More On Padilla
While I've got a break to blog (wife is at the day spa enjoying a facial, milk bath and pedicure) I thought I'd comment on Newsweek Magazine's latest article on the Jose Padilla case.
Some of the information, if true, bothers me. For instance, the idea that the Fed's have asked the Supreme Court not to review his case, based on the indictment issued last week; and at the same time a "Senior Justice Department Lawyer" mentioning they still consider Padilla an enemy combatant and can detain him at anytime.
(click "read full post for the rest)
If Justice, or the Executive branch want to hold him as an "enemy combatant" fine, as I've said before, I agree with that. However, they also need to let the court rule in his case, because of his US citizenship. Gaming the system doesn't do anyone any good.
Other disturbing info though is that we (the US, FBI specifically) had been monitoring Padilla and a group of militants from 1994 to 2000, and then quit because they weren't sure they could justify it any longer. I'm sorry, but someone in the FBI (circa 2000) needs to be strung up. Go read the article, and realize how much info it talks about. Is there any realistic way to believe, just with that info, that they weren't on to something if not big, at the very least dangerous?
The article actually makes a good point for the Patriot Act, saying that after it was passed, and groups allowed to share info, they started realizing they had been onto something important.
This will be an interesting case to watch, both in the Supreme Court and regular courts. I think the Supreme Court, based on the above statements from Justice, should hear the case. A ruling on whether US citizens can be "enemy combatants" would do a lot to clear up some of the WOT whining, (or start some more).
Some of the information, if true, bothers me. For instance, the idea that the Fed's have asked the Supreme Court not to review his case, based on the indictment issued last week; and at the same time a "Senior Justice Department Lawyer" mentioning they still consider Padilla an enemy combatant and can detain him at anytime.
(click "read full post for the rest)
If Justice, or the Executive branch want to hold him as an "enemy combatant" fine, as I've said before, I agree with that. However, they also need to let the court rule in his case, because of his US citizenship. Gaming the system doesn't do anyone any good.
Other disturbing info though is that we (the US, FBI specifically) had been monitoring Padilla and a group of militants from 1994 to 2000, and then quit because they weren't sure they could justify it any longer. I'm sorry, but someone in the FBI (circa 2000) needs to be strung up. Go read the article, and realize how much info it talks about. Is there any realistic way to believe, just with that info, that they weren't on to something if not big, at the very least dangerous?
The article actually makes a good point for the Patriot Act, saying that after it was passed, and groups allowed to share info, they started realizing they had been onto something important.
This will be an interesting case to watch, both in the Supreme Court and regular courts. I think the Supreme Court, based on the above statements from Justice, should hear the case. A ruling on whether US citizens can be "enemy combatants" would do a lot to clear up some of the WOT whining, (or start some more).
posted by Crazy Politico at 4:44 PM
1Comments:
Reading the newsweek and Post stuff on him, I think the more the public knows, the more outraged some might become at a certain previous administration for not doing something in the 6 years of monitoring.
Post a Comment
<< Home