Bush is Holding American Citizens!
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:50 am
I just found this out from Spot. It's a new low (or not so new, from the dating) for the Bush administration. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from "Security And Liberty", Anthony Lewis, 2003
On May 8, 2002, Padilla flew into Chicago from abroad. He was taken into custody at O’Hare Airport by federal agents. The Justice Department went before the U.S. District Court in New York and got a warrant for his arrest and detention as a material witness for a grand jury sitting there to investigate the September 11 attacks. Padilla was then moved to a jail in New York. On May 15, he was brought before Judge Michael B. Mukasey, who appointed Donna R. Newman as his lawyer. Newman, after conferring with Padilla in jail, moved to vacate the material witness warrant. The judge set June 11 for a hearing on the motion.
But on June 9, the government told the judge that it was withdrawing its subpoena for Padilla to testify before the grand jury. It disclosed to Judge Mukasey that President Bush had designated Padilla an enemy combatant and directed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to take custody of him. Padilla was flown to a Navy brig in South Carolina and kept in solitary confinement, forbidden to see his lawyer, his family, or any other outside person.
Judge Mukasey said the court would scrutinize the finding that Padilla was an enemy combatant - but would hold the government to a very low standard of proof. He said the court would consider only whether there was "some evidence to support" the president’s "conclusion that Padilla was, like the German saboteurs in Quirin, engaged in a mission against the United States on behalf of an enemy with whom the United States is at war." Merely "some evidence," not "a preponderance of the evidence," the standard in civil cases in this country, much less "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," the test in criminal cases.
A Washington Post editorial characterized the decision as "a pointed reminder that even during wartime, the president’s power to lock up an American citizen must be justified to the courts, and that hearing from the accused is essential to the court’s task." The judge understood, the Post said, "that without access to a lawyer and at least some ability to contest the government’s claims in court, nobody’s rights are safe."
How safe will we be if Judge Mukasey’s formula becomes the final legal rule? The fact remains that an American citizen was seized at a Chicago airport and detained in solitary confinement, without a trial, for what could be, for all we know, the rest of his life. And that was done on the say-so of government officials alone, with no check except the rather slim possibility of the citizen showing that the government had not even "some evidence" of his wrongdoings - in other words, that it had no evidence. The Economist, which has kept a sharp eye on the state of American liberties since September 11, wrote shortly after Judge Mukasey’s decision: "It is hard to imagine that America would look kindly on a foreign government that demanded the right to hold some of its own citizens in prison, incommunicado, denying them access to legal assistance as long as it thought necessary, without ever charging them with a crime."
A few hours after Attorney General Ashcroft’s June 10 statement on Padilla, President Bush made an eloquent statement on the importance of the rule of law. In the war on terrorism, he said, the "rule of law" and "limits on the power of the state" were "non-negotiable demands of human dignity." At this writing, Jose Padilla remains in isolated detention, while the government appeals Judge Mukasey’s decision.
That was in 2003. Jose Padilla is still held in isolation (in Florida at the moment), and has still not faced trial. The current state of affairs is outlined, by one of the attorneys representing him on his habeas petition, at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/ ... iod-is.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from "Security And Liberty", Anthony Lewis, 2003
On May 8, 2002, Padilla flew into Chicago from abroad. He was taken into custody at O’Hare Airport by federal agents. The Justice Department went before the U.S. District Court in New York and got a warrant for his arrest and detention as a material witness for a grand jury sitting there to investigate the September 11 attacks. Padilla was then moved to a jail in New York. On May 15, he was brought before Judge Michael B. Mukasey, who appointed Donna R. Newman as his lawyer. Newman, after conferring with Padilla in jail, moved to vacate the material witness warrant. The judge set June 11 for a hearing on the motion.
But on June 9, the government told the judge that it was withdrawing its subpoena for Padilla to testify before the grand jury. It disclosed to Judge Mukasey that President Bush had designated Padilla an enemy combatant and directed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to take custody of him. Padilla was flown to a Navy brig in South Carolina and kept in solitary confinement, forbidden to see his lawyer, his family, or any other outside person.
Judge Mukasey said the court would scrutinize the finding that Padilla was an enemy combatant - but would hold the government to a very low standard of proof. He said the court would consider only whether there was "some evidence to support" the president’s "conclusion that Padilla was, like the German saboteurs in Quirin, engaged in a mission against the United States on behalf of an enemy with whom the United States is at war." Merely "some evidence," not "a preponderance of the evidence," the standard in civil cases in this country, much less "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," the test in criminal cases.
A Washington Post editorial characterized the decision as "a pointed reminder that even during wartime, the president’s power to lock up an American citizen must be justified to the courts, and that hearing from the accused is essential to the court’s task." The judge understood, the Post said, "that without access to a lawyer and at least some ability to contest the government’s claims in court, nobody’s rights are safe."
How safe will we be if Judge Mukasey’s formula becomes the final legal rule? The fact remains that an American citizen was seized at a Chicago airport and detained in solitary confinement, without a trial, for what could be, for all we know, the rest of his life. And that was done on the say-so of government officials alone, with no check except the rather slim possibility of the citizen showing that the government had not even "some evidence" of his wrongdoings - in other words, that it had no evidence. The Economist, which has kept a sharp eye on the state of American liberties since September 11, wrote shortly after Judge Mukasey’s decision: "It is hard to imagine that America would look kindly on a foreign government that demanded the right to hold some of its own citizens in prison, incommunicado, denying them access to legal assistance as long as it thought necessary, without ever charging them with a crime."
A few hours after Attorney General Ashcroft’s June 10 statement on Padilla, President Bush made an eloquent statement on the importance of the rule of law. In the war on terrorism, he said, the "rule of law" and "limits on the power of the state" were "non-negotiable demands of human dignity." At this writing, Jose Padilla remains in isolated detention, while the government appeals Judge Mukasey’s decision.
That was in 2003. Jose Padilla is still held in isolation (in Florida at the moment), and has still not faced trial. The current state of affairs is outlined, by one of the attorneys representing him on his habeas petition, at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/ ... iod-is.php
