Padilla has not been charged with plotting a dirty bomb attack. For almost three years he was held and not charged with anything except allegations made by John Ashcroft in a press conference. After a judge ordered Padilla charged or released, the government did not allege anything about a dirty bomb attack in their indictment.

Padilla is an American citizen. If they prove he's done what you and John Ashcroft allege he should be sent to prison for the rest of his life.

Until they prove it, however, he's presumed innocent. That's the American way, whether guys like you like it or not. You seem to prefer that American citizens no longer have basic contitutioinal rights.

According to the a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the President does have the right to hold Padilla. You may not like it, but that is the law, as affirmed by the courts.

A dirty bomb plot may have been what attracted attention to Padilla, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the investigation would or had to lead specifically to those charges. If the collection of evidence led to other charges more easily proven, I can’t blame prosecutors for going for the more-certain conviction.

As for your hyperbole, pug, I find it unimpressive.

What hyperbole, Yankee? Pug pointed out that Padilla's an American citizen, and that his basic constitutional rights (not to be held indefinitely, without trial) have been ignored by the Bush Administration. It took a court order after three years of this for the Bush Admin. to even start the process mandated by the Constitution of the United States.

It's not hyperbole, it's reality -- the Bush White House believes that its own desires trump the Constitutional rights of American citizens. And this isn't the only case... warrantless wiretapping, anybody? They had a legally-approved method to get a warrant, and they still ignored it. It's not hyperbole if it's happening as described.

I agree with CY! We need to throw out The Constitution when it is inconvenient! In fact, we should sacrifice our rights, our children, our treasure, and our way of life just to defeat the threat posed by these people! After all, the only way we're going to defeat these bloody Islamofascists is if we show them we can be even more tyrannically insane then they are!

Yeah, no hyperbole here. Just us tyrannically insane folks with no constitutional rights.

Put him in jail with the general population, identify him as a gang member and which gang. He won't last a week. Another of the terrorists loving dimmi's will shaft him in more ways than one.

Um, Scrapiron? Are you really advocating taking an American citizen who has only been charged and not yet convicted of any crime at all, and putting him in jail hoping he'll be killed by another prisoner? In essence, advocating the death penalty for someone not yet found guilty of anything?

I hope you're from another country, scrapiron, because that's not really a position I'd expect a real American to take. In the America where I grew up, we had this little thing called "due process," and we were very proud of the theory of "innocent until proven guilty."

Absolutely, Bohica;

We need to throw US citizens into jail without a trial and without charging them of any crimes and leave them in isolation for as long as we possibly can (it's been 3 years for Padilla)! Of course, that's not what The Constitution says, so we better just ignore it!

Learn to read, zadig.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Executive Branch does have the legal right to hold Padilla. I'm sorry that your "reality-based" worldview won't accept it, but the courts have already decided that the President does have the authority to militarily detain:

...a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.

Your concerns that everyone can be tossed in jail at any time for any reason has no basis in anything other than alarmist prattle.

You guys that are arguing against Padilla being in jail really need to understand how the American Justice System works. OK - let's charge with attempted mass-murder (doesn't really matter if there is evidence or not), slap him with a $10mil bail (or maybe $1 mil for every "potential" victim), and guess what? He sits in jail indefinitely - for years and years - with the general population, unless he asks for protective custody.

Eventually he gets a trial - eventually. But remember, there really is not such thing as a speedy-trial when prosecutors decide there isn't. So all that time passes while a man, not convicted of anything, sits in jail. Go read some case studies. You will find out that I am speaking the truth.

Just because you have rights as an American citizen, doesn't give you a magic "get out of jail free" card. If they want to hold you, they can.

BTW - shackling prisoners for transport from place to place happens every day in our prisons. There is nothing unusual there. Especially in Super-Max prisons. The goggles and noise protection was a bit over the top though. Prisoners are also subjected to periods of solitary confinement all the time. 3 years? Seems like a lot, but then again, in a regular prison it probably would be to protect his life. Even in Protective Custody he would probably be in his cell most of the day. Learn....before you speak.

