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
Jury Convicts Padilla
CNN is reporting that former "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla was found guilty of conspiracy to support terrorism:
The verdict came after less than two days of deliberations, according to a U.S. District Court official.
Padilla and two co-defendants were convicted on all counts.
Padilla pleaded not guilty. At his trial, defense attorneys argued Padilla went overseas only to study Islam.During the trial, prosecutors played more than 70 intercepted phone calls among the defendants for jurors, including seven that featured Padilla, 36. He is a Brooklyn-born convert to Islam originally arrested as a suspect in a "dirty bomb" plot.
FBI agent John Kavanaugh testified that the calls were made in code, which Padilla used to discuss traveling overseas to fight with Islamic militants, along with side trips to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
In closing arguments, Padilla's lawyers argued he never spoke in code. His voice is heard on only seven of 300,000 taped conversations.
Full story here.
Matt Welch on Padilla here.
|8.16.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Wait, I thought that, unless we had indefinite military detention, these civilian juries were going to let the terrorists go free to plant dirty bombs and destroy middle America? A guilty conviction isn't how the narrative is supposed to go.
thoreau|8.16.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Well, evidence of a terrorist plot was shown to a jury, and the
jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless there's
some error in the case, one that the jury could not see through, it
would appear that preservation of due process and punishment of
terrorism are compatible goals.
Score one for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Bee|8.16.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Perhaps they just took pity on him, so he can go to regular old prison now, instead of the military brig.
|8.16.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Well, it was "conspiracy to support terrorism" which seems to be
less than an actual terrorist plot. I never believed he went to the
middle east solely to study Islam. All that "dirty bomb" business
appears to have been complete bullshit, but also not necessary to
the charge.
So, despite Bush's suspension of the 5th Amendment, John Ashcrofts
howler monkey act and the right-wing echo chamber's shrill
reverberation....the old system worked and justice was done.
|8.16.07 @ 3:01PM|#
"Perhaps they just took pity on him, so he can go to regular old
prison now, instead of the military brig."
I am not sure regular old prison is preferable.
|8.16.07 @ 3:01PM|#
Lamar,
When Ashcroft hurls a handful of his shit at you, you'll regret
that howler monkey crack.
|8.16.07 @ 3:05PM|#
All that "dirty bomb" business appears to have been complete bullshit,...
I don't know. I can readily believe that someone talked
about a "dirty bomb". I doubt that anything concrete was
done.
Somehow I doubt that Padilla could ever have acquired enough
material to do any damage.
In fact that's part of the point, I think.
It doesn't matter that most of these plans are implausible. All it
takes is for the word to be spread and enough people will be
terrorized just by their own irrational fears.
All this without the terrorists even firing a shot or lighting a
fuse.
|8.16.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Somehow I doubt that Padilla could ever have acquired enough material to do any damage.
I am not so sure of this. If he was a vetted AQ member, why would
AQ not supply the material?
|8.16.07 @ 3:17PM|#
When Ashcroft hurls a handful of his shit at
you...
Nah, right now, he's rolling in it. Or should be...
Abdul|8.16.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Unless there's some error in the case, one that the jury
could not see through, it would appear that preservation of due
process and punishment of terrorism are compatible
goals.
Thoreau, I'm sympathetic to your point, but due process requires a
lawful arrest. As Padilla was arrested here by civilians, that
worked out fine. The million dollar question has been what to do
where soldiers don't read miranda rights, don't need probable
cause, etc. when they detain someone on the battlefield. In those
cases, due process would not be compatible with arresting
terrorists in a place like Afghanistan.
|8.16.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Abdul,
The Geneva Conventions call for a "regularly constituted tribunal"
to be held when someone captured on the battlefield is accused of
criminal acts of war.
