U.S. citizen tried by military

[Dennis]

"Ashcroft said Abdullah Al Mujahir – a U.S. citizen who was born Jose Padilla -- was captured May 8..." (bold added for stress)

"Ashcroft said Al Mujahir would be treated as an 'enemy combatant' of the United States, a move that means he has fewer legal rights than an ordinary defendant in a criminal case."

(From http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...hreadid=117032 )

When Bush the Younger created his War on Terrorism, we were assured that the elimination of Constitutional rights would apply only to foreigners—never to U.S. citizens. But now the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act) is being applied against a U.S. citizen.

Yes, Padilla/Al Mujahir has been accused of a heinous crime and, if the accusations become charges, if the charges result in an indictment, if the indictment results in a trial where the accused has the protections of the U.S. Constitution, then the convicted terrorist should be punished.

However, doesn't anyone here care that this accused terrorist is:

- Held indefinitely without being charged.
- Held indefinitely without being magistrated.
- Held indefinitely without an opportunity for bail.
- Held indefinitely without the right to an attorney (although he has one).
- Held indefinitely without the right to attorney-client privilege.
- Transferred from civilian to military court (where rights exist only as that particular court cares to grant them).
- An American civilian being deprived of his rights without any legal justification?

Note that in this military kangaroo court:
- neither the accused nor his attorney has the right to see the evidence against the accused, after all, it might be "classified."
- the accused can see his attorney only when the military permits it.
- the military can record any transaction between the accused and the attorney.

If this does not bother you, I ask you this:

What if the next President (picture Gore, Hillary, Schumer or something equally horrible) determines that owning a "sniper rifle" is an act of potential terrorism?

Oh, a sniper rifle will be defined:
- As any rifle over .30 caliber.
- Then, as any auto-loading rifle.
- Then, as any center-fire rifle.
- And gradually expanded (as crime increases) to included anything that launches a projectile.

Of course, things like that could NEVER happen in a free country.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...hreadid=116561

This business with Padilla/Al Mujahir makes great emotional reporting, proves "the government is doing something," and eases the TV-impaired minds of sheeple who want to be "protected" (cradle to grave) by our government. But I'm telling you, folks, it is bad legal precedent that not only "could" work against us, but "will" work against us.

The U.S. Constitution exists for a reason—to limit government and to protect "We the People." So let's now hear all of our bright legal minds justify how the Constitution became a mere option—to be employed by our Democrat-Republican political machine only when they "feel" like it.

Oh, and don't waste your time accusing me of being soft on terrorism. My point is that Padilla/Al Mujahir is an American citizen, deprived of his Rights under the Constitution. He should be tried, and hopefully convicted and punished, in our civilian court system.

Remember how the "USA Patriot Act" was passed without being read?
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...r+on+Terrorism

Remember how we were warned? For example:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...r+on+Terrorism

Remember how we were warned that our military is becoming our police force?
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...r+on+Terrorism

We also have been warned that our police force is becoming an internal, federal army—complete with tanks (Waco), aircraft for reconnaissance (Ruby Ridge), and weapons/tactics that make them indistinguishable from the U.S. Army.

Now our military is taking over parts of our legal and court system.

Not good!

And we have a Supreme Court that refuses to address Constitutional violations.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...0&pagenumber=1

REALLY not good!

[Hkmp5sd]

I don't think you're soft on terrorism, but I tend to side with the President on this one. This individual is a member of a foriegn military organization that has declared to be in a holy war against the United States. Even though they do not have a sovereign country and dress in uniforms to identify them as such, they are in fact a military force that has attacked this country.

The government didn't just pull this one out of their hat. There is already legal precedent for these actions. There were a few cases in WWII in which American Citizens joined the German army and fought against us during the war. They were classified in this same manner following the war and their capture.

This individual joined a hostile military organization that declared war on us, performed what they would consider a valid military action by hijacking planes and killing US citizens, which in itself violates all norms in warfare. He was caught in the planning stages of another attack on US citizens.

I believe there is a major difference in this case and the example of being classified as a terrorist should the law be passed that possessing a sniper-rifle is a terrorist act.

What Timothy McVeigh did was an act of terrorism. What these guys did and are doing is an act of war.

I do not believe that a military court is a kangaroo court. You can bet with the publicity surrounding any military court proceedings, they will do everything possible to ensure it is a valid trial. Just as at Nuremburg, they will have their day in court with far more civil rights than the passengers on the airliners and the people on the ground.

As you, I fear our government becoming a police state and I think some of the "security procedures" being employed violate our constitution and are wrong. However, I do not feel that a trial in a military court for Abdullah Al Mujahir is wrong. Everyday, American citizens are tried in military courts. These are the people in the military that violate our laws. They do recieve due process. Mujahir may not have been a member of the US Army, but he was a member of an Army.