Again, I agree with CY, even though the Federal Government has shown no evidence of a connection between Mr. Padilla and Al Qaeda. Nor has it shown evidence of any attempt by Mr. Padilla to commit any terrorist acts. It's obvious that we should just take the Government's word on this as no one there ever lies to get what they want!

And that $2 million they're paying to that attorney out in Oregon for defamation; well, that's just a good faith payment. Obviously, the Government wasn't wrong about him. They just only have a single isolation cell where they can throw somebody indefinitely. But they're building new ones as we speak!

Nice try, Yankee... the Bush Administration, knowing that on appeal the 4th circuit decision would be thrown out, decided to stop holding Padilla indefinitely rather than face the Supreme Court. See this link for a summary.

From the link:

But last year, in what was widely seen as an attempt to avoid a potentially adverse U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Bush's actions, Padilla's case was abruptly transferred back to a regular criminal court, where he was indicted on charges that he was part of a North American “jihad” cell that supported Islamic extremists overseas. The indictment made no mention of any plans to set off a “dirty bomb”;

I can read just fine... I can also see when the Constitution is being pounded by people who swore to uphold it, and lied in the process.

I agree with Specter. No one should expect to get a speedy trial, even though it says so in The Constitution. And the Government should have the right to throw Mr. Padilla in jail for as long as they want without charging him, because that's what the Government did. They didn't charge him for 3 years. They decided to charge him now, adding him as a defendant to the Miami Karate chop Kicking Islamofascists who were maybe contemplating a terrorist act on their day off after they might maybe could have figured out how to use the internets.

And, of course, the Government doesn't make mistakes, even though they designated a California Quakers group as a terrorist organization. You gotta watch out for them their quakers. They might pray you to death.

You're kidding me, right? A Michael Isikoff article on MSNBC is your "evidence"?

Isikoff also cited "widely seen" evidence of prisoner abuse including Koran's being flushed, and the resulting outrage on the infamous "Muslim street" led to 15 deaths. The only problem was that the events never took place.

Give me direct evidence of who "widely seen" is, naming names and providing links, and I'll be happy to discuss the issue, just don't provide vague assurances from a liar like Isikoff and expect me to find him credible.

I agree with CY. There is no evidence that Padilla has been held for 3 years without a trial. It could have been a secret trial where John Ashcroft presided and Attorney General Gonzalez was the prosecutor. Padilla, of course, since he's an insane terrorist, defended himself.

And as for being held in isolation for 3 years; why, wouldn't we all like to take a break from having to deal with the rest of humanity; have time for our thoughts (and only our thoughts as it seems Padilla was allowed no outside reading materials. You never know what kind of bomb he could have made from the pages of Sports Illustrated).

Jeez, you're in denial, Yankee. How about a Washington Post article:

In requesting the transfer to Justice Department custody, the government suggested that the 4th Circuit vacate its ruling allowing Padilla to be held as an enemy combatant. But the 4th Circuit yesterday also refused to lift the earlier decision and suggested that the Justice Department request was made to avoid further judicial scrutiny.

The judges said prosecutors had left "an appearance that the government may be attempting to avoid consideration of our decision by the Supreme Court." They said they welcomed Supreme Court intervention because of the "enormous implications" of the Padilla case.

So here's a judge saying that the gov't was ducking a Supreme Court review of the decision, instead of Isikoff. Happy now? Are you ready to admit that the government is thrashing the Constitution within an inch of its life? Or are you happy with your own version of "truthiness"?

Oh, look, here's another link backing me up from the Christian Science Monitor.

The 4th US Circuit Court of appeals in Richmond said that, by seeking to transfer Mr. Padilla to civilian custody after holding him for more than three and a half years without charge as an enemy combatant, the Bush administration appeared to be trying to "manipulate" the system to prevent the higher court from hearing the issue. The opinion, written by Judge Michael Luttig, a conservative jurist who had recently been considered a possible Supreme Court nominee, was considered a setback for the Bush administration.