If the bogus "military commissions" being held (and reheld if they
get the "wrong" result) were reformed into legitimate courts of law
which provided adquate due process, that would be a perfectly
appropriate way to try accused terrorists captured by the
military.
|8.16.07 @ 3:27PM|#
The million dollar question has been what to do where
soldiers don't read miranda rights, don't need probable cause, etc.
when they detain someone on the battlefield. In those cases, due
process would not be compatible with arresting terrorists in a
place like Afghanistan.
On the battle field you are not arresting an opposing soldier, you
are taking that soldier prisoner. POWs are held until the war is
over with. There are no "Miranda" rights on a foreign battle field.
I am no expert, but I don't think there are Miranda rights even if
the battle field is in the US. There are "rules", e.g. the Geneva
convention, but those only apply if your adversary is a signatory
to the GC. Gitmo is filled with these guys, and I don't think they
are going anywhere. Why would you want to introduce POWs into the
civilian American legal system?
|8.16.07 @ 3:37PM|#
"Wait, I thought that, unless we had indefinite military
detention, these civilian juries were going to let the terrorists
go free to plant dirty bombs and destroy middle America? A guilty
conviction isn't how the narrative is supposed to go."
Wrong again. The concern is that due process would allow
terrorist's lawyers access to sensative material.
|8.16.07 @ 3:37PM|#
I don't know the man, but the stench coming off his prosecution was pretty rank. He should get credit for time served.
|8.16.07 @ 3:40PM|#
"I don't know the man, but the stench coming off his prosecution
was pretty rank. He should get credit for time served."
He will get credit for time served. His time will be applied to his
life sentence. Seems about right.
|8.16.07 @ 3:42PM|#
"He will get credit for time served. His time will be applied to
his life sentence. Seems about right."
You just don't get it. BUSH IS EVIL.
|8.16.07 @ 3:43PM|#
but those only apply if your adversary is a signatory to the
GC.'
No, that is incorrect. The Geneva Conventions include standards for
the treatment of real soldiers who act within the laws of war, but
also for the treatment of criminal combatants who act outside of
them.
|8.16.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Hey, look over there! Over there! It's people who don't like
George Bush!
No, no, over THERE!
Why aren't you looking over there?
Pretty please?
thoreau|8.16.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Anybody notice how much electricity Al Gore uses?
Well, do you notice?
See, he's over there. Look!
|8.16.07 @ 3:49PM|#
wayne
The original story was that one of Padilla's jobs was to buy the
radioactive material (the "dirty" part of the "dirty bomb") and the
explosives (the "bomb" part?) in the US. I find that part
plausible.
What becomes implausible is that once someone like Padilla started
to try to buy the stuff he would have set of about a thousand
alarms. And considering his prior criminal history it seems
unlikely that he would have succeeded at stealing them.
I'm leaning to the theory that guls like Padilla, Richard Reed and
the English "liquid bomb" guys are patsy.
Sent out as sacrificial lambs by AQ leaders to not so much succeed
"at the mission" but to be arrested.
|8.16.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Padilla has some pretty nasty associations, and they were
apparently significant enough as were his "substantial steps" to
get him convicted of conspiracy by a jury. Fair enough. I think any
American is entitled to the same opportunity to plead his
case.
As for people who are not citizens who are captured overseas, we
need some new mechanism for dealing with them. Something other than
the torture good, indefinite detention also good system.
|8.16.07 @ 3:56PM|#
"Sent out as sacrificial lambs by AQ leaders to not so much
succeed "at the mission" but to be arrested."
What's the putative benefit?
|8.16.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Whether they succeed or not the populace is still terrorized by the publicity surrounding the arrests.
|8.16.07 @ 4:03PM|#
"You just don't get it. BUSH IS EVIL."
Yeah, I know. So is Jose.
"No, that is incorrect. The Geneva Conventions include standards
for the treatment of real soldiers who act within the laws of war,
but also for the treatment of criminal combatants who act outside
of them."
I will defer to your expertise. Are the enemy combatants being
treated poorly? They are being well fed, so well in fact that some
of them have become obese. They are housed, clothed, fed, allowed
to worship as they wish. They are just not being allowed to kill
Americans. Seems OK to me. What is the problem.
