t this make her a predecessor of Scott Beauchamp? And doesn’t this mean U. of MO’s journalism depart has actually improved over the past 30-some years? >>>
Cordially…
Jeff,
In response to your comment, Maha has declared, “The conspiracy to destroy the Bill of Rights and betray American principles…started in the Oval Office and certainly extends, at least, to radical and un-American right-wing blogs like Protein Wisdom.”
Sweet, I post on a radical un-American blog!
Let’s dig up FDR and abuse him for executing the German saboteurs during WWII. Oh wait, we were allied with the communists then. Nevermind.
Is it too much to ask that those who pose as favoring law enforcement over military measures in fighting terrorism take the next step and actually, you know, support law enforcement measures and hope for good outcomes?
The “good outcomes” they were hoping for involve acquitting such suspects on all charges after revealing that the Admin pretty much railroaded these poor souls in their zeal to establish the Chimperator of the World. If you use the U.S. Justice System, you can pull a lot more shenanigans than you can in a military trial.
TW: meditation Constitu-. C’mon. Finish that thought…
I forget, AJB, what was he suspected of? Jaywalking, right?
But for those who need it summarized, John Hawkins at Right Wing News recently announced his list of 50 or so sites that do it much better than do I.
It’s 40. And he’s a moron for not including you. I stuck up for you in the comments, though. After the thread died, but you cant be perfect.
Maha is a bleating idiot.
[…] Others watching this include Ankle Biting Pundits, Babalu Blog, Gina Cobb, Atlas Shrugs, Hot Air, Stop The ACLU, Michelle Malkin, Protein Wisdom… […]
I’m embarassed. I actually went to MU. Still, NROTC is not the School of Journalism, so I’ll try to keep my head up.
Congrats Jeff! Maha thinks you’re part of the vast right wing conspiract with ties to the White House. She must have caught you doing a secret hand signal.
Jim in KC – You appear to have managed to overcome that impediment quite well.
The Illini vs. Mizzou Braggin’ Rights game is one of my favorite every year. I L L I N I !!!
Really bad day for the fireswampers – Padilla verdict came down during their hand on hip wait for a Susan Collin’s apology – an affiliated blogger having gone a step behind calling them “poopy-head”, referring to them as a foul-mouthed fem blog.
Has anyone pointed out that Maha is a blithering idiot? With all proper apologies for namecalling, despite its being mitigated by truthiness. Dumb as a stump, but with far less situational awareness.
Maha shut down his comments.
“I will NOT DISCUSS!!! I’m taking my toys and going home.”
Correction…her comments…
As I said to Ronaldo the other day: if you think this is a “radical” “right-wing” sight, you really don’t get out much, do you?
Best they didn’t; if they checked out the most red-blooded sites out there, the poor dears would simply faint away.
Pablo – I pointed out that Maha is a bleating idiot. I neglected to mention that it is a blithering iditiot as well.
That’s typically a good game, JD, but of course every true Mizzou fan lives to beat Kansas. 2-25 would be a perfectly acceptable record if both of those victories were over the Jayhawks.
Jim – I have been to almost every one of the games since ’87. With that traitorous Bill Self coaching Kansas, I now cheer for the Illini, and anyone that is playing Kansas.
Self was a good hire for KU, though. Williams is obviously a good coach, but he coached his teams to be whiny crybabies. Which might be fine in the ACC or Big East, but it never really seemed that good a fit in the Big 8 (12 if you count the Texans).
Maha represents the shallow end of the kiddie pool, intellectually speaking. The thought that she has a journalism degree depresses me more than I care to admit (although perusing her writings gives me some idea why she’s not morking for a major news outlet … is she?)
This is the radical left in our country, folks. Any monor adjustment to the rules and regulations to adapt to an enemy who is adapting all of the time is shredding The Constitution, pissing on The Bill of Rights, making paper airplanes out of the Declaration of Independence and just a short half step from country wide re-education camps.
But if hilary Clinton had done this? Tough Governing!!
Apparently fighting for freedom and winning is out of style over there. But, hey, their ideals continue to drip with the nector of purity!
The American Far Left: Deep With Bitternes But Positively Skin Deep With Reason!!
Maha’s comment policy is hysterical. I see now that the enlightened progressive Left has expanded the definition of torture to include solitary confinement. Noogies, wedgies, and wet willies.
#
Comment by AJB on 8/16 @ 1:24 pm #
I really don’t think it’s too much to ask that an American citizen detained on American soil should not held in held in solitary confinement for three years without charges.