Confederate Yankee:

Your link to the CNN article, published in May of '05, is a clear example of a biased person being disingenuous. A simple Google search will reveal the following (as you no doubt know, but failed to point out, just like a prosecutor who withholds exculpatory evidence):

THE PENTAGON admitted to at least five cases of "mishandling" The Koran in June of '05:

"The U.S. military released new details yesterday about five confirmed cases of U.S. personnel mishandling the Koran at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, acknowledging that soldiers and interrogators kicked the Muslim holy book, got copies wet, stood on a Koran during an interrogation and inadvertently sprayed urine on another copy."

Oh, and I expect you to believe that the urine was indeed sprayed "inadvertently", that none of the incidents were intentional, and that these were the only five instances.

Here's the link to the WaPo article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301654.html

Tony C.

OBrien,

Your lack of knowledge on how the system is showing. Yes - the Constitution, and the state-constitutions all say that there is a right to speedy trial. What you don't get, is that those are words, and they aren't necessarily taken to heart. Should they be? Of course. But, in practice - IOW - in REAL LIFE (as opposed to utopian dreams of people who don't really know how it works - kind of like you) - many, many people sit incarcerated for years and years due to high bond/bail, and prosecutorial foot dragging (or even defense foot dragging).

You will note that most of these same governing bodies have laws that say, in effect, "There will be no ureasonable bond set". But again, in real life, that may not hold true. We may not want it to be that way, but it happens all the time. Accused held for years before trial - in jail. And you know what the sad thing is (I mean besides people who don't know how the system works in real life?)? If those people are found innocent, they NEVER get that time back. NEVER.

Tony,

linky no worky

Specter:

It works for me if you cut and paste. Perhaps it is necessary to subscribe to the WaPo, so here's a different account of the same admission:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000946520

Tony,

Link is truncated. copy/paste won't work in that situation.

Try using either multiple lines, or html:

[a href="YOUR LINK HERE"]DESCRIPTIVE WORD HERE[/a]

Replace the [ with "".

Ayaaa...replace the [ and ] with the "less than" or "greater than" symbols on the keyboard (keys with the comma and period)

The 4th Circuit justices in your own cite, zadig, said that they welcomed SCOTUS invovlement in the case.

Do you recall what happened when SCOTUS did get involved? I do. The Supreme Court ordered for Padilla to be transferred, which is why he is now in a federal prison in Miami.

On April 3, 2006, SCOTUS declined to hear Padilla's appeal of the 4th Circuit's decision cited above, again, effectively cofirming that the Executive branch does have the power to detail this class of individual just as the 4th said it did previously. You and for that matter I) may not like that the Executive decded to go a different route, but it is quite obvious and SCOTUS-approved that they have the legal right to do so.

Oops.

Tony C, both of your own cites show that inadverdant mishandlings of the Koran by U.S. forces were outnumbered by intentional descecrations of the Koran by detainees 4-to-1. Not once was the false incident cited by Isikoff (a flushed Koran) supported, anywhere.

Newsweek apologized (with a Kerry-esque "non-apology apology"), and the Koran flushing incident, which lead to 15 deaths even though it never occurred, was put to rest.

As an aside, I'm rather disgusted that you are trying to justify allegations of a purposeful false event by using confirmations of accidental and/or very minor despoilments. I'd add that these minor and in all but one instance accidental despoilments pale in comparison to what the terrorists themselves have done.

Hi Specter,

Thanks for the advice. I'd say that the link is only truncated if your browser window is narrow. But even then, one can double-click on the URL, copy and paste successfully.

Please try that, and if it doesn't work for you I'll resort to the HTML route.

Regards,

Tony C.

Tony,

OK...When I open the comments section I get a small window.

But I did find this in the archives:

Pentagon Details Mishandling of Koran 5 Cases Confirmed at Guantanamo Bay Report of Flushing Found to Be False [FINAL Edition] The Washington Post - Washington, D.C. Author: Josh White and Dan Eggen Date: Jun 5, 2005 Start Page: A.25 Section: A SECTION Text Word Count: 926

"Mishandling a Koran at Guantanamo Bay is a rare occurrence," [Jay W. Hood] said in the statement. "Mishandling of a Koran here is never condoned. When one considers the many thousands of times detainees have been moved and cells have been searched since detention operations first began here in January 2002, I think one can only conclude that respect for detainee religious beliefs was embedded in the culture . . . from the start."

