Sunday Links: Politics

[zarq]

Under pressure from an impending Supreme Court case -- more than four years after 9/11 and three and a half years after his arrest, -- Jose Padilla, American citizen, (BBC profile,) has been charged with crimes by the Federal government. It’s not the ‘dirty bomb’ plot he was arrested for, either. Instead, “the Justice Department’s 31-page

Comments

Propaganda or fact?

[gbam]

I don't think it's any more propaganda to claim that Osama bin Laden and like-minded folk want to establish a caliphate than it is to say that the United States wants every country to be a democracy and is willing to kill and undermine exisitng governments to do it. Both sides say it, and both sides mean it.

It may indeed be a "silly threat" that a caliphate will ever be established but as thousands of innocents of all religions and nationalities are slaughtered around the world, it does serve to explain why people decide to blow themselves up for a larger cause - I really doubt it's just for the 72 virgins.

Also, I find the poll that is used to show that only 6% of (relatively moderate) Muslim populations support bin Laden. This actually proves the success of the War on Terror. To support both my points (Osama was super poular and that tens of millions still support him) at the same time, a poll came out in July, showing a significant drop in support for bin Laden , yet still his "approval rating" was well into the double digits.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html

Re: Propaganda or fact?

[zarq]

Propaganda.

This administration continues to promote worst-case scenarios as likely outcomes of a failure to support their policies knowing full well that the chance of them coming true -- whether the Bush administration is in power or not -- is practically zero. That, my friend is practically a textbook definition of propaganda.

Re: Propaganda or fact?

[gbam]

If you would have told me before 9/11 that we arrested some Egyptian guy because his learning to fly airplanes meant that he was part of a conspiracy to destroy the Twin Towers,Pentagon and the White House, I would have laughed and called it propaganda too, maybe even anti-Muslim.

After that experience, when you find a convicted murderer who converted to Islam training in al-Qaeda camps after 9/11, you have to take it a little more seriously. I really doubt that Padilla traveled half way around the world to a war zone on a spiritual journey - but I could be wrong. The Government was tracking him before his arrest, so I don't think there should be any doubt that he was with al-Qaeda.

Needlesss to say, most judicial systems encourage easier indictments (Al Capone, Bill Clinton, Scooter Libby even Saddam Hussein) when it's convenient. That doesn't mean that the original accusation is wholly false.

To turn things around on you (in a nice way), to try to strike fear in your readers that every American citizen should fear being thrown in the slammer for life on a presidential whim seems like propaganda to me.

Re: Propaganda or fact?

[zarq]

Fear of potential danger is not an adequate reason for the government to violate the law. Ask any lawyer. For example, one can't legally go shooting people in the head because they looked menacing.

By the same token, it doesn't matter whether you, his own grandmother, your mother, the Psychic Friends Network or George "Strahteegery" Bush believe he should be locked up and the key thrown away. He's an American citizen, and only a suspect, entitled to the following:

From here: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html

Amendment V
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.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Simple translation: The Federal government can't arrest an American citizen and hold him without bail, counsel, trial, liberty or property indefinitely. Which is precisely what they did. It took them three and a half years to get off their asses and indict him. When they did, they couldn't even charge him with the reasons they arrested him for.

The precedent shown by this administration's actions is dangerous as hell: Padilla's constitutional rights as an American citizen have been blatantly violated on no apparent evidence with (until now) no hope of a trial because they thought he just might be a danger. Better safe than sorry does not apply when it comes to the criminal justice system. That's why so much work was put into eliminating such repugnant practices as pulling over people for "Driving While Black," over the past few decades. Such an excuse (better safe than sorry) is certainly not a blank check for the FBI or CIA when it comes to American citizens acting suspiciously. In a democracy, that's not a good enough reason. The guy was arrested at O'Hare! The Bush administration aggressively blocked Padilla's ability to have a trial and only caved when it looked like the Supreme Court would step in.

So, now, despite the administration's desires, Padilla's getting a trial. I certainly hope justice is served. If he's convicted on evidence, may he rot in a prison for the rest of his life.

To turn things around on you (in a nice way), to try to strike fear in your readers that every American citizen should fear being thrown in the slammer for life on a presidential whim seems like propaganda to me.

Unfortunately for the legitimacy of your argument, the Bush administration has actually been pushing for the legal ability to do precisely this for several years now.

Re: Propaganda or fact?

[gbam]

OK - you win. I'm still not worried though - I have a feeling that justice will prevail in the end until Bush disbands the Supreme Court or something like that.

Re: Propaganda or fact?

[zarq]

Unfortunately, I doubt Clinton and the Dems would have handled this situation much differently.
This is one of the big reasons I'm really in favor of a small government that keeps its nose out of my private life. I don't have anything to hide, (would that I had the money to launder, eh?) :) but because of stuff like this, I don't trust our government to necessarily have my best interests at heart.

That doesn't mean I'm about to sink into Paranoiac Survivalist Mode™. :)

Re: Propaganda or fact?

[zarq]

The Government was tracking him before his arrest, so I don't think there should be any doubt that he was with al-Qaeda.

History gives lie to this statement.

Has our government:

* Never held people before without the ability to convict them of anything? * Never arrested people and had to release them for lack of evidence?
* Never been defeated when they put someone on trial?
* Never placed anyone under surveillance for what turned out to be bogus reasons?

Doubt abounds, my friend.

We are bound by laws which form the foundation of our civilization.