Prisoners of war are generally held until the end of hostilities or when the capturing country decide to turn them loose. Prisoners of war don’t get trials. Traitors are usually shot out of hand. Mr. Padilla is very fortunate. He should have stuck with his previous career as a drug dealer and gangbanger
How is it not patriotic to wish to prevail over an enemy with whom you’re at war? Should Al Qaida be allowed to do whatever the hell they want as long as they recruit U.S. citizens to do it?
radical and un-American right-wing blogs like Protein Wisdom
Maha’s last name is McCarthy? Who knew?
Comments? We don’t need no stinkin’ comments. Maha has spoken. All hail!
Besides, you should all be busy shredding your pocket Constitutions to have time to leave comments on the maharama.
As the only radical and unAmerican guy here, I’m offended.
I think Allah’s summary is right on about the verdict being a win for both. And for the best imo. What were the rationalizations for holding the guy for three years without a trial in the first place? Just because the nature of the crime? Was he an American citizen? Some how in the last two years of avid blogging I don’t remember any of this stuff when it originally happened.
Allah: “And we never could rule Padilla out of (or in) the OKC bombing.”
How can anyone imagine this guy hates america?
It really is funny how fast Maha will close comments when a dissenting voice comes to call. How long ’til a purge of those voices occurs?
It’s a win for the country, IMO. Padilla, the wanna-be murderous ass goes away, and the rule of law, forced or no, scores one the home team.
Radical? Eh. Totally tubular? Sure.
He does look a little like the Moroccan CIA bomber who took out the NOC in Tangiers in the Bourne Ultimatum
These Kos nuts show that there are a lot of mentally ill people in our nation.
A lot.
Someone should ask Russ Feingold if he knows what exactly the American Resistance is that Maha is part of. His ad is right under it, so he must know, right?
Anyway, my point is that as a part of the American Resistance, she’s a self-identified un-American. So I guess Jeff, she’s got you on the ‘takes one to know one’ card :)
/Oh, I see, she’s just resisting Bush! I bet she supports the troops though!
Earlier, the AP explained:
In the latest iteration of the story, that explanation is dropped in favor of the “incomplete victory” meme entered above.
oh and that Allah dude was exactly right:
de rigeur: Curt Anderson and the Associated Press hate America.
And by the way, what either the not-so-smart or the purposefully deceiving will ask you is exactly what AJB asked. But what they may not know or won’t concede is that Jose Padilla had changed his name (He became Abdullah al-Muhajir, and that’s what he wants you to call him!). And by signing up for Al Qaeda he also changed his affiliation. He joined a group whose stated goal is to destroy the U.S. Do you think he wanted to be U.S. citizen? (For cover, sure.) Do you think he deserved to even remain a U.S. citizen after signing his allegiance to Al Qaeda? I don’t know how it all works, but signing up to be a sworn enemy of a country strongly suggests you don’t want to be a part of that country, no?
Anyway, AJB conveniently won’t entertain these ideas. So having left his comment, simpler people-of which there are many on this fair planet-will be deceived. They won’t understand that these guys aren’t just jaywalkers, they’re hardcore enemies of this country and would like to kill both you and me. But don’t fill in the whole story, be like Maha! Just tell the parts that make you look good. Good times buddy, good times.
/getting mighty tired of what passes for news, logic, and rhetoric in this country TW: endangers purpose…yeah, apt!
What? You’re not part of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy? Well! I’ll have to be more careful what I say around here..
Then I am proud, fucking proud, to stand right next to our host and most of the community as proud members of the radical un-Americans.
Let no-one question Jeff’s patriotism. Or manhood. He admitted he once listed to T’Pau.
listed = listened. Miss the preview. Less Turing, more preview.
“Neal Sonnett, a prominent Miami defense lawyer who heads an American Bar Association task force on treatment of enemy combatants, said the verdict proves that the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is unnecessary to deal with terrorism suspects.” I’m not sure if I buy this part. For me, there is a big difference between the shithead American, Jose Padilla or whatever his muslim name is, and the foreign enemy combatant/terrorist we fail to kill in Afghanistan. I think again, the ROE needs to change on the battlefield. Kill these fuckers (jihadis) and no need to worry about which court to try them in. But that’s just for the foot soldiers, I guess. The Big Fish? Gitmo for sure.
The upside is that Jeff has a new addition to his random quote thingy.
tw: highroad body. He does seem to be into the yoga these days.
Obstreperous Infidel – Neal Sonnett is a mental midget.
This whole Padilla incident started going backwards when we quit calling him by his preferred Muslim name. Hell, I bet more than half of the news accounts failed to note that he was affiliated with AQ, and some of the drivel written today still claim that is but alleged, despite the verdict. Now they are claiming isolation is torture. There simply is not end to the perfidy of those on the Left and in the Media that would rather us lose.
