Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Dirty Bomber" Finally Charged ... With Conspiracy to Kidnap and Murder
Jose Padilla, the American citizen who, in contravention of the Fifth Amendment, has been detained as an "enemy combatant" without being charged for more than three years, has finally been indicted by a federal grand jury in Miami, on charges of conspiring to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas.
Those with long memories might recall that this charge is a far cry from what then-attorney general John Ashcroft, citing "multiple independent and corroborating sources," claimed at a dramatic press conference live from Moscow in the summer of 2002.
We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive "dirty bomb."
And it's important to note that Padilla is only getting his long-overdue transfer to the American judicial system because of pressure from the courts -- the Bush Administration was facing a Nov. 28 deadline to file a response to Padilla's legal challenge to define how long an American enemy combatant could be held without charge. Recall then-deputy secretary of state Paul Wolfowitz's ideas about Padilla from three years ago:
Enemy combatants, whether they are American citizens or not American citizens, are subject to the same provisions of the laws of war. You can hold an enemy combatant until the end of the conflict.
And, as Mike Lynch pointed out in these pages back in June 2002, "If the administration had its way, we'd never have heard of Padilla and his alleged plans to construct a dirty bomb."
Jacob Sullum's past takes on the Padilla case here and here.
UPDATE: You can read the indictment [PDF file] here.
|11.22.05 @ 12:56PM|#
For THIS we are suppose to throw the Grit Writ into the fucking
fire? Unbelievable!
You fail to mention the latter (apparently bogus) allegations that
Padilla was supposedly looking to blow up US apartment
complexes--more horseshit, apparently.
The truly amazing part is that given the extremely high profile of
this case, Mr. Padilla is undoubtedly one if the most higly
investigated persons in US history. BushCo hung their case for
gutting the Constitution on demonizing this clown and this is the
best they can come up with--fucking amazing.
Hmmm...I wonder if Alberto "the Torturer" Gonzalez is trying to
moot out a Supreme Court appeal of the Fourth Circuit's most recent
pro-government decision in this case. He knows there is already one
anti-Administration-position vote waiting for them up there: that
flaming liberal, Antonin Scalia.
|11.22.05 @ 1:00PM|#
henry-
Ah, but, you see, the other allegations are also true, only the
evidence is so top secret that bringing it out in a free trial
would lead to our immediate defeat in the War on Terror. So those
evil liberals have tied our government's hands and this lesser
indictment is just their attempt to make the best of a bad
situation.
How do I know about this secret evidence? Well, they said that he's
guilty but they can't tell us all of the evidence. And since they
would never lie to us, we must believe them.
Right?
|11.22.05 @ 1:03PM|#
"Those with long memories might recall that this charge is a far
cry from what then-attorney general John Ashcroft, citing "multiple
independent and corroborating sources," claimed at a dramatic press
conference live from Moscow in the summer of 2002."
In other news, Al Capone was jailed on some kind of bogus tax
evasion charges. They call that justice? I thought he was supposed
to be some sort of super-criminal.
|11.22.05 @ 1:08PM|#
In other other news:
Amazingly, the Republic survived recognizing Mr. Capone's right to
Habeas Corpus, notwithstanding his status as super-criminal FAR
more dangerous than some failed gang member.
|11.22.05 @ 1:11PM|#
"Amazingly, the Republic survived recognizing Mr. Capone's right
to Habeas Corpus"
Which has nothing to do with the charges actually filed against
him.
The inability to gather enough evidence to prosecute on the
original charges to the satisfaction of a criminal court is one of
the arguments used by the administration *for* the suspension of
habeus corpus.
|11.22.05 @ 1:27PM|#
JDM - right - "we can't make any real bar of evidence, so SCOTUS
needs to allow us to keep this bastard behind bars!"
ya know........."faith-based" prosecution/conviction.
TallDave|11.22.05 @ 1:31PM|#
It's a difficult issue. On the one hand, wanting to kill people
isn't a crime. On the other hand, I don't want to be killed, and
there's a high likelihood he would have killed people, perhaps even
me as I lived not far away from where he did.
I'm inclined to favor this kind of thing, though I think more
transparency is in order. It's hard to argue Padilla is an innocent
lambikins who is beng unjustly persecuted.
|11.22.05 @ 1:35PM|#
TallDave-
Padilla is probably guilty of conspiracy to murder. Our courts
handle dangerous guys every day.
|11.22.05 @ 1:42PM|#
Thank goodness he's been actually, you know,
charged.
