From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 07:14:25 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 16, 2002, at 06:31 pm, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> > I think though that everyone is assuming that Padilla just was dragged
> > off to military prison when he was arrested. This is not the case. He
> > went before a civilian court, with his attorney, where the state
> > presented the case that the proper venue for the case was a military
> > tribunal, based on the evidence available, the amount of classified
> > evidence involved, and the prior SCOTUS precedent. They judge agreed and
> > the venue was changed.
>
> Do you have any references for this, Mike? I can't find any news
> stories that describe what you just related. All the stories I can find
> say that Padilla has never seen a lawyer, was never allowed access to a
> civilian court, and will never be arrested or charged with anything.
> Where are you getting your version of the news?
Reading my local newspaper and watching both CNN and FOX news channels.
Plus I pay attention.
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/11/prisoner.status/index.html> says:
> - that Padilla "has not been charged with any crime"
> - "may be held indefinitely without being charged until the
> U.S.-declared war against terrorism ends."
> - "U.S. authorities can interrogate the suspect in a more aggressive
> fashion, and restrict his access to an attorney."
The fact is that he has an attorney, who has apparently been spending
more time trying to get her mug in front of a camera than actually
defending her client in the courts. He had this attorney prior to being
hauled off to military confinement, and she represented him at the
hearing at which it was agreed that he was an enemy combatant.
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/14/padilla.justice/index.html> says:
> - "the Bush administration says the executive branch alone can decide
> when a person qualifies as an enemy combatant."
This is, in fact, the case. A military officer shouldn't have to ask
their congressmonster or the Supreme Court every time s/he wants to open
fire on the enemy or capture enemy soldiers and confine them to prevent
the enemy from continuing attacks on our troops.
> - "In a closed-door meeting with congressional staffers, Justice
> officials said President Bush made the decision to transfer Padilla to
> military custody"
Bush made the decision to seek that transfer, as he had originally been
held on a material witness warrant.
> - "Justice Department staff told congressional officials that Padilla
> would have "limited" access to an attorney to help determine the
> question of whether he has rights in the civilian court system."
>
> <http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/12/inv.padilla.hearing/index.html>
> indicates that as of Wednesday, he still had not been allowed to see a
> lawyer.
He saw his lawyer a month ago when he was first apprehended coming into
the country. How else would a destitute ex-con like him have acquired
one after not being in the country for a number of years? His attorney
is, in fact, a court appointed public defender. He could not have
acquired a public defender to represent him if he had not previously
requested one before some court.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:51 MST