I for one certainly look forward to being called to testify before the next HUAC.
When can I start telling people I’ve been blacklisted? When do I earn the deep respect and admiration of the counter-culture that I so desperately crave?
When do I get my big fat book deal?
I need to know people.
tw: conferred disasters
Oh Lordy.
See, if only Bu$hitler had gotten this conviction, and Padilla had started spending the rest of his life in prison 3 years ago, I’d be down with that. But now? Radical and un-American. Like Hugo Chavez only not nearly as cool.
So, to summarize (as, reportedly, anybody can (ahem…)): eerie, huh?
Yes, it’s true about Sonnett; previous clients include Manuel Noriega, exactly; that argument didn’t work either. Now if we could only get his
classmate at the Dar Ul Uloom Mosque in Penbroke Pines, Adnan El Shukrijumah “Skippy” reportedly somewhere in Afghanistan, although they’ve seen him in Panama, Trinidad, Mexico, & Hamilton, Canada.
On another note, this report about the rise in suicides among American military personnel, highest since 1981?. Pop quiz; name the ongoing American military conflict that was going on in 1981; yup that what I thought.
Pure slander, Jeff: the Draconians NEVER shredded a constitution.
I see that tactics adopted only by crazed wingnuts are now available to Maha. Must have been a Kostal dispensation, or something.
Why is it that the Leftists that scream about Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism are the first to get all totalitarian-y and authoritarian-y ?
The AFP likes “Puerto Rican Taliban.” I hadn’t heard that before today, so I googled it and found this:
Not sure what to make of the esteemed J-Lo documentarian’s views, but when she says “Using his birth name, the George W. Bush administration refers to him as “José Padilla,” I guess you guys are on the same page. I honestly don’t know what I think about this, but I gotta say I start off not wanting to be on this lady’s page.
That was from the interesting excerpt posted by happyfeet.
Why are people allowed to just flat out lie about these things? This fucker just went to trial, and was given a jury verdict. One has to assume that at some point in time, they got around to fucking filing charges against him. Also, unless some Judge figured it was alright to deny a defendant counsel in Federal Court, this fucker did, in fact, have access to an attorney throughout his trial, and was able to participate in his own defense.
This is a common BS description of this matter, and every time I see it, it bugs me even more. It has simply become accepted trooth to them.
that’s from like 05
I should have said that
It’s just comforting to know that American citizens receive due process, instead of some ad hoc shadow process that permits unlimited search and seizure, as well as endless incarceration. Of course I’m sure such practices will be made into real, actual law very soon, and shredding the constitution will be a merry confetti party for the slap-happy right. In that case, you guys better erase your hard drives, because you might be the first to “go.”
That excerpt probably fits better on the peace studies and the “new reality†thread actually, but I haven’t done all the reading on that one yet.
We’re six years on, cynn, and we still ain’t there yet. You know of anyone else who’s had Padilla’s little problem with the New Police State?
No, happyfeet, it fits perfectly here.
cynn – Rather than mock, I will simply ask what it is you are trying to say here.
Me, I’ll just make sure my jackboots are polished. I should be OK, right?
it’ll be just like in Swing Kids except different uniforms, and probably with hip-hop instead, and there probably won’t be a young Noah Wyle in a supporting role, and I bet they don’t let us smoke…
Radical un-Americans?
Christ, if this gets out it could cost me my security clearance!
Shhhhh…they’re listening.
Up is down. Black is white.
You forgot “right is wrong. Wrong is right.”
It’s a crazy world.
A serious question I have is when, exactly, does a person surrender the protections of citizenship? Padilla was trying to join an enemy at war with us. As I noted in one of the updates, Islamism places its ideology over that of whatever host state it happens to nestle into.
So if you embrace an enemy that is a war with us and who demands of you a kind of de facto renunciation of your citizenship, why are we compelled to offer you the protections of that citizenship that you yourself have surrendered?
You can answer, cynn. I’d ask Maha, but she’ll just shut down comments again.
– JD – syn mentioned the other thread that someone has been dropping comments on pw using her handle….that psot doesn’t sound like her….
– Me, I figure whenever the Leftwarts start to foam at the mouth, and their heads blow up like a 20 dollar sexdoll, something good has happened somwhere in the world….
– Ment cynn of course, and btw…..since the invective is getting so massively over the top, and disonant to the point of the jibbering of the mentally ill, I purpose we start calling them the “Secular Projectivists”…..
I really think I’m more of a moderate un-American.