Does the Geneva Convention allow POWs to be released while the war
still rages? I don't think so. Why should these guys be freed?
|8.16.07 @ 4:05PM|#
"Whether they succeed or not the populace is still terrorized by
the publicity surrounding the arrests."
But wouldn't success provide an exponentially greater benefit?
|8.16.07 @ 4:05PM|#
"Sent out as sacrificial lambs by AQ leaders to not so much
succeed "at the mission" but to be arrested."
Maybe so. In that case Jose succeeded; he got arrested and now he
will spend the rest of his life in the klink.
|8.16.07 @ 4:07PM|#
"Maybe so. In that case Jose succeeded; he got arrested and now
he will spend the rest of his life in the klink."
Just another victim in Bushes illegal war.
thoreau|8.16.07 @ 4:08PM|#
The idiots are Team B. First they send Team A to do something,
since they have the best chance of success. Then, once everybody is
scared, they send Team B. If Team B happens to succeed, well, then
they succeed, and that's bad for us. But even if Team B gets
caught, we'll still see Team B and be like "OMG! They're still out
there!" and freak out and flail around in response.
If Team B is sent first, we're likely to catch them and scoff
because we haven't been primed for fear by Team A.
Kap|8.16.07 @ 4:15PM|#
But wouldn't success provide an exponentially greater benefit?
[in preview: what thoreau said]
Terrorism is never about the x actual victims, but the
y newspaper readers & CNN-watchers whom you wish to
terrorize. The dead folks ain't scared, they're just dead.
Achieving real success is difficult, but sending the camp doofus to
get himself arrested is pretty damn easy. Especially when the US
gov't is all to happy to oblige in grossly overstating the threat
he presented, due to their own political goals.
As much as this whole thing stings to high heaven, I fear if he had
been acquitted Bush would have said, "see, this is why we can't
ever have nice things" and thrown him back in Gitmo. And
that would have been a truly ugly precedent.
|8.16.07 @ 4:18PM|#
"""Whether they succeed or not the populace is still terrorized
by the publicity surrounding the arrests."""
Padilla didn't terrorize the public, the government did with the
dirty bomb story. They wanted to use the story for the own ends. If
the Bush admin was concerned about not terrorizing the public, they
would have kept it hush, hush.
|8.16.07 @ 4:26PM|#
"""Does the Geneva Convention allow POWs to be released while
the war still rages? I don't think so. Why should these guys be
freed?"""
I don't know any reasonable person that thinks they should be freed
at a whim. Most I know just want the truth to be used. We can't
just call a guy a terrorist, it needs to be true. The current way
of doing things at Gitmo is not geared for truth, it is set up for
hearsay. If the government can not convict someone in Gitmo just
because Afghan farmer Brown said the guy's a terrorist, you will
see a number of those held being found not guilty.
I agree with Lamar, today is a victory for our form of justice, but
I don't think the government should get a free pass for usurping a
citizens constitutional rights.
|8.16.07 @ 4:29PM|#
This is just as well. If the jury found Padilla innocent, the Bush admin. will concoct some other way of keeping him in detention.
Fluffy|8.16.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Well Wayne, if they're POW's, then they shouldn't have been
subject to the interrogation regime we created to try to gain
intelligence. And the Red Cross should have had continual access to
them without limits other than those set by the Conventions.
If they aren't POW's, but were common criminals apprehended in the
Afghani war zone, and they weren't tried by the time Afghanistan
had an internationally recognized government again, they should
have been returned to Afghanistan for trial. That actually would
have been the best solution.
And if you can't successfully try someone because you aren't
willing to produce your evidence because of a reason of your own,
then tough - you get to let the person go. So screw your sensitive
information argument right up its own ass.
|8.16.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Jose's mom - "I'm not surprised by anything in this place
anymore," she said. "This is a Republican city."
