.

Jose Padilla is you.

A Readers Commentary. 11/18/03 (ICH) 

5th Amendment to U.S. Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What the following news story fails to mention is-- that JOSE PADILLA IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
An American citizen who - on the whim of our esteemed moronic leader, who is know far and wide for his brilliant ability to weigh evidence and Intelligence information in the most incisive manner- has been jailed, incommunicado, for a year and a half, with no legal recourse, and no charges filed against him.

The American Revolution was fought precisely against this - the English were arresting people - with no charges or evidence, and jailing them incommunicado for years. We have been invaded. There has been a Regime Change in the US. If this is OK with you, then do nothing.

Appeals Court Weighs Case of Enemy Combatant 
Judges Question Executive Branch Powers in Patriot Act 

By Michelle Garcia
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 18, 2003; Page A03 


NEW YORK, Nov. 17 -- Two federal appeals judges sharply questioned whether the president alone had the power to designate a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant, and one of them noted that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "didn't repeal the Constitution."

A three-member appeals court panel peppered a government lawyer with questions as it considered the case of Jose Padilla, who is suspected of conspiring with al Qaeda to explode a radiological "dirty bomb." The government never formally charged Padilla, 33, who has been locked for 18 months in a naval brig in South Carolina, without access to family, friends or a lawyer.

Judge Rosemary S. Pooler questioned whether Congress intended to grant such extraordinary powers to the executive branch. "If, in fact, the battlefield is the United States, I think Congress has to say that, and I don't think they have yet," she said, adding later that "as terrible as 9/11 was, it didn't repeal the Constitution." 

Another panel member, Judge Barrington D. Parker, said: "Were we to construe the Constitution as permitting this kind of power in the executive with only modest judicial review, we would be effecting a sea change in the constitutional life of this country and making changes that would be unprecedented in civilized society."

A lower court ruled that Padilla has a right to meet with a lawyer. The Bush administration appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Many legal observers expect the case to end up in the Supreme Court.

Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who traveled from Washington to argue Monday's case, answered the judges' questions by evoking the image of a nation at war. To allow suspects such as Padilla to talk with lawyers, Clement said, would jeopardize the government's ongoing interrogation. "Al Qaeda made the battlefield the United States, and they've given every indication they're trying to make the United States the battlefield again," he said.

Clement, however, suggested for the first time that Padilla eventually might gain access to a lawyer, once his value as an intelligence source ends. "Trust the executive to make [a] judgment about intelligence value," Clement said. "The authority to hold enemy combatants has always been held part and parcel of war power."

Defense attorneys rejoined that the government has no right to deny an American citizen access to a lawyer. "The government's position has no limits. Under this theory, the government could do this to anyone at any time," said Jenny S. Martinez, a law professor at Stanford University and member of Padilla's legal team. "This new power of the government is really unprecedented." 

For all of their sharp questioning of government lawyers, the judges also evinced concern about tying the president's hands. Judge Richard C. Wesley asked a series of questions during which defense attorneys conceded that a president had the right to hold and interrogate a suspect who posed an imminent threat. 

The federal government has never charged Padilla with a crime. FBI officials took him into custody in May 2002, when he arrived at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago. The agents served Padilla with a material witness warrant and transported him to a federal detention center in New York City, where a judge appointed Donna Newman as his legal representation.

But the defense attorneys never talked with their client. On June 9, 2002, two days before a judge was to hear a court challenge to Padilla's detention, President Bush designated him an "enemy combatant," and Padilla was taken to a naval brig in South Carolina. Government officials have said they relied on two sources, who told them that Padilla had met with al Qaeda members to hatch a plan to detonate a dirty bomb.

Padilla's attorneys have challenged his designation as an enemy combatant, saying that one has recanted his accusations and the other has a history of providing false information. Wesley noted that the Patriot Act, passed by Congress in 2001, places strict limits on how long a government may detain a noncitizen without bringing charges. He contrasted that with the Padilla case.

"Isn't it curious," Wesley asked Clement, "that an alien is treated better than a citizen?"

Padilla is one of three detainees the administration has designated enemy combatants. The others are Ali S. Marri, a citizen of Qatar who was apprehended while living in Illinois, and Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in November 2001. He also is being held at the naval base in South Carolina.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that the government could hold Hamdi without accusing him of a crime or allowing him meet with attorneys. Hamdi's case is now before the Supreme Court. 

© 2003 The Washington Post Company