Maaann!! Your Un-American Radicalism just dripped out down the front of my shirt… and I don’t give a flip what the freakin commercial says.. Tide to Go stain stick wont get this shit out.
tw: deplorably such… I’ll probably have to buy a whole new shirt.
But for those who need it summarized, John Hawkins at Right Wing News recently announced his list of 50 or so sites that do it much better than do I.
Not much consolation, but PW is #3 on my list of top ten. Unfortunately, more people will probably know about it from reading this comment than saw it on my original posting.
Radical Un-American technical tip #34:
When attaching the output tray of a printer to the input feed of a shredder, make sure the print rate of the printer is set to be less than or equal to the feed rate of the shredder. Otherwise every single copy of the Constitution printed might not be shredded.
It is kind of cute how the moonbats pretend that citizenship is important in a case like this.
http://tinyurl.com/26dwhg
#
Comment by cynn on 8/16 @ 8:17 pm #
It’s just comforting to know that American citizens receive due process, instead of some ad hoc shadow process that permits unlimited search and seizure, as well as endless incarceration. Of course I’m sure such practices will be made into real, actual law very soon, and shredding the constitution will be a merry confetti party for the slap-happy right. In that case, you guys better erase your hard drives, because you might be the first to “go.â€Â
When you decide to go to war against your country you have to expect to lose a few rights.What is it about, ‘he joined the other side against us’ are you not understanding. He willfully abrogated his rights. It isn’t like he took the streets to protest the WOT and threw rocks at police. He is extremely fortunate to get a trial at all.
Our host: [W]hen, exactly, does a person surrender the protections of citizenship?
According to what I’ve read, when you no longer have US nationality, you are no longer protected.
There are ways that can happen, but all of them have to do with acts the individual makes; the law prohibits the Government from taking citizenship away against the person’s will.
According 8 USC 1481, these are acts that constitute a willful choice on the part of the individual to renounce US citizenship:
* Becoming naturalized in another country
* Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
* Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
* Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
* Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
* Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
* By being convicted of committing treason
I don’t believe Al Qaeda counts as “a nation” under 1481, so the question is “is it, legally speaking, treason?”
“Comment by JD on 8/16 @ 7:48 pm #
Why is it that the Leftists that scream about Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism are the first to get all totalitarian-y and authoritarian-y ?”
ecause they’re a bunch of pocket fascists?
TW: Hoover safety…..Ah, that he were still around.
and cynn:
“There is a danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
-Justice Robert H. Jackson,
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1, 37(1949)
I think Congress could address the future security problems we’ve left ourselves open to here by declaring that any US citizen who joins al Qaeda immediately forfeit his or her citizenship and will be treated as an enemy combatant and held as a prisoner of war. The question is, how would we set up a system to adjudicate such an inquiry into that relationship without burning intel sources and methods?
The problem here is that the “joins” formulation doesn’t work; there usually wouldn’t be formal, objective evidence of an “enlistment.” What you propose would essentially be tantamount to demonstrating that the subject citizen entered into a treasonous relationship with AQ or another terrorist group, and the framers included a minimum threshold for a treason conviction in the Constitution with good reason. The citizen, of course, would and should be entitled to due process during the adjudication of the treason charge.
You just have to love Maha! Whiff of disagreement? Comments are closed!!! No wonder she was so elated over the words of some Romanian secret policeman. She runs her blog like Ceaucescu but just loves the American values. Ya know the ones where you let killers and other various villains run free to jihad some more. Sh*t-wit!
cynn: instead of some ad hoc shadow process that permits unlimited search and seizure, as well as endless incarceration. Of course I’m sure such practices will be made into real, actual law very soon
Actually, the Constitution mandates the Executive to do those very things when noncitizens to defend the national security. President Clinton ordered a warrantless search and siezure on the home of Aldrich Ames, a former spy for the Soviet Union (as attested by former Clinton administration lawyer Gorelick). Ames would later be convicted on espionage charges and sentenced to life imprisonment.
If you didn’t hear much about the warrantless search at the time, don’t feel too bad; very few people did. The Senate was, after all, in solidly Democratic hands, and the president happened to also be a Democrat. Courtesy of Tom Head.
TW beleiving lessened Indeed.
I should note that in the Padilla case there was an “enlistment” of a kind:
government’s chief evidence was a faded application form that prosecutors said Mr. Padilla, 36, filled out to attend a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan in 2000.
…so in this particular case, you would have more of a chance to apply an amended version of the above-cited 8 USC 1481 that included “nation or organization” wording or something like it. Then it would hinge on the battle over what rights extend to non-citizens.
Try that link to Tom Head’s article again.