So, if the Democrats were in charge of Miami, terrorists would be
free to maime and kill in Allah's name? Shame on Jose's mom. I'm
sick and tired of neocons like her questioning the patriotism of
every Democrat or non-Republican.
I guess this indirect endorsement of Democrats falls under the
category of "endorsements nobody wants". Kinda like Marilyn
Manson's proclamation he is a Republican.
|8.16.07 @ 5:18PM|#
dick: you said "wrong again" about the first thing I posted.
Also:
"The concern is that due process would allow terrorist's
lawyers access to sensitive material."
Like what? The case against Padilla? And since it didn't come to
pass, your supposed counterexample actually supports the idea that
due process, or some semblance of it, isn't contrary to national
security.
|8.16.07 @ 5:28PM|#
wayne,
Are my actual arguments so terrifying that you must make up less
intimidating ones to refute instead?
This is a thread, and mine was a comment, about the judicial or
quasi-judicial process that should be followed in the case of
accused terrorists. Accused, wayne. Tell me, if you were locked in
Gitmo for several years despite being completely innocent, how many
calories would you have to consume for you to conclude that you
were being treated well?
|8.16.07 @ 5:31PM|#
And since you asked, prior to and shortly after being released
from military custody into the civilian prison system, he was
treated in such a manner that left him psychologically incapable of
standing trial.
Call me crazy, but I think we should maybe have something other
than the guy who caught the prisoner's say-so that he is guilty
before we do that to a person. Like, say, having a neutral party
find that he isn't a completely innocent man. Maybe we can even
have a guy in a robe and a dozen citizens skim over the
government's case to make sure.
|8.16.07 @ 5:51PM|#
I wonder what folks on here think sould be done if we catch Bin Ladin.Where would he fit in the justice system,P.O.W,civilian court,or just shoot him?
Fluffy|8.16.07 @ 6:58PM|#
I have to agree with Joe here.
Rikers Island.
Something about the image of bin Laden being taken to Rikers is
just appropriate.
Let him sit there picking the shit out of his meals while awaiting
trial and see if he decides he wants to talk to the US Attorney
instead.
|8.16.07 @ 8:11PM|#
You would really put him in our justice system?I think I 'd rather see him shot on sight and spare us the circus.
iih|8.16.07 @ 9:35PM|#
The mere fact that a US citizen is put in prison for 3.5 years
without access to anything (let alone a lawyer) is very scary. As a
(legal) resident alien of the US, I have far less protections than
US citizens. Why should I trust the system? Frankly I am freaked
out by the prospects.
Here is an article that put my fears in very concrete terms:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/16/padilla/
Much of the readers' comments stem from a very libertarian point of
view. I recommend reading the first few pages in the readers
comments.
thoreau|8.16.07 @ 10:50PM|#
No, joe. Bin Laden should go into witness protection.
Send him to the same neighborhood as all the NY and NJ mobsters.
Introduce him to the other guys in the program. Let him get to know
his peers.
They can take him fishing.
|8.17.07 @ 3:24AM|#
The idiots are Team B. First they send Team A to do something, since they have the best chance of success. Then, once everybody is scared, they send Team B. If Team B happens to succeed, well, then they succeed, and that's bad for us. But even if Team B gets caught, we'll still see Team B and be like "OMG! They're still out there!" and freak out and flail around in response.
If Team B is sent first, we're likely to catch them and scoff because we haven't been primed for fear by Team A.
Huh? Too many metaphors for me.
|8.17.07 @ 3:34AM|#
Tell me, if you were locked in Gitmo for several years despite being completely innocent, how many calories would you have to consume for you to conclude that you were being treated well?
Well, if it were ME that was locked in Gitmo, then I would be
COMPLETELY innocent. Me and all those other COMPLETELY INNOCENT
guys would mill around all day plotting our revenge on our
tormenters. I am sure that we would have as many Fatwas as inncoent
guys there, maybe even more.