The most recent, and perhaps strangest, case of mishandling was documented on March 25, 2005, when a detainee complained to guards that urine came through an air vent in his cell and "splashed on him and his Koran while he laid near the air vent." According to Hood's investigation, the guard responsible reported himself to his superiors and was reassigned to gate duty. The detainee was given a new uniform and Koran.

Hood's investigation also turned up 15 incidents in which detainees mishandled Korans between Nov. 19, 2002, and Feb. 18, 2005. Many of the cases involved detainees ripping up their own Korans, throwing the Koran or its pages out of their cells, or trying to deface a Koran belonging to another detainee.

Now - this is only a preview of the article, and if I wasn't on a deadline on another project I would spend more time. But not - what you questioned originally was CY's statement that the "flushing of the Koran" was found to be false. Note in the Header section of my quote the line that says: Report of Flushing Found to Be False.

So while there may have been some problems (with disciplinary action against the guards to boot), CY's original statement was true - using your own source. Oh well......

Well....my quote was a day later by the same writers at WaPo

What SCOTUS acutally said is

Because this Court answers the jurisdictional question in the negative, it does not reach the question whether the President has authority to detain Padilla militarily.

That is, when CY says that SCOTUS confirmed that the Executive has this authority, he's simply making stuff up.

Note that the pinkos at the Cato Institute conclude that the Hamdi decision means that the President has no such authority.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-09-04-2.html

Tony,

Other than the fact that about a year and a half has passed, and there are a tremendous number of new articles on this topic, I have a few questions for you. Did you really read the whole article? 19 alleged incidents in 3 years, and 5 found to have merit. 1,600 Korans handed out in that time. Care to calculate the percentages to see how many incidents there were? (that would be either 1.2% if you take alleged, or .3% if you take admitted) And then would, would you like to speculate on how many of the prisoners there would purposely make false statements to make their guards look bad? I bet it is far larger than 10%.

I wonder how much money we spent on FBI / DOD investigations to find out these statistical aberrations? I bet millions. Wow...such a good use of money....

Obrien,

You are soooo funny - NOT!

But your attempts at satire - note the word attempts - show how shallow you are.

Did you know that most newspapers in MSM panned the judge in Detroit (Diggs) as being one of the worst decisions they had seen. Even people from your side said that. LOL. So much for your logic - oh and the fact that her decision was stayed within days. LOL.

BTW - Diggs is a District Court Judge, not a Circuit Court Judge. You might want to fact check before you look like more of an idyut than you already do. Also - what about her connections to the ACLU, who she ruled in favor of? Don't you think there might have been a conflict of interest there? I mean, she did belong to an organization that made grants to the ACLU.

Whenever I log in here and try to say something on the order of, "Isn't there an American way of doing things that everybody is supposed to be fighting to uphold?" what I get in response is, "Well, Doc, they're foreigners, so we don't have to follow the Constitution in this case."

Padilla isn't a foreigner. He's a U.S. citizen. He may also very well be a bad, bad guy, but even the bad, bad guys get due process if they're citizens.

If he's guilty, then prove it, toss him in the hoosegow and throw away the key.

The Framers knew that abuses like were likely to arise; that's why they included the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments were added to the Constitution specifically because those dudes knew that, somewhere down the road, someone would say, "We're going to take these rights away from you for your own good."

Mike Shilling, I'm very impressed.

You tried to use a Cato Institute article published in 2004 to say I was wrong about a SCOTUS decision made on 2006 in response to a 4th circuit decision arrived at in 2005.

Neat trick, time travel.

Yankee, you're really such a lightweight. The 4th circuit ordered that Padilla could be held. Padilla's counsel was going to appeal to the Supreme Court, so the Bush Administration quickly tried to make the problem (and the Supreme Court review) go away by transferring Padilla to the criminal justice system. With me so far?

The 4th Circuit said no, you can't do that. We just ruled you can keep him in your kangaroo court, and now you're trying to take him out? No way. So the Bush Admin went to the Supreme Court for permission to transfer Padilla to the same court system that Padilla's counsel had wanted him in all along, and the Supreme Court reversed the 4th Circuit and said OK, transfer him.