Jeff,
When you’re out shredding the constitution (between your P30X workout and chasing the young ‘un about), do you have a machine to do that or do you do it by hand? I’ve always thought shredding the constitution would go faster with a machine but doing it by hand makes it a bit more personal, y’know?
RE: A fine scotch
Plus, if you bunch up the paper, shredding it is a really good workout. If you do it just right, you can really work the bi’s, delts, and even get a little core involved.
* I’d quote or italicize what I’m attempting to reply to but it’s become clear that I am horrible at the internet.
TW: Penology curl… how apropos
Guilty? I’ll tell you who’s guilty, the goldurn Rockies are guilty. They gave up nine runs in one inning? In that canyon of a stadium in in San Diego? Cripes. C’mon, the Phils need more outta your guys than that.
The formulation I prefer for such occasions is: Left is right and right is wrong.
Layers, y’see. Layers.
Article 3, section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Article 1, section 9
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Rebellion is the only act for which your rights regarding detention can be dismissed. Treason and rebellion seem, to me, to be two different ways of spelling the same idea. Between those two sentences of the constitution, I would say his detention was on the up and up.
You tell ’em, Patrick!
The Phils continue to win with smoke, mirrors and hypnosis. The highest run scoring team in the NL doen’t hit for their last ten games? They get good pitching, which they haven’t had all year. All the while without Utley, Victorino, Madsen, Garcia, Leiber and with significant stretches without Meyers, Howard, Flash and with Burrel hitting at the Mendoza line for most of the year.
I’m beginning to think that Gillick sold his soul.
Oh, drat, maha banned me. I guess that means I’ll have to venture over to some other lockstep mud-dumb left wing joint to make fun of those defending Padilla (I just love the “if he was indeed a terrorist, okay, but…” stuff. Is there ever an instance where a lefty can use a sentence without the ‘but’ reference to mitigate any thought process?) while swearing that they’re not defending Padilla. Or, maybe not….they’re all the freaking same, after all.
I just find it funny that the same people who consider al Qaeda a legitimate military organization for purposes of granting Geneva protections would be the first to argue that they are not a military for purposes of a de facto renunciation of citizenship, because one can’t really “join” them in any formal way (through, for instance, enlistment).
But as ef points out above, if joining an enemy that attacks from within as a rule is not an act of Rebellion which places the public at risk — and allows suspension of Habeas Corpus — then I’m not sure what is.
At any rate, the way al Qaeda (and Islamism itself) is organized requires some kind of revisiting of the wording noted above, it seems to me.
The question for me, as I noted before, is how to balance due process with the necessity for protecting intel sources, methods, assets, etc.
Chomskyism and Hardyism have taken over (the left). “Look what you made me do now!” Impeach Bush!
That’s a real slippery slope though Jeff. I think I agree with that statement but only after innocent until proven guilty. With Padilla we’ve seen that the system can work to charge and convict a citizen with terrorism. Why strip him of his rights before hand and not after a trial by jury? That’s dangerous. If the result of the conviction is that he’s a member of al-Qaeda and they want to haul his ass off to Guantanamo afterwards, then hell be my guest. But 3 years in prison for an American citizen without a trial is, well, bull shit..
Individual treason and a case of rebellion are distinct concepts, with the former specifically defined in the Constitution. That is, one can’t say an indvidual “rebelled” and therefore habeas corpus can be suspended against them specifically, by relying on actions conforming to the the separate (defined) act of treason. It’s an improper conflation; also, ef left out the testimony-of-two-witnesses or confession-in-open-court requirement necessary to demonstrate treason, which puts you back in court and where you started.
I think Hubris makes a very good point which shouldn’t be overlooked. While, for the most part, I agree with Jeff’s take — joining Al Qaeda, an organization who’s stated goal is the destruction of the united states, is tantamount to treason/rebellion, thereby putting the general public at risk, which is legal grounds for suspension of Habeas Corpus — I do think the one inherent problem here is deciding what level of proof is required to determine that someone has, in fact, joined such an organization.
As mentioned, in the case of Jose Padilla, there was actually an enlistment document. The question is, how often is that going to be th case; should an enlistment document not exist, what level of proof is required of the government to show that the person they’ve detained is in fact a former U.S. citizen/current terrorist operative [stating former as, based upon the definition we’re going on, the joining of said terrorist organization would be an act of denouncing U.S. citizenship]? I’m not so sure I’d feel comfortable with just taking the Government’s word for it.
So, to recap, I see two main issues. One, which Jeff mentioned, and I agree, is that the act of joining an organization who poses a threat to the U.S. is an act equal to renouncing U.S. citizenship [as well as treason/rebellion] and therefore suspension of Habeas Corpus is acceptable. The second is, in my opinion, the level of required proof to show that the suspect has indeed joined such an organization.
