Padilla’s indictment
Posted on November 26, 2005
My previous post about Padilla’s quandry as an American citizen but being held as an “enemy combatant” and the ACLU’s involvement and support of his ’supposed rights’ because he’s an American citizen.
The evidence against the “enemy combatant”, Jose Padilla, is pretty well documented, so I can’t understand what legal grounds the ACLU thinks they’re standing on when they’re defending this enemy of the United States.
In the first trial, it was found by the judge that there wasn’t enough evidence to detain him.
Here’s the evidence that the government has on him that connects him with Al Qaeda and terrorist activities. From the Chicago Tribune, June-2004:
According to the summary of evidence, Al Qaeda leaders had assigned Padilla and an accomplice to blow up as many as three high-rise apartment buildings by detonating natural gas explosions in two apartments rented in each building. One of his contacts, Adnan el Shukrijumah, was among seven suspects Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft asked Americans to be on the lookout for last week.
During interrogation, Padilla admitted that he had been asked to target buildings in New York, Washington, D.C., or Florida, although he said he never intended to carry out the plan and it was merely a ruse so he could return to the United States, according to the Justice Department document.
Other detainees interrogated about Padilla described the combination of targets as being in Chicago and Central United States, in California, or in Texas and along the Mexican border, according to the document.
Padilla and an accomplice allegedly received training from an explosives expert in Afghanistan on assembling improvised detonators and timing devices. The training also included instruction on techniques for sealing an apartment so natural gas would build up inside, Comey said.
When apprehended at O’Hare, Padilla was carrying more than $10,000 in cash allegedly provided by Al Qaeda and telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of alleged Al Qaeda operatives, Comey said.
Padilla originally approached Al Qaeda leaders with a proposal to attack a U.S. city with a nuclear bomb that Padilla claimed he had learned how to build through the Internet, Comey said. But a skeptical Al Qaeda leader reportedly suggested Padilla build a simpler “dirty bomb” that would spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion.
Al Qaeda leaders had doubts about the plots to use radioactive material and instructed Padilla to pursue the attacks against apartment buildings instead, Comey said.
Padilla’s intentions doubted
He added that the Al Qaeda leaders were never sure whether Padilla would follow his instructions or press forward with a radioactive bomb.
Comey said much of the information the government obtained on the alleged plots came from the interrogation of Padilla after he was transferred to military custody and stripped of normal protections given criminal defendants.
Comey, who was the chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan when Padilla was transferred to military custody, said that at the time he would have been unable to convict Padilla without endangering intelligence sources.
He added that he thought it unlikely Padilla would have provided details of the alleged plot had he been allowed access to the court system.
Comey said Padilla’s statements have been “heavily corroborated” by other detainees held as enemy combatants.
Much of the summary outlining the case against Padilla mentions only his admissions. But the document cites statements from Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and several other unnamed detainees corroborating elements of the alleged plot to blow up apartment buildings.
The questioning of Padilla was done by the FBI and Defense Intelligence Agency, Comey said, adding, “I have great confidence that those folks did it the right way.”
It’s clear that the ACLU is fighting for the rights of terrorists who in my opinion, should NOT have a right to have “their side” of things heard in court, particularly repeatedly, with appeal after appeal. In my opinion, Padilla falls in line with the likes of John Walker Lindh. These are clearly examples of American Citizens who have gone to the other side to commit terror in Bin Laden’s name.
The Counterterrorism blog has some interesting information on his indictment, and the fact that is was based, in part, on the Patriot Act.
The indictment links Padilla to another pre-existing indictment of an alleged terrorist cell, marking the first time that Padilla has been charged in connection with terrorism activities and not just as an “enemy combatant.” The indictment alleges that Padilla traveled overseas filled out a terrorist training camp application and went to Afghanistan to so train. Another important development in this case is that it cites declassified foreign intelligence intercepts as a basis for the case, an action not available to terrorism case prosecutors until the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001. So this indictment provides the Bush Administration and PATRIOT Act supporters with additional justification for the reauthorization of the Act – see Dennis Lormel’s and Michael Kraft’s posts on that issue. The new indictment renders irrelevant a pending Supreme Court showdown over the enemy combatant issue, as Padilla will now be under the custody of the Justice Department for this case.
Here’s the full indictment courtesy of the AP (pdf file)
DOJ Press Release on the indictment
X posted at Cao’s Blog
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Padilla’s indictment”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
As far as I’m concerned filling out a terrorist training camp application should be reason enough to consider him a terrorist and treat him as such.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
As it stands now, a circuit court has given Bush the authority to permanently detain ANY US citizen on his say-so alone. Not a shred of evidence is required.
Bush could, quite literally, “vanish” the winner of the next election if it’s a democrat. Legally. It’s official and in writing, and the SCOTUS, in its present form, is unlikely to put a stop to it.
After all, oppose the president on this one and some of them might find themselves declared as enemy combatants.
The president -is- terrorism, in its truest and most dangerous form. And he’s a far greater threat to America than the brown “furriners” repubs constantly cry about.
“I can’t understand what legal grounds the ACLU thinks they’re standing on when they’re defending this enemy of the United States.”
Simple, the charges have not yet been proven. So the ACLU defends his
rights accorded him under the Constitution.
As far as I’m concerned, when you join the enemy who’s taken a blood vow to destroy the American way of life and the infidel–you’ve waived your rights if you’re an American citizen, and you have no rights if you’re not an American citizen.
According to Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, “Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The question of suspending habeas corpus, then, turns on interpreting “rebellion” and “invasion.”
Since Jose Padilla is a citizen of the United States, recently converted to Islam, changed his name to Abdullah Al Muhajir, and visited the Middle East, including Afghanistan and Pakistan and had contact with Al Qaeda operatives for the purpose of making and detonating a dirty bomb, this point is moot.
Section Three (the section on Treason in the US Constitution) also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same “overt” act, or a confession by the accused, to convict for treason. In Cramer v. United States , the Court ruled that “every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses.” In Haupt v. United States , however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are only required to prove that the overt act actually occurred.
Furthermore, Section Three permits Congress to determine the punishment for treason. No-one convicted of treason “shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person” so convicted. In other words, the descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered “tainted” (i.e., their blood could not be corrupted) by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, the clause permits Congress to confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
So what “constitutional rights” are you talking about that he has that the ACLU is upholding/defending in this case?
The Government contended that the President has authority to detain Padilla militarily pursuant to the Commander in Chief Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §2, cl. 1, the congressional AUMF, and this Court’s decision in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942).
The court accepted the Government’s contention that the President has authority to detain as enemy combatants citizens captured on American soil during a time of war. Id., at 587-599.5
So if you can provide me with the detailed legal argument that illustrates definitively that his “rights” are being denied, please do so.
You know, Meatbrain, I answered you in an entire post over at my place and instead of reading that, you come over to someone else’s blog and start up this conversation out of the blue on something I cross posted.
This is not my blog and you are offensive and rude in taking this “debate” if you want to call it that–all over the blogosphere. it’s not enough that you’re throwing a tantrum over at your place, or sending me trackback spam or “tiny url’s”…you have to take the argument over here where probably most people are unaware of what has taken place or the history of it.
You are completely unparalleled in the brass balls category, I’ll give you that, but I am not going to obey you, or play by your rules–no matter where or how you stalk me.