You're comparing two different sets of decisions and trying to pretend that it refutes something. What's still true, and supported by the links I posted, is that the 4th Circuit said Bush could steamroll Padilla's Constitutional rights, and when it looked as if the Supreme Court might get involved (and almost certainly overturn), the Bushies turned tail and ran to the criminal justice system.

Once there, of course, they abandoned all of the original allegations of dirty bombing and such that had justified keeping him without trial for three years, and made up some other crap that has yet to be proven.

And they should be ashamed of abandoning the United States system of justice and treating an American citizen so unjustly.

Doc,

The fact is, that Padilla would probably have been treated the same in the Federal system as in the military system. You are right though, he is a citizen and should have certain rights. But as I pointed out above, those rights are easy to trample anyways - Do I like that? No. But it is a fact of life. Can it be made better? Of course. How? Well - we can start with getting rid of all the case law....well...maybe it can't.

zadig,

no matter and so what. Charge him with whatever, set bond beyond what he can muster, and let him sit. Happens every day in this country.

Specter,

Just because you have rights as an American citizen, doesn't give you a magic "get out of jail free" card. If they want to hold you, they can.

Are you trying to make the argument that holding a prisoner without a court hearing is just what goes on every day?

Of course defendants sit in jail for years awaiting trial if they can't make bail, and no one said anythng about "get of jail free cards", OK? But anyone charged with a crime will appear in open court for arraingment within days of his arrest. The charges against him will be read aloud in court, and there will be charges against him. No one is held for three years before a court orders charges to be filed or the prisoner be released.

If you want to argue that this is what should be done to a "known" terrorist, fine. But don't try to argue that this is just how things work.

"The NY Times has published an article with the apparent goal of trying to generate sympathy for a terrorist."

I don't think that the article was trying to generate sympathy for a terrorist. I think the purpose of the article was to report facts about an extraordinary case. Can you point out any errors or omissions in the article that may skew the reader's point of view in favor of the defendant?

The article did not engender in me any sympathy for Mr. Padilla. If he is guilty he should rot.

The article did, however, make me realize that the executive branch's methods of handling these detainees are jeopardizing our ability to get convictions in these cases. It sounds like the case against him would have been a slam-dunk, and he would already be convicted and incarcerated. Now he may walk due to being "unfit for trial" as a result of our own practices. What harm is there in using our existing judicial system?

Pug,

That is not quite the point I was trying to make. As a citizen, Padilla should have been charged. But then, after that, his confinement may have been no different than what he was in over 3 years. Just being charged and having an arraignment does not guarantee anything. It is a formal hearing to enter a plea. Probable cause for the arrest should (note the word should) have already been established at the warrant stage (prosecutor presents case to judge and judge signs warrant - or gj - or whatever mechanism is being used). That is how our system works.

But what I keep hearing over this case is that the sense is, if only he had been charged, it would be over. That is utter nonsense. Cases can go on for years and years and the person stays incarcerated - sometimes in confinement.

As far as "known terrorist", well - that is a new world and we are still figuring out how to handle it. A whole new set of underlying law will have to be developed.

Joe,

You said:

The article did, however, make me realize that the executive branch's methods of handling these detainees are jeopardizing our ability to get convictions in these cases.

Maybe it should be modified to "this case", as we are talking about a specific case involving a US citizen. Do not conflate the case to the non-US citizens being held. Different apples.

Specter,

Allow me to conflate more elaborately: If Padilla's lawyers succeed in having him declared unfit for trial, then it will set a precedent for the non-citizen detainees as well -- after all, one's citizenship will not be considered to have material impact on the detainee's mental state as a result of mistreatment.

Reduced to calling names, zadig? I think we all knew it was simply a matter of time.

We're well aware of the fact that the 4th said Bush had the right to hold Padilla.. I was the one who cited it, remember? I do not, however, recall Judge Luttig calling it a "kangaroo court."

I am also aware of the fact that Justice decided to change tactics and decided to try Padilla in a criminal court, and that Luttug's panel wasn't happy with it... and yet again, I think they managed to somehow avoid saying Padilla's rights were beign "steamrolled"... probably becuase they were the ones that said his rights weren't.