I’m sure Jim Henley’s got something going on that’s ripe for disputation. There’s something mighty middle-school about coming up with the supposedly Killing Argument against something or other, when that very thing has been worked for only the last quarter-century or so by smarter people who are willing to peel the onion down a few more layers.
Nuance, you see, is frequently lacking in this sort of discussion. Better to dismiss and ridicule than to consider that there just might be more to this than immediately meets the eye.
the market’s up, the NYT is down…
it’s cheering is all, thought I’d share
I think our system is ripe for gaming. Padilla is a singular case, and we had a signed piece of evidence that worked in a criminal trial to convict him.
But what of US citizens who establish citizenship simply as a legal safeguard? And what if the only “proof” the government can offer would burn assets or sources, or compromise how surveillance is being done?
The whole point being that this is a complex issue, not one that we can settle simply by looking at existing law, which it seems to me is not prepared for these kinds of threats.
We know what Lincoln and FDR did. What I want to know is, how do we deal with this particular problem.
I don’t care that idiots like Maha call me un-American, or that Mona or Greenwald are interested in burnishing their civil liberties credentials as a matter of gauging their own self worth.
I care about how to deal with the kind of enemy we are dealing with, who is waging the kind of war he is engaging. Part of the strategy of Islamic radicals is to us our system against us.
How do we protect against that?
I really couldn’t care less about scoring debating points. I just want to figure out a workable fix.
And I don’t think our criminal courts are set up to deal with enemy combatants, even if they happen to be US citizens.
Also, the rules are different for prisoners of war. So it seems to me that we need to decide which designation is foregrounded (or takes precedence) for legal purposes. Is Padilla an enemy combatant? A citizen? A POW? And why does one take precedent over the others?
Even the sagacious Lindsay Graham can’t resolve an issue like this if our Republican friends don’t stay in the Supreme Court nomination business.
Oh. Lindsey. I get him and Lindsay Wagner mixed up.
“I care about how to deal with the kind of enemy we are dealing with…”
Well, there’s the difference. You think we’re dealing with an enemy. Them, not so much.
Time for lunch. I’m having a BBQ pork sandwich with cole slaw made from shredded Constitution!
Mmmmmm…search-and-seizure-licious.
TW: dike prosperity…hee hee!
I like to sprinkle mine with some freeze-dried, grated brown people.
For that extra ZING!
Hey! HEY!! HEY!!!
FREEZEDRIED GRATED BROWN PEOPLEIST!!!!!
Everybody knows the freeze-dried, grated kind is made from factory-farmed brown people. You need to get some free-range brown people and grate ’em up fresh.
(TW: value, she-goat — it wouldn’t surprise me if the freeze-dried kind is cut with some of that, to save money.)
Isn’t that the same thing we said about the Commies? How many terrorists are lawyers? Certainly, none of the ones we tried and convicted.
Simply put, whereas I agree that we need to figure something out re: people caught overseas, the law used to be pretty clear about what we do to people, whether that person is an American citizen or not. To muddle it now leads to confusion about how to handle American citizens….except for almost 300 years we have a country dedicated to the due process of laws toward citizens and Taco Bell workers who take overseas trips shouldn’t change that.
At least that’s what I think today.
Thing is, edavis — being at war, it changes a lot of things. Including which body of laws applies to certain acts.
Um … is it just me or is it suddenly very warm in here?
tw: Spaniards Peculium eerie…
[…] then I popped in over at Goldstein’s “radical and un-American right wing” joint as I am wont to do, and noted that he had once again crossed keyboards with silly old […]
BJ Texas, I agree with you and Jeff, being at war changes the cultural dynamic. Jeff raises some good questions, and I agree that by co-opting and exploiting our cherished institutions, bad actors have a wide-open tactic, because by nature our institutions must be transparent. The flying Imams are a case in point.
My concern is pre-emptively suspending natural rights because a few ugly cases clog the system. It’s all about precedent; in many ways, we are a nation of case law. I would prefer to preserve my rights as a citizen while giving our law enforcement agencies the power to bring vigorous, but fair and timely, action against those citizens who would harm our country.
Basically, I’m not willing to surrender my civil rights by proxy, even in the face of an internal attack.
Add to that the impression that we are at war with a concept, not an entity.