[Dennis]

Thoughtful answer, Hk, thank you. Let me reply.

Jose Padilla (according to Fox News) was born in Brooklyn. He is an American citizen. Even if he wore the uniform of a foreign power he should be tried by civilian courts. If you consider him a member of a military force, then you must apply the same criteria to the FBI, ATF, SWAT, etc.; after all, they even WEAR military uniforms as well as use military arms and tactics.

Civilians are NOT to be tried in military courts so long as the civilian courts are operating. Whatever precedents have been set are as valid as the unconstitutional laws infringing upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Al Queda is a religious (fanatic) organization. If you class it as military, then you must class virtually the entire population of America as military because of US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." I'm sure you do not advocate all civilians be tried by military courts.

Also, remember we are not at war. War can only be declared by Congress (Constitution, Article 1, Section 8). The President cannot declare war—he has no Constitutional authority to do so.

Whether Padilla will have more civil rights than the victims of 9/11 is not the point—in fact, it is legally irrelevant (although it appeals to me emotionally just as much as it does to you). He is an American. He is being deprived of guaranteed Constitutional Rights unnecessarily and illegally. Your example of Timothy McVeigh shows that civilian courts can kill a terrorist just as dead as a military tribunal can.

I want Padilla fried or put to sleep like the cur he is (if he deserves it); however, I do NOT want our zeal for revenge and/or punishment to negate the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Kill the sucker (if he's as guilty as we all are so quick to presume), but do it legally.

As for the "due process" of military courts, it too often is a joke. Military people trying to address a grievance against their commander too often find the Staff Judge Advocate assigned "to help you" has his ER written (or endorsed or greatly influenced) by the Commander. How's that for "impartial"? (USAF 6915th Security Group, Hof, Germany 1968) In any case, the UCMJ and Manual for Courts Martial are for those who serve (and suffer) for our country—not the civilian populace.

Padilla should be apprehended, magistrated, held, indicted, tried, etc. in civilian court according to our ruling document—the U. S. Constitution.

Remember, if you do not stand up for others' rights, you also lose your own.

[cuerno de chivo]

"Padilla should be apprehended, magistrated, held, indicted, tried, etc. in civilian court according to our ruling document—the U. S. Constitution."

It's my understanding that there was not probable cause to do so. This Republican Administration has simply continued the fine tradition of using the Constitution as toliet paper. Just wait until future Administrations go against anti-government whites, you'll here some complaints then. Right now, on gun boards, as long as it is happening to "sand [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color]s" you won't see too many complaints.

[Hkmp5sd]

Dennis,

You make a very good argument. While not totally convinced, I can understand your reasoning. I'm probably leaning the other way due to bias ("let's give him a fair trial, then hang him!"). Guess I don't have to worry about getting selected for jury duty should they flip back to civilian courts.

Other than the fact they decided to go this route, I haven't heard too much about this case. I don't know what the reasoning is for giving him to the military in the first place. As you mentioned, the civilian courts can fry him just as easily and with a lot less hassle than this is causing.

[Oleg Volk]

I must agree witht he view that setting such a precedent, even with an unpopular critter, will come back at all of us.

[fix]

Dennis,

I think you're overlooking the obvious. The guy didn't actually do anything. That's right boys and girls, nothing. He talked, he researched, he planned. That's it. Perfectly legal. The FBI nailed him too quick. They should have waited for him to contact some of his buds. That way they could make a conspiracy charge stick, and take down some more idiots in the process. Instead, the FBI decided to cash him in for political capitol.

[mdlowry]

So fix, what your saying is that since he hasn't broken any laws, the government can't get a conviction in a criminal court. Must be why they moved it. It would have been possible for the government to get wiretaps or a search warrent on the information they had. It seems they could have gathered enough evidence if what is being reported is true.


How many times has the topic of revolution been brought up here? I guess we're all domestic terrorists.

[Scott Conklin]

This looks like a test case to me. Create an Evil Enemy, set precedent for trying him under a military court, then filter those reasons down to anyone you want, militia member, gun owner, etc, who doesn't toe the Party Line. Considering how quickly some things have been moving along the anti-Freedom road lately I don't think it will take them years to accomplish this, either.

Sadly I've about had my fill of Bush. Even sadder it looks like this nation will punch out as a Constitutional Republic either under, or directly because of legislation created by, a Republican Administration.