Now, I wonder whether the prosecution is going to argue that he was
planning to build a "dirty bomb" to use overseas. That
would be interesting.
|11.22.05 @ 1:56PM|#
Bottom line, the founders could have never imagined that the nation would ever be faced with crimes as serious as murder and kidnapping. Had they known of such evil back in those simpler times, a lot of the bullshit in the Constitution just would not be there. Also, back then, people could not imagine that the Republic could be confronted by hostile governments and free agents intent on America's destruction. Sure, the United States was a weakling upstart, bordered by hostile natives and the colonies and military bases of the Great Powers of the time, and sure the country's very existence was threatened almost constantly, and, of course, foreigners could take our ships and sailors at will, and yes, the capital was burned to the ground by an invading army only a couple of decades after the Constitution was signed, but it was different then. The bad guys were not Muslim, for one thing.
|11.22.05 @ 1:58PM|#
"The inability to gather enough evidence to prosecute on the
original charges to the satisfaction of a criminal court"
It's amazing how many people have this Perry Mason type view of the
modern american criminal court. The whole enterprise is skewed
towards the prosecution. People are convicted on the highly dubious
testimony of single witnesses (i.e. jailhouse snitch who is getting
a reduced sentence in return for his testimony) every day in this
country. Very little evidence is ever excluded - there are a
million and a half exceptions to every rule, including hearsay.
What evidence that is excluded is excluded generally because it is
truly irrelevant other than as an appeal to emotion.
Then add the fact that most judges have a career history as a
prosecutor, and the political reality that you, as a judge, will
only get bad press if you butt heads with the local prosecutor, as
well as the political reality that cops are the most vocal special
interest in judge elections and appointments, and there really is
no meaningful bar to prosecuting any valid suspect in criminal
court. It's just a fiction that's been promulgated by whiners.
|11.22.05 @ 2:14PM|#
1. Gather evidence,
2. Arrest and detain for a short time, then
3. Try, and
4. Convict or acquit.
Not so tough, is it? Padilla is a U.S. citizen and is due the
rights that come with that honorable title. We've got child
molesters and serial killers whose due process rights seem above
question, why isn't that true for another variety (assuming he's
guilty of something heinous) scumbag? And if it's okay to say that
"terrorists" don't get due process, why can't we say the same about
drug dealers or other criminals that we really don't like?
Also, if the guy was plotting to blow up something, how is that so
impossible to prove? Frankly, this whole issue smacks more of
government's lust for secrecy than of any inability to effectively
prosecute the case.
|11.22.05 @ 2:16PM|#
On the other hand, I don't want to be killed, and there's a
high likelihood he would have killed people, perhaps even me as I
lived not far away from where he did.
Er . . . on what basis are we calculating the phrase "high
likelihood" here?
|11.22.05 @ 2:34PM|#
I'm pleasantly surprised by the comments I've seen thus far.
Nobody seems adverse to making the government prove beyond a
reasonable doubt the allegations that it made against a US
citizen.
Not too long ago, that would have been a controversial notion on
this forum. I guess that we've managed to purge the heretics, and
all we have now are real libertarians! :)
|11.22.05 @ 2:39PM|#
The only argument presented up to now by the .gov concerning
Padilla has been to "appeal" to authority. Traditionaly this is
considered a logical fallacy.
If the founders of this nation had meant for us to believe our
leaders in reference to "appeal to authority", without additional
proof, then why didn't they believe it when King G and the
Parliments said what they were doing to the colonies were good for
them?
Why did they pass the "bill of rights", why have juries to begin
with?
Why HC at all? Could it be that they had a slight philosophical
problem with arguments that rested exclusively on the "appeal to
authority"?
As towards the question of whether or not Mr. P had any desire to
hurt anyone...I have heard assertions, but no facts. Without facts
all I know, is that some politicians want me to believe that Mr. P
is a danger to me.
But that is the only "fact" I have. And I just don't trust the
.gov, or any politician, Clinton or Bush, to accept that "fact"
without question.
|11.22.05 @ 2:49PM|#
For Gaius, I have a Roman Empire analogy: St. Paul, as a Roman
citizen, was allowed the honor of being beheaded instead of facing
the more ignoble fate of crucifixion. Now that's respect for due
process. If the Romans could afford to do it with all of their
rebellious subjects, why can't we?
"Crucifixion?" "Yes." "Good."
Viking Moose|11.22.05 @ 2:56PM|#
that does it thoreau.
i'm canceling my subscription.
hope Mrs. Thoreau is doing better. sorry for the tribulations to
commence this silly season 2005.
kind regards
|11.22.05 @ 3:14PM|#
"Enemy combatants, whether they are American citizens or not
American citizens, are subject to the same provisions of the laws
of war. You can hold an enemy combatant until the end of the
conflict."
Which raises the question of:
1) What constitutes an "enemy combatant" in this conflict?
and
2) What would constitute the end of this conflict?
The answers which I have heard seem to be almost reducible to
"trust us to do the right thing"
I am relieved to see that the government cannot get around due
process requirements by merely alleging someone to be a terrorist.