Just by way of metaphor, Joe, if you were among a group of Koreans
held captive by the Taliban, how many of your of your fellow
captives would you need to see summarily executed before you
concluded that you were being treated poorly?
|8.17.07 @ 3:37AM|#
If Bin Laden is captured he should be tried by military tribunal and sentenced accordingly.
|8.17.07 @ 6:16AM|#
Actually, I see the Padilla case as completely different than
the Gitmo detainees.
Padilla should have been handled as a criminal, and should not have
been treated as an enemy combatant. He was a US citizen arrested on
US soil. The only explanation is that it was a crazy time in US
history (shortly after 911) and mistakes were made. Similar
mistakes were made at other crazy times in US history.
The Gitmo guests on the other hand do not fit that description.
They were all captured elsewhere and were engaged in waging war
against US and allied forces. All things considered, they are being
treated pretty well.
|8.17.07 @ 6:19AM|#
One more point. Padilla was not held at Gitmo. After his arrest he never left US soil, to my knowledge.
|8.17.07 @ 8:19AM|#
Joe and Thoreau, I think your suggestions regarding Bin Laden
are half in jest, but think about if for a minute. You are
proposing a kind of "domestic rendition." If you really do oppose
torture and extralegal punishment, you don't get off the hook
morally because the government puts people in a position where
criminals do they dirty work.
And Joe, inmates at Rikers, which is primarily used for pre-trial
detention, don't wear orange jumpsuits and are not shaved as part
of initial procesing.
|8.17.07 @ 10:08AM|#
They were all captured elsewhere and were engaged in waging
war against US and allied forces.
And you kow this, how? Becasue the government said so? You're so
certain of their guilt that you object to making the government
demonstrate that guilt.
Quite the libertarian, aren't you?
|8.17.07 @ 10:09AM|#
parse,
I don't want bin Laden tortured. I want him humiliated by having
him treated like a common criminal.
thoreau|8.17.07 @ 10:28AM|#
parse-
Yeah, yeah, I know, the rule of law is the rule of law. I was
mostly joking. I'm still tempted to say that Bin Laden should be
dropped off in lower Manhattan and left to his own devices, but I
guess we can't really go down that road.
joe's point is a good one, however. The self-styled leader of a
global war, reduced to eating bad jail food in an ordinary jail
uniform, surrounded by a bunch of other murderers. It would be the
ultimate put-down for him. No last stand in a blaze of gunfire, no
martyr's death at the hands of torturers so that a generation of
followers can vow vengeance, no illegal execution that can give
other people a chance to argue that there was something wrongful
about his death. Just the same fate as any other murderer.
Even more than bloodshed, he seeks glory and chaos. Subjecting him
to law and order, and stripping him of all pretensions of grandeur,
would be the ultimate punishment.
|8.17.07 @ 10:29AM|#
Joe,
My answer was as serious as the question.
"And you kow this, how? Becasue the government said so? You're so
certain of their guilt that you object to making the government
demonstrate that guilt."
I am convinced of their status because the military conducts
reviews of the evidence against them and holds them as enemy
combatants when the evidence warrants it. In fact, some have been
released.
The Gitmo guests are not "civilians":
1. they were nabbed while conducting warfare; 2. they are in fact
illegal combatants because they represent no state;
3. they adhere to no code of conduct themselves;
4. they certainly don't treat their prisoners with anything
remotely similar to the kindness they receive at Gitmo.
5. We did not conduct "trials" for the German, Japanese, or Italian
prisoners we took during WWII. We simply incarcerated them until
the was was over with. Why should we do differently now?
While we are at war with loosely organized terrorist groups, it
seems reasonable to imprison the ones we catch.
|8.17.07 @ 10:30AM|#
joe's point is a good one, however. The self-styled leader of a global war, reduced to eating bad jail food in an ordinary jail uniform, surrounded by a bunch of other murderers. It would be the ultimate put-down for him. No last stand in a blaze of gunfire, no martyr's death at the hands of torturers so that a generation of followers can vow vengeance, no illegal execution that can give other people a chance to argue that there was something wrongful about his death. Just the same fate as any other murderer.
