From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 09:57:06 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 07:35:34PM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > There is also a very efficient media whitewash of news imho.
>
> While there is a lot of bias, I think it is also overstated as a source
> of sheepish behavior. I'm actually pleasantly surprised by the amount of
> criticism levelled even by american media at the government's handling
> of the Padilla case - for once they might actually be doing their jobs.
> The next step is of course up to the public: to demand better
> accountability and transparency.
The Padilla case is interesting. It is not as though this hasn't been
done before. Of the six Nazi saboteurs arrested coming ashore in New
Jersey during WWII, who were later tried by military tribunals and
hanged, two were American citizens. Padilla is no less culpable, based
on the evidence in the public domain so far, than those American
citizens were. He is known to have traveled to a central asian country
in search of radiological materials, he is known to have gone through Al
Qaeda training and is documented to have made plans to manufacture and
deliver a radiological weapon to an American target. His trip to the US
was ostensibly a scouting operation to seek out targets for a
radiological attack.
Nor is Padilla a queaky clean citizen. He is a muliple felon, previously
convicted on drug, assault, and weapons charges. I wouldn't be surprised
if this were his third strike conviction for a life sentence at a
minimum if he were in a civilian court.
The only real question that can be debated is whether the Supreme Court,
in 1942, erred in agreeing to the constitutionality of trying Nazi
American infiltrators under military tribunals. This is a fair point to
debate, and I have no doubt that the case will wind up back before the
court to see if the Reagan/Bush/Clinton panel, led by Rhenquist, is any
more lenient than that led by FDR appointees back in '42. The problem
with giving him a civilian court is that he'll pull the same BS that
Moussaui is playing in demanding access to all evidence and unlimited
phone access (obviously in order to communicate intelligence information
gleaned from classified evidence to his Al Qaeda confederates).
Personally, I think the government is playing both cases wrong. They
should give both defendants access to gussied up fake evidence and
access to a phone as a trap, then trace who they call to give the
information to. They can then bring real treason charges against the two
and have them both shot, while hunting down their confederates.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:49 MST