Maybe we are not on a slow decline towards giving the
government any power it wants under the pretense of fighting
terrorism after all.
|11.22.05 @ 5:42PM|#
"As towards the question of whether or not Mr. P had any desire
to hurt anyone...I have heard assertions, but no facts. Without
facts all I know, is that some politicians want me to believe that
Mr. P is a danger to me.
But that is the only "fact" I have. And I just don't trust the
.gov, or any politician, Clinton or Bush, to accept that "fact"
without question."
I don't trust the government either. But I'm willing to give them
the benefit of the doubt when they say they have evidence that
Padilla is dangerous and was plotting something. It's unlikely that
they just arrested him for the hell of it. But on the other hand,
since he's a U.S. citizen, holding him without trial was blatantly
unconstitutional. I don't recall any provision in the constitution
that allows the executive branch to label a citizen an "enemy
combatant" and thereby deprive him of his right to due process.It's
nice that they finally got around to charging him with something,
which should have been done when he was originally arrested.
Too bad there doesn't seem to be any way to prevent the government
from using this tactic again though.
|11.22.05 @ 6:50PM|#
BG-
You've hit the nail on the head, but I'm not sure what the
alternative should be. Are terrorists to be held for the duration
of the conflict? Hopefully. What if that conflict goes on forever?
Well I guess it's too bad they chose to fight for an organization
that has yet to declare surrender. I don't think we sent our German
and Japanese POW's back to WWII's battlefields before the
governments who sent them there were no more. There was no danger
that a German POW shipped back to the fatherland in 1946 was going
to organize a tank battalion against the Allied occupiers. There is
a very good chance that an Islamist arrested while planning
terrorist attacks against non-Islamists will go back to doing the
same thing as soon as he's back in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/Syria,
etc. The fact that we're not sure when this is going to be over
doesn't mean that it's ok for him to go.
The fact that Padilla is an American citizen adds another layer to
the argument, but if the charges against him are true, he joined an
organization which exists to make war on America and those like us
(and he did so much more freely than many of those WWII POW's).
Now, if you're asking the question of how do we define "enemy
combatant" as a serious attempt to set parameters for that term
beyond "Trust us", I think it's a step in the right direction.
However, if those questions are to be asked rhetorically as a
lead-in to the idea that those who are making war upon us are to be
tried by the same standards as street crime, I would suggest that
you realize this is a war, and you don't get to decide if you're at
war or not. The Islamist enemy is at war with us, therefore we are
at war. We didn't hold a trial to determine if every Nazi soldier
had actually taken aim at an American and pulled the trigger, and
we shouldn't do so now with an enemy who doesn't wear a uniform and
makes this country the battlefield. I find that option even worse
than trusting a government I have little faith in, but I've yet to
see option number 3.
|11.22.05 @ 7:30PM|#
but if the charges against him are true
That's an important "if." We need a way to figure out whether or
not the part after the "if" is true.
James Madison, a man who had seen war on US soil, seemed to have
some opinions on the matter. He was even kind enough to share his
opinions with us, by playing a key role in the drafting of some
rather significant legal documents. Some of those legal documents
are still in effect today, unless some activist judges overturned
them.
|11.22.05 @ 8:39PM|#
In other news, Al Capone was jailed on some kind of bogus
tax evasion charges. They call that justice? I thought he was
supposed to be some sort of super-criminal.
Al Capone convicted on tax evasion charges; an American citizen
held for three years without charge, much less a trial. ...Six of
one, half a dozen of the other?
Ha!
Nobody seems adverse to making the government prove beyond a
reasonable doubt the allegations that it made against a US citizen.
Not too long ago, that would have been a controversial notion on
this forum.
I remember those heady days!
|11.22.05 @ 9:18PM|#
I remember those heady days!
Sadly, I think we chased them away.
A couple months ago I prepared an essay posing a question regarding
the Padilla case. I'll wait for another Padilla thread where more
of the "objectively pro-gulag" types show up.
And now I see why some people love the "objectively pro [insert bad
thing here]" phrase. It's fun to use!
Dave W.|11.22.05 @ 10:41PM|#
Padilla is probably guilty of conspiracy to
murder.
In keeping with the tone of your other comments, T., don't forget
that conspiracy can be a pretty marginal, fuzzy crime in and of
itself. It basically means (if true) that Padilla talked too much
about killing people. Sometimes talking about killing people means
you are really going to do it. Other times it is just talking.
Entrapment is also easier in this context because of the
pre-bloodshed timeframe.
I am not saying that conspiracy should be written out of the
criminal law, but what I am saying is that even if Padilla is
genuinely indictment-worthy wrt conspiracy, that doesn't mean he
was a dangerous terrorist or that he was likely to actually hurt
anybody.
I'd feel more afraid of Padilla if they had managed an explosives
indictment, or at least a weapons indictment.