We have always been at war with concepts, cynn. Freedom is a concept, facism is a concept, tyranny is a concept, feminism is a concept. Not to discount your 125 post, which addresses some valid points, but the modern history of man has been nothing if not a war of concepts.
tw: sumter mustered just to prove to you conspiracy theorists this thing ain’t that damn smart
Cynn, if you look at that “concept” as say, bio-engineered smallpox, is that clarifying? The science of mass death is still very much in its infancy – it’s like stem cells. If you take all the hope and promise that the Democrats ascribe to stem cells, and graft it onto the science of mass casualties, you’ll probably get a pretty good idea of what is underpinning this “concept” among these “bad actors” of which you speak.
And I still say, in response to edavis, that we are dealing with a new kind of actor here, one who is not state sponsored, and one who is willing to commit suicide to bring about mass casualties. And again, I reiterate — if, by way of joining up with al Qaeda (by nature, a group that represents fidelity to Islamic law, and so can brook now national law that seeks to restrain it), an American citizen willingly gives his allegiance to an organization that has declared war on this country, has carried out attacks on the homeland, and whose MO is to embed terror cells within host countries or recruit converts from within, s/he has joined an enemy at war with the US, and so should be treated either as an enemy combatant and/or a POW, not as a criminal.
We need to be able to adapt to face the challenges our enemies present, and the challenge presented by al Qaeda is that they are using our system as a shield to hide behind while they plan and launch attacks.
It is my worry that a major attack with a bio or radioactive weapon (even if it is something like a “minor” dirty bomb), will lead the American people to demand far greater controls — and to take far more draconian preventative measures.
I have consistently tried to take a longterm view of how best to adapt, without truly surrendering civil liberties.
Which is why the shrieks from people like Maha or Mona or Sullivan or Greenwald that I am some sort of reactionary anti-American Nazi torturer just strike me as silly — and represent nothing more than ostentatious attempts on the part of those folks to take an easy shortcut to the high road.
I just want to get my car out of this bad area, is all.
I am not defending Padilla; he was finally afforded due process, found guilty, and now presumably has the right to appeal his conviction. As much as I abhor the guy, I am appalled by calls on the right to summarily suspend a citizen’s right to due process, simply because they run afoul of some arbitrary measure of “enemy of the state.”
I also take issue with the notion that we are at “war” with the following concepts: freedom, fascism, tyrrany, feminism, disease, etc. We may address these issues and they may be contentious, but we are hardly at “war” with them.
No, the war on terrorism is a sickly partial birth abortion created out of the Authorized Use of Force given to this admistration. It was mutated into some kind of perverted mandate against all alien creepies that scared us.
Sorry, I choose freedom under threat over freedom compromised every time.
perverted mandates suck
How graphic, happyfeet. What is your point? That rogue governments actively pursue eradication by viral warfare? Or that we should more actively engage in innoculation campaigns to stop smallpox, which is a disease that has been purportedly eradicated? I’m all for the latter; blustering in and ignorantly destroying social structures is out. Our shameful experience in Iraq is an object lession.
Abdul Qadeer Khan could just have easily studied genetics, is all I’m saying. Our “shameful” experience in Iraq has left a nation in which the people who live there are stakeholders in that country for the first time in living memory. That’s your innoculation campaign.
Jeff, with all respect, you’d go a long way if you abandoned the Joan of Arc swooning victim status. You’d find there are far more than you think who are trying to weigh the difference between protection of 0civil rights and sovereignty.
Furthermore, at least this lefty is forced to consider these issues outside the current electoral herd, because they are all strange caricatures manufactured overseas, as far as I know.
Joan of Arc was not a swooning victim – she was all stalwart and resolute and true of heart, it was kind of her thing. I think you’re thinking of Aunt Pittypat?
Indeed, some time ago somebody suggested that the GWOT was humanity’s first “meme war.” I took issue with that because a meme, if I’m not mistaken, is just a newfangled word for “concept.”
” I am appalled by calls on the right to summarily suspend a citizen’s right to due process, simply because they run afoul of some arbitrary measure of “enemy of the state.â€Â
Explain to me some laws you don’t consider arbitrary.
“I also take issue with the notion that we are at “war†with the following concepts: freedom, fascism, tyrrany, feminism, disease, etc.”
Disease is a concept? My doctor will be broken hearted by that news, I am afraid.
Seriously, cynn, if we don’t go to war defending some concepts and fighting others, then what is it about? Are you seriously going to try to make the argument that it is solely a battle for territory, and the US is therefore the biggest loser of the 20th century?
[…] the Constitution. Hmm, since when is solitary confinement torture? Oh, and while we’re at it Maha, it really is kind of silly to profess your intolerance of intolerance, and then shut down comm…. Oh, yeah, and all of us who think that the jailing of a convicted terrorist is a good thing? […]
I am saying that a conceptual war cannot be won, because there is no definition of success. Now, a war against a specific disease, i. e. smallpox, can be won, because there are particularc tools to beat it, and goals to determine its success.
