From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 13:31:06 MDT
On Monday, June 17, 2002, at 09:14 am, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, that's not good enough. I posted specific links on CNN that
dispute your statement. CNN is not reporting what you claim. They are
reporting just the opposite. Padilla was denied access to an attorney
(although there is one appointed), was never put through the civilian
court, and it was President Bush who decided the venue, not the courts.
> 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.
The lawyer was appointed, but has never physically met her client. The
Bush Administration said Friday that they might provide her with
"limited" access in the future. They still insist that he does not have
the right to a lawyer since he is not charged with any crime and has
never been in any court.
In the absence of specific references, I am just going to have to
believe CNN over your vague claims that you hear it somewhere.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:52 MST