Even more than bloodshed, he seeks glory and chaos. Subjecting him to law and order, and stripping him of all pretensions of grandeur, would be the ultimate punishment.
I agree.
|8.17.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Legally, bin Laden should be given the same treatment that
McVeigh, Yousef and Abdel-Rahman got. Criminal trial.
Strategically, it would probably be best if he were "killed in the
crossfire" during the attempt to capture him.
Scooby|8.17.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Does anyone believe that treating OBL as a common criminal,
giving him due process and letting him rot in jail cell would
prevent him from being held up as a hero, a political prisoner and
(eventually) a martyr? A criminal trial would (understandably) be
seen as a sham by anyone sympathetic to his cause, and also by the
more cynical elements of those not sympathetic (i.e., folks like
me).
Conducting a proper trial for OBL would be damn near impossible:
security for the proceedings would be a nightmare, the jury pool is
irreversibly tainted, I'm sure much of the evidence against him is
of a sensitive nature (i.e. revealing it in open court would
compromise intelligence gathering means & methods), etc.
de stijl has it right, if only our gov't actually wanted to take
OBL out. Unfortunately, he is too useful- if he were gone, who
would be the focus of the Two Minute Hate?
|8.17.07 @ 12:40PM|#
Padilla didn't terrorize the public, the government did with the dirty bomb story. They wanted to use the story for the own ends. If the Bush admin was concerned about not terrorizing the public, they would have kept it hush, hush.
Exactly.
Who'd've that that Bush and Ashcroft would be on the side of the
terrorists?
Scooby|8.17.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Who'd've [thought] that Bush and Ashcroft would be on the side of the terrorists?
[raises hand from back corner of room]
|8.17.07 @ 7:57PM|#
I'm not sure if this was mentioned earlier and it might be too
late for most to see it, but...
While I emotionally like the idea of OBL being reduced to a common
crimminal and worry killing him to make him a martyr, I'm not sure
there are easy answers.
For instance you would at least have to anticipate all kinds of
terrorist attacks in an attempt free an imprisioned OBL. Not just
highjackings, but you could also predict random violence that
"won't stop until OBL is released".
Assuming he can be taken alive, which is doubtful, and assuming
that all details are possible - How about letting one of his former
home countries try him if he's captured alive?
|8.18.07 @ 3:25AM|#
1. they were nabbed while conducting warfare;
Prove it.
We have the same level of proof for these terrorists (soldiers)
that we had for German, Japanese, Italian and North Korean
soldiers. We imprisoned them for the duration. Get used to it,
dickhead.
|8.18.07 @ 7:28AM|#
wayne, unfortunately a significant number of the prisoners at
Gitmo were not captured on the battlefield by American or coalition
forces. They were turned over to us by our allies in the Northern
Alliance.
I have no problem with holding those who were captured by our
forces as POWs. I don't even have a problem with holding the ones
our allies turned over to us if they were actually
combatants. It's just common decency to make sure they are.
|8.18.07 @ 10:05AM|#
"I have no problem with holding those who were captured by our
forces as POWs. I don't even have a problem with holding the ones
our allies turned over to us if they were actually combatants. It's
just common decency to make sure they are."
I have no disagreement. The military does review the facts for
Gitmo guests. Some have been set free as a result of those
reviews.
What many on H&R seem to want though, is a full scale
indictment and trial in a federal court with all the standard
constitutional rights accorded to the accused. This is clearly not
necessary and in fact is just a tactic to use our tradition as a
free people against us.
|8.18.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Many Guantanamo detainees have been released since the facility was set up after U.S. and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U. S., Whitman said.
"But the population that remains there is a very dangerous population that, if released, could very well return to the battlefield," he said.
Twelve detainees who'd been released from Guantanamo had returned to the battlefield and had been re-captured by U.S. forces, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld noted during a June 1, 2005, Pentagon news conference.
source:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14649
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