But I’m clearly not getting anywhere.
Something about the larger picture, but that may be beyond your screen.
“I am saying that a conceptual war cannot be won, because there is no definition of success.”
So what kind of wars can be won, in you opinion?
Mon Dieu, ziz fire is really hot!
Ok, cynn, here’s the deal. You can keep playing the legalistic bullshit game with people who want to kill and destroy all you want, up to a point. That point is when they manage to kill a very large number of Americans all at once. Then you, all your fellow traveler “useful idiots”, and the tools in government at the time, are all dead, at the hands of your fellow Americans, who will then destroy anyone who might vaguely LOOK Muslim.
Then completely take out the Middle East.
And maybe restore the Constitution, maybe not. It all depends on how they feel afterwards…
The Mongol-like piles os skulls should be impressive…
slavery, monarchism, disco, these are all concepts that have been attenuated. We still have slaves around and about, and a king here and there, and the Eurovision Song Contest, but your grandkids very likely won’t. It takes time to apprehend the larger picture. Except for Bob Ross, but he’s dead. It’s up to us now.
#
Comment by cynn on 8/17 @ 8:07 pm #
I am saying that a conceptual war cannot be won, because there is no definition of success. Now, a war against a specific disease, i. e. smallpox, can be won, because there are particularc tools to beat it, and goals to determine its success.
But I’m clearly not getting anywhere.
In this instance Cynn, not getting buildings and people blown up in your home country is considered a success.So yeah. It’s doable, but it isn’t for the squeemish.
Brilliant, as usual.
Write a book, already
Hello, I’m saying that getting rid of the obvious and fighting the unknown are two different things. But keep up the good fight.
Disco wasn’t obvious until it killed Andy Gibb, and then it was too late.
That is so apropos, and video killed the radio star.
That’s just cold.
“Hello, I’m saying that getting rid of the obvious and fighting the unknown are two different things. But keep up the good fight.”
No cynn, you aren’t saying anything, you are babbling nonsense.
What part of The war on terror isn’t obvious to you?
I don’t think it’s nonsensical, no are full of blinded partisan shit. I simply asked, a} how do you get rid of the obvious (threats); and b) How do you fight what you can’t isolate or quanify? If you don’t know what I’m asking, I give up.
You are the question and the answer am I
Only you can see me through
I leave it up to you
#
Comment by cynn on 8/17 @ 10:13 pm #
I don’t think it’s nonsensical, no are full of blinded partisan shit. I simply asked, a} how do you get rid of the obvious (threats); and b) How do you fight what you can’t isolate or quanify? If you don’t know what I’m asking, I give up.
I understand what you’re asking,(affirming), but I don’t think you understand. In something like counterespiangae governments commit to fighting threats that are difficult to quantify. By simply stating that you can’t isolate or quantify, you’re already giving up. We are fighting Islamic terrorism. the bulk of the terrorists are, for now, isolated in the ME.
Personally. I think the benefits of western civilization are worth the efforts being expended.
tw; submarine debauches. Oh! Man! If that isn’t a reason to join the Navy, I don’t know what is.
But why can’t I see the entire comment screen?
Thinking outside the box was invented for these times btw. The constitution is not a suicide pact.
“You can’t have a war against a concept” is at best, a childish and at worst a baldly disingenuous argument.
To call it a strawman argument would be to do it a credit it does not deserve.
I wish I could say I was shocked that Cynn used it.
One reason this debate is so interminably useless is that bad reasoning has been “normalized” by over-use and repetition.
Did anybody else here debate in school? Can you imagine not being smacked down for using an argument like that? And here we are, year 6, and it still comes up every day.
Debate. Was sort of ok at that. At it’s core, the rhetoric part aside, the skills involved are no different than the ones you need if you’re going to write at what used to be considered a college level. In my experience, debate taught that far better than those weird highschool “research paper” exercises. The concept of “inherency” is, well, it doesn’t seem to have a lot of currency or we wouldn’t have the term Nannystate I guess. They explain it better here. Point being, in dealing with the concepts terrorism gives rise to, it’s hard to deny the GWOT its inherency.
And also LD is for big girls if you ask me.
I love how the Wikipedia article on “stock issues” arranges them so the first letters form a word.
I thought “Harms” should have come before “Solvency,” is why I noticed it. And since “Topicality” was initially said not to be necessary in the affirmative, it seems it ought to have been listed last…
So maybe somebody’s been having fun rearranging the article. Maybe.
(TW: prone attempt — Wikipedia articles are indeed prone to such attempts.)
Good catch.