[Futo Inu]

Ashcroft is a (^%(*%(&*%(*!!!!!!!!! All he is doing is ENSURING that this a$$wipe, if convicted, will have his conviction overturned by the SCOTUS, and a new trial at taxpayer's expense, possibly settting him free. The guy is a citizen dammit, and has ALL rights in the BOR, not a smidgen less, for better or worse. Ashcroft is like an abusive mother or father - As a gun owner, you have to "love" him because he's so pro-gun, even though 99.99% of the stuff he does is sheer lunacy and detrimental to our well-being.

[fix]

As a gun owner, you have to "love" him because he's so pro-gun

He's not pro-gun. I don't care what anyone says. He's pro-Ashcroft.

[Scott Conklin]

If this is actually a move to control dissent then the last possibility is that the SCOTUS will be overturning anything.

[Zander]

Point of inquiry: How may a citizen lose his citizenship?

Even sadder it looks like this nation will punch out as a Constitutional Republic either under, or directly because of legislation created by, a Republican Administration. -- 2nd Amendment

As opposed to an adminstration run by a sociopathic Sociocrat like William Jefferson Blythe Clinton?

[stinger]

He may be a citizen, but he is definitely not an American.

Fry the ba$tard!

He talked, he researched, he planned.

How is that not illegal??? If you plan an illegal act that is carried out, that is illegal. Just because he didn't 'pull the trigger' doesn't make him innocent.

Fry the ba$tard!!!


Stinger

[fix]

If you plan an illegal act that is carried out, that is illegal.

The act is illegal, not the plan. I suppose you'd be first in line to apply for a new job with the "Thought Police".

This sounds an awful lot like the plot in the new movie "Minority Report".

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1807592183

[stinger]

If an illegal act is committed and the authorities find out you played a part in the planning that illegal act, that makes you either an accessory to the crime or a co-conspirator. It kinda depends on how big the crime was.

Right?!? I thought so.

That has absolutely nothing to do with "Thought Police" or some other stupid movie. That is a fact.


Stinger

[fix]

stinger,

Maybe I missed something. Could you please tell me exactly where that so called "dirty bomb" actually was set off???

No??? I thought so.

This has everything to do with the "Thought Police".

[armedbutnotdangerous]

stinger;
There was no overt act. I'm not saying he wasn't up to
something, but what he did was not, in and of itself, illegal.

I don't much like the precedent this could set, either.
Military courts for citizens is the very top of a very splippery slope!

Steve.

[buzz_knox]

According to some reports, he was carrying plans for the attack when he landed in Chicago, and was on a mission to scout possible locations for the attack. Arguably, scouting for a strike constitutes an overt act. A lot will depend on what he admitted at the time he was arrested.

By the way, where are you getting the information that he is being brought before a military tribunal? According to the report I read, he is not, but is being detained. Granted, indefinite detention of a citizen is an issue in and of itself, but that doesn't translate into a tribunal. Furthermore, I bet this guy isn't necessarily objecting to the detention. He was a petty crook who got caught up in this "Jihad" crap and is now looking at the full weight of the US coming down on him. I'd bet he's squeling like a pig on all his buddies right now.

[fix]

A lot will depend on what he admitted at the time he was arrested.

Very important as well. I had overlooked the possibility that he spilled the beans.

[Dennis]

fix,

(Dennis slaps his own forehead!)

Sheesh! You're right! He did nothing (yet)!

Although, depending upon what info the feds have on Padilla, a good case might be made involving conspiracy. (In THIS area, I will admit I'm over my head! )

[Byron Quick]

From what I've read, the feds are more interested in interrogating this guy than in charging him and trying him.


Tell me. If he is held as a member of a hostile military which I understand is his current status-what exactly can he be charged with? Planning to use a radiological weapon? How is this illegal under the "laws of war?"

Does this mean that if a hostile military captures a US bomber pilot that the pilot can be charged with planning to use (not using) nuclear weapons?

[Byron Quick]

The federal conspiracy laws can apparently be used for anything.

They could probably convict people on this board, using no evidence but what is in the archives, of conspiracy to commit one thing or another.

I've seen a case in federal court where a woman was convicted of conspiracy. All of her codefendants were exonerated. So she conspired alone Operation Flying Circus.

[Zander]

The federal conspiracy laws can apparently be used for anything. -- Spartacus

A ridiculous assertion...

A bonafide member of an organization that has physically attacked and murdered American citizens is in custody. He was apprehended while planning an attack.

He has forfeited his Rights as an American citizen. Although I raised the appropriate question, it was ignored.

It will be to our advantage if he is interrogated while being detained...and you can bet that is exactly what is happening.

I don't give a damn if he was born in the White House; by his actions he has forfeited his Rights.

[Keith_Yorktown]

What is the alternative... that we must wait until an overt act of terrorism occurs before we can touch a terrorist?