So the 4th wasn't happy with the jursdiction shopping, and SCOTUS backed Justice's transfer request... how exactly did you determine that if the transfer had not been made, that SCOTUS would ""almost certainly" overturn the 4th's decision? Are you and Mike Shilling splitting the cost of calls to Dionne Warwick?

No, you do a pretty good job of reading want you want to read, and ignore the fact that if SCOTUS thought the President was pulling a fast one, they could have simply affirmed the lower court's decision and blocked the transfer. they didn't.

Joe,

Simple conflation. You are trying to take one case and imply it applies to others which have completely different circumstances. Not intellectually honest at best. US citizens have rights. POWs don't - well - at least not the same level. It's like you are saying that if a 68 year old driver leaves the left turn signal on at all times, then all boat drivers should be held to the same standard. LOL

And Joe,

How does one's mental state have any impact on how they are treated if they are not a US citizen? Circular logic?

Amazing, some of the comments I see. This "poor" guy was convicted of murder before he was even 18 yrs old!!!! Then arrested for pointing a gun at a florida officer.
Do not talk about him as if he is innocent until proven guilty, for this case he might still be awaiting trial, but he has been convicted of far worse already... I agree with CY, boo freakin hooo!!!

You do realize SCOTUS refused to hear the Padilla case twice, yes? Both on techincal grounds.

The first, in 2004, was on grounds of jurisdiction. The second, in 2006, was because, Padilla having been moved to the criminal justice system, the question of indefinite detention became moot. Without weighing in on the merits of Padilla's appeal, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote there was good reason for the court not to take up the case. Jutice Kennedy wrote:

Padilla is scheduled to be tried on criminal charges. Any consideration of what rights he might be able to assert if he were returned to military custody would be hypothetical.

Neither of these amounts to SCOTUS agreeing that the executive has the right to hold Padilla without charging him.

Specter,

And you're sooooo smart!

NOT!

And don't make fun of CY; it gets testy.

As to your points about Diggs:

1) Government made no case, so Diggs' ruling is based on what info she had. Look it up; our own government doesn't believe in its own court system!

2) So why aren't you complaining about Scalia not recusing himself from his duck hunting buddy's case. (Of course, that's different).

Obrien,

As usual, your points are irrelevant. You are the one who called Diggs a Circuit Court Judge, right? I see you dodged the conflict of interest issue. Typical. And ignored the fact that people from both sides ridiculed her ruling. Blind. Tried to change the subject. Normal. Sorry - you lose.

So conflict of interest only goes one way. Naturally. But to your point-She is a member of an organization which gives out grants to many other organizations. She doesn't have final say where the grant money goes. Scalia, OTOH, went duck hunting with Cheney and saw no conflict of interest. Like usual, you'll ignore that and say I missed the point. Like usual, you'll be wrong. Just like CY.

And it's always interesting that you get banned here when you say something that CY doesn't agree with but can't refute. Sensitive, aren't they.

Specter: he is a citizen and should have certain rights. But as I pointed out above, those rights are easy to trample anyways

You're implying that this makes a Padilla's detention okay, but it doesn't.

Still didn't answer the question didya? You keep bringing up Scalia. But you don't address Diggs Taylor, except to say that she "doesn't control where the money goes." But you should also remember that your leaders tried to smear Alito by saying that there was a COI issue on a case he had NO say on - no interest as it was between two other parties. You can't have it both ways. Even the appearance of impropriety...remember how Kennedy kept saying that? But I guess it doesn't apply in this case, right? Same old, same old.

But let's look further there Obey - The NYTimes ridiculed Diggs Taylor, as did the WaPo - both very conservative, right?

Try here for a good overview, with links to other places.

