Bush Overruled on "Dirty Bomb" Suspect

Theophylact · December 18th, 2003, 01:29 PM

Can't detain Padilla as an enemy combatant.

Quote:

The decision could force the government to try Padilla, held in a so-called "dirty bomb" plot, in civilian courts. In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Padilla's detention was not authorized by Congress and that Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without the authorization.

Padilla is accused of plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb," which uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. The former Chicago gang member was arrested in May 2002 and within days was moved to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C.

The court directed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to release Padilla from military custody within 30 days, but said the government was free to transfer him to civilian authorities who can bring criminal charges.

Epidemic · December 18th, 2003, 01:49 PM

Interesting. I wonder if the evidence collected will be admissible in court.

Sorry mr DA you cant use the computer files detailing the use of this dirty bomb, Oh yea and his records of movements in other nations was collected with out due process.

Yea we realize that he had all these things but we can not tell the jury this. As such we find the defendent not guilty due to lack of evidence.

You are free to go mr padillia.

EEEEEK!

osprey4 · December 18th, 2003, 03:17 PM

I never understood this enemy combatant thing. What is wrong with charging someone with good old fashioned treason?

RayH · December 18th, 2003, 07:26 PM

I applaud that ruling. I don't like this "enemy combatant" tag. The government can just tag anybody they wish as "enemy combatant" and they disappear! Think about it!

Epidemic · December 19th, 2003, 10:11 AM

I am all for a fair trial. But I also find some risks un-acceptable. A person plotting to kill thousands of people is allot more risky than a wife beater or a guy who kills you for your wallet. To be frank a guy who kills 2 or 3 people can not destabilize the world economy. But a terrorist can kill thousands and throw the world on its ear.

I do not trust our judicial system to put him away, I am afraid that some piece of valid evidence will be excluded due to some liberal interpretation of evidentiary rules.

I also do not like the government not charging people or giving them the ability to defend themselves, but this kind of situation is a huge double edged sword. I lean toward my fellow citizens and the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

RayH · December 19th, 2003, 10:59 AM

I believe this is about the rights of all Americans. Maybe lower standards of evidence or changes in the way the evidence may be gathered might be OK.

But this idea of just tagging someone Enemy Combatant and they just disappear is frightening, espiecally when we don't know who or what the enemy is!

J-Excel · December 19th, 2003, 11:12 AM

Sounds like Bush just needs Congress to endorse the detention. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Epidemic · December 19th, 2003, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RayH
I believe this is about the rights of all Americans. Maybe lower standards of evidence or changes in the way the evidence may be gathered might be OK.

But this idea of just tagging someone Enemy Combatant and they just disappear is frightening, espiecally when we don't know who or what the enemy is!

Somewhat scary perhaps. But I think if you do not have no money and suddenly take a whirl wind tour of the middle east worth 10's of thousands of dollars, Visit terrorist training camps, and then come back with plans for a dirty bomb and methods of acquireing components you and most americans have very little to fear from this power.

Getting congress to act is not something you can do on 30 day notice. The pork on such a bill might be scary as well. But perhaps that is the best course of action.

I am troubled by detention in cuba with no representation I would like to see the evidence presented. But definitely very loose evidentiary rules. Sounds again like a congress problem for future cases but this traitor padilla is too sick to for me to trust our judicial system.

J-Excel · December 19th, 2003, 11:39 AM

Congress reacted within 24 hours on the Do Not Call list issue I believe. If there are votes to be won they move fairly quickly.

Epidemic · December 19th, 2003, 11:45 AM

perhaps you are right.

But setting up a court, evidentiary rules, guidelines, and encarceration times would seem to be a bit more sticky then stopping people from invading your home phone under a loophole where the desires of the people have been stated 50 million strong.