James Anderson Merritt|11.23.05 @ 1:15AM|#
"...on charges of conspiring to 'murder, kidnap and maim' people
overseas."
I don't know about everyone else, but I was amazed that we actually
have laws that prevent people from making plans to kill foreigners
on foreign soil.
If the fellow's plans never actually resulted in killing anyone,
wouldn't a law against the conspiracy amount to abridgment of
freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the right to
privacy? And if the plans DID result in someone's death overseas,
wouldn't the conspiracy still be a non-crime? The murdering and
maiming would be the actual crimes, committed in a foreign nation
and subject to that nation's justice exclusively.
Still, given that the law is apparently on our books:
As it has been alleged that the plans for the Iraq War were made
long before the congressional authorization to use force was
granted, wouldn't those self-same plans make any number of neocons
and members of the current administration guilty of the same crime
that they are now ascribing to Mr. Padilla?
|11.23.05 @ 9:54AM|#
It sounds like the government is charging him under 18 U.S.C.
§956. I think the relevant provision is as
follows:
As you can see from the text, one of the keys to getting a
conspiracy conviction is proving that one or more conspirators took
a "substantial step" towards committing the crime they conspired to
commit. So, if Jose, Osama, and Big Ed talked about blowing up the
Eiffel Tower, then Big Ed went and bought 50 pounds of plastic
explosive at a Wal-Mart in Evanston, you've got a case.
The bad part for the government is that conspiracy is always
tougher to prove when the underlying crime was never committed (or
the step towards its commission wasn't particularly
substantial--e.g., Big Ed walked through the high-explosives
section at Wal-Mart after buying some toothpaste).
|11.23.05 @ 11:06AM|#
"Al Capone convicted on tax evasion charges; an American citizen
held for three years without charge, much less a trial. ...Six of
one, half a dozen of the other?"
That's really not what I'm saying at all. The particular charges
filed have nothing important to say about the violation of habeus
corpus, is my point.
James Anderson Merritt|11.23.05 @ 12:13PM|#
ProLiberate said, "It sounds like the government is charging him
under 18 U.S.C. �956. I think the relevant provision is as
follows:..."
I see nothing there that talks about "murdering, maiming, or
kidnapping." How ironic if our thoughtful law protected the
property and infrastructure of foreign GOVERNMENTS, but not their
PEOPLE. I think I'll go look at the indictment now,
James Anderson Merritt|11.23.05 @ 12:30PM|#
OK, I saw the indictment. The law does talk about "murdering,
maiming, or kidnapping" on foreign soil, and does criminalize
conspiracy to commit such acts -- yet another expansion of federal
jurisdiction over criminal law. The ostensible "good purpose" of
this particular law is that it establishes as illegal the use of US
addresses as bases of terrorist activity (such as conspiracies to
murder, etc.).
I guess the reason that we don't haul the neocons into court on
similar charges is because they committed their acts of conspiracy
BEFORE the present law was enacted. Gotta have that due process and
avoid ex-post-facto prosecutions, don't we?
|11.23.05 @ 1:09PM|#
James Anderson Merritt, I hadn't seen the indictment, so I was just guessing. There is some anti-terrorism law that mentions killing, maiming, and kidnapping (18 U.S.C. s. 2332b)--maybe that's the underlying crime for the conspiracy charge? I haven't really done any research on this, so you probably know more than I do having read the indictment. What were the specific statutes he's been charged under, anyway?
|11.23.05 @ 1:19PM|#
Oops, I meant to post the first part of 18 U.S.C. §956, which
talks about murder and maiming:
(1) Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, conspires with one or more other persons, regardless of where such other person or persons are located, to commit at any place outside the United States an act that would constitute the offense of murder, kidnapping, or maiming if committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States shall, if any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy, be punished as provided in subsection (a)(2).
(2) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section is--
(A) imprisonment for any term of years or for life if the offense is conspiracy to murder or kidnap; and
(B) imprisonment for not more than 35 years if the offense is conspiracy to maim.
Should've posted the whole statute, since my guess about which part
he was charged under was wrong.
James Anderson Merritt|11.23.05 @ 11:34PM|#
ProL: Here are the code citations...
18 USC 956(a)(1) [murder, maiming, kidnapping]
18 USC 371 [conspiracy to commit offense, defraud US]
18 USC 2339A [providing support to foreign terrorists]
18 USC 922(g)(5)(B) [felon, etc., acquiring firearms via interstate
commerce]
18 USC 1001(a) [lying to the federal government]
18 USC 1621(1) [lying under oath to federal gov]
18 USC 1505 [obstruction of justice]
18 USC 924(d)(1) [firearms forfeiture]
18 USC 2 [defining "princpals" in criminal acts]
21 USC 853 [penalties for illegal firearms traffic]
|11.24.05 @ 9:58PM|#
So how long did it take them to finaly bring charges against him? who was dragging their feet?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245