Emphasis mine:

More worrisome still are the judge’s breathtaking mistakes in analyzing the Fourth and First Amendments—errors that would earn our first-year law student an “F.” Here’s one of several examples: The judge asserts that the Fourth Amendment, in all cases, “requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause.” She cites no legal authority whatsoever for this colossal misstatement of the law, because none exists. Instead, there are numerous situations where our courts have found no prior warrant is required, so long as a search is “reasonable.” Fatal to her position is the very Supreme Court case she herself cites. This landmark 1972 electronic-surveillance decision, the Keith case, makes clear that, though it establishes a warrant requirement for purely domestic security cases (decidedly not what the TSP is, raising the alarming possibility the judge may think the TSP is a “domestic” program), the Fourth Amendment does not always require a prior warrant for government searches. Rather, the need for warrants depends on a balancing of the government’s legitimate needs, such as protecting us from attack, against other constitutional interests.

Lest there be any doubt as to whether Keith supported Judge Taylor’s view about the warrant requirement for communications with overseas terrorist groups, the Keith court stated that “the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.”

While Keith at least left open the question, a post-FISA case, also cited by Judge Taylor herself (In re Falvey), could not have more clearly dispensed with her claimed warrant requirement: “When, therefore, the President has, as his primary purpose, the accumulation of foreign intelligence information, his exercise of Article II power to conduct foreign affairs is not constitutionally hamstrung by the need to obtain prior judicial approval before engaging in wiretapping.”

Apparently Judge Taylor failed to read that portion of the Falvey opinion. She makes similarly striking mistakes on the issues of standing and separation-of-powers. Which brings us to the heart of the problem with the judge’s missive.

Read more about it at the link above. But in a few short paragraphs her ruling is made to look foolish, along with those who took it for granted. Sheesh. And you tell me to look it up. The facts opey are that Diggs Taylor made her ruling without proper evidentiary hearings. Some judge.

Note - in the above post, the three paragraphs after the quote should be included in the quote.

Sam S.,

If you read the whole thread and all of my comments you will note that I said I felt Padilla, as a US citizen, should have been charged.

The section you cherry-picked had to do with the fact that if the government wants to hold on to you - even if you are in the system and charged with a crime - it can. They simply make it impossible for you to get out by setting bail/bond so high that it is impossible to make. This happens every day in our judicial system.

So, stop cherry-picking. Try to follow along with the discussion rather than throwing stones.

Opey,

People get banned here for a reason. If you want to discuss and back up points, then so be it. But if you resort to calling names and swearing because you can't back up your point - well then it is CY's perogative. He does warn people first. Unlike say TruthOut, Larry Johnson, DU, etc. etc. who ban as soon as you post a contrary opinion. You can always host your own blog. It's easy.

If you read the whole thread and all of my comments you will note that I said I felt Padilla, as a US citizen, should have been charged.

I did read the whole thread. You said that suspected mass murderers sit in prison for years awaiting trial anyway.

The section you cherry-picked

I didn't cherry pick it, I judged that statement to be the most concise expression of the view I disagree with.

had to do with the fact that if the government wants to hold on to you - even if you are in the system and charged with a crime - it can. They simply make it impossible for you to get out by setting bail/bond so high that it is impossible to make. This happens every day in our judicial system.

This is different. Padilla sat in jail for three years without being charged. That's different.

So, stop cherry-picking. Try to follow along with the discussion rather than throwing stones.

AFAICT you're saying that it's okay or normal that Padilla sat in jail three years without being charged. I don't see it that way. Disagreeing with you is throwing stones?

zadig: Have you checked this slime balls criminal record. He comitted his first murder at age 14 and has been a repeat offender (illegal firearms) ever since. His rap sheet reads like a book of nightmares for anyone he comes into contact with. Maybe if he's released he will meet one of your family members and see they have two dollars in their pocket, he will slit their throat to get it. He's that kind of criminal.

And to answer your questions,
Yes I am an American and served 22 years in the military, have over 12 years as a volunteer firefighter, 8 years in EMS (volunteer) and i'm tired of your slimeball dimmi liberals letting terrorists back on the street to kill again.

Yes I advocate putting this slime ball gang member and terrorists in the general population and allowing the other prisoners to have some fun before they slit his throat.
Yes, I think you bleeding heart liberals should be holding his hand when they slit his throat so they only have to take one step to slit your throat. That's one bloody mess I would enjoy cleaning up.

Tony C.: I would like to see the comode that is capable of flushing a Koran. What was it made for, the Jolly Green Giant? No common sense, actually no brains in the entire liberal world. Liberalism is truly a mental illness.

specter,

When did I swear or call anyone a name on this thread? If you look at my posts, not one has a single swear word or name-calling. So why do you have to lie about that?

As I said in an earlier post, and you ignored, Taylor's opinion is based on what evidence she was given and since the Federal Government believed that it could ignore giving evidence in this case, she made her ruling based on only the evidnece given. Whether her ruling is correct or not has no bearing on the point I was trying to make; that you and CY fawn over the 4th Circuit ruling in the Padilla case but whine like babies about Taylor's ruling in the NSA case. Strikes me as hypocritical. But, of course, you can't see that. Just like you can't see the hypocrisy when Scalia goes duck hunting with Cheney before hearing a case involving Cheney.

You're so focused on scoring political points (though you have none worth a damn - is damn considered a swear word, I wonder), that you'll subvert the truth. Too bad honesty doesn't play as large a role in your worldview as just scoring points.

Oh, and Specter,

The eliminationist rhetoric is coming from your side. Just look at the lovely thoughts emanating from the mouths of such stalwarts as Scrapiron. None of the so-called liberals on this post has called for the death of any of you.

People who live in Glass houses and all...

You see Opie,

You slay me! LOL. I never said that there was nothing inappropriate about Cheney/Scalia. You did, but then throw away the arguments about inappropriate behavior on Diggs Taylor. You are the one trying to have it both ways. Sorry.

Did you read the article I linked? I bet not. I notice you haven't thrown up any proof of your statements. Try it.

Sam S.

Cherry-picked again. I guess you missed the part where I said (it was only the first paragraph of my last post to you - you must have skipped it for some reason):

If you read the whole thread and all of my comments you will note that I said I felt Padilla, as a US citizen, should have been charged.

Now what could that statement mean? I would guess that it means that I don't agree with a US citizen being held like Padilla was. Any person of reasonable intelligence would have picked up on that meaning. Guess where that puts you? LOL

But - You still miss the point. If the government had wanted, they could have arrested Padilla and charged him with however many counts of "conspiracy to commit murder" or some such charge and then set bail so high he would not have gotten out. He could have been sent to a Super-Max and treated basically the same as he was. So, even though I do not agree with how his case (and just that case) was handled, I still claim that he could have been held. All your rhetoric has done nothing to change the fact. Instead you try to find fault with what I said as if I was not speaking the truth somehow. Sorry. I was. Personally, I think that is the way government should have gone, not withstanding what CY published in the Update to this story.

Remember - I am not speaking from the POV of "Wouldn't it be nice if the government acted this way in our utopian thought process?" I am speaking for the POV of "THis is real life, and this is how it works." I may not agree with "how it works" but at least I am grounded enough in reality to recognize it. Unlike some others I could name...

Opie,

When did I swear or call anyone a name on this thread? If you look at my posts, not one has a single swear word or name-calling. So why do you have to lie about that?

I call BS on you. You made the comment that people get banned:

Opie at December 4, 2006 07:01 PM:

And it's always interesting that you get banned here when you say something that CY doesn't agree with but can't refute. Sensitive, aren't they.

All I did was, from the perspective of someone who has been around this site for quite some time, explain why people get banned:

Specter said:

People get banned here for a reason. If you want to discuss and back up points, then so be it. But if you resort to calling names and swearing because you can't back up your point - well then it is CY's perogative. He does warn people first.

OK - so maybe I should have used the word "one" instead of "you". But I really never said you swore and called names, did I?

And you say that CY is sensitive? Holy Crow Batman - talk about paranoia...LOL

You constantly cite the 4th Circuit decision without realizing it undercuts your own argument. Jose Padilla is not "a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda" (at least he is not accused of this). Nor is he someone "who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war" he is not accused of that either, and further he was arrested in Chicago. By the 4th Circuit's own definition he should not be held with trial.

You constantly cite the 4th Circuit decision without realizing it undercuts your own argument. Jose Padilla is not "a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda" (at least he is not accused of this). Nor is he someone "who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war" he is not accused of that either, and further he was arrested in Chicago. By the 4th Circuit's own definition he should not be held without trial.