[Culturechat] Rumsfeld v. Padilla--Domestic & International Implications
Boris Sojka
borissojka@adelphia.net
Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:15:58 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0081_01C42D2B.53BCEAF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First it is the Muslims.
But we don't care, we're not Muslims.
Then it's radical activists.
But we don't care, we're not radical activists.
Then it's the writers and speechmakers against the administration.
But we don't care we're not.......
Nah! It can't happen here.
We're a civilized nation....
Boris Sojka
=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: WesTexas@aol.com=20
To: culturechat@untours.com=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: [Culturechat] Rumsfeld v. Padilla--Domestic & International =
Implications
Following is a summary of this case, if you have not been following =
it. =20
This case actually has both domestic and international implications. =
The Bush administration's position is that they indefinitely detain =
anyone--U.S. citizen or not--based on a unilateral order by the =
president.
Jose Padilla is a Brooklyn-born, Chicago-bred, Muslim convert of =
Puerto Rican descent.=20
He has been held by the U.S. military as an enemy combatant for 20 =
months. He was initially arrested in the U.S. on a material witness =
warrant by the FBI. Shortly, thereafter, he was taken into custody by =
the military.=20
He is suspected of participating in a plot to set off a radiological =
dirty bomb in the U.S. He has never been charged with a crime. The =
U.S. military refused to grant him access to an attorney until very =
recently, when they allowed him to meet with his attorney, but without =
attorney-client privilege (the interview was witnessed and videotaped by =
the military).
In December, the Second Court of Appeals directed the government to =
release Padilla within 30 days or to hold him on =E2=80=9Clegislatively =
conferred=E2=80=9D grounds--such as by charging him with a crime and =
affording him constitutional protections. The court said that the =
president possessed no inherent constitutional authority as commander in =
chief to detain as enemy combatants American citizens captured on =
American soil. =20
This case is now before the Supreme Court. The basic question here is =
what price are we willing to pay for security. =20
However, you need to understand precisely the position that the Bush =
administration is taking. They are asserting that they have the right =
to come into your home, take you into custody and to indefinitely detain =
you without charging you with a crime and without allowing you access to =
an attorney--if George Bush asserts that you are an enemy combatant.=20
For the first time in history, because of the Padilla case, the =
International Red Cross insisted on the right to interview an American =
citizen who was arrested and detained in America.=20
There is a front page story on the Padilla case in the Sunday New York =
Times (4/25/04).
From news reports (4/28/04):
''Congress was acting in immediate response to attacks carried out =
within the nation's borders'' when it voted to endorse broad White House =
authority to go after terrorists, administration lawyers argued in a =
(Supreme) court filing.
Lawyers for Padilla say Congress did no such thing and the White House =
has overstepped its authority. ''If the government's position were =
accepted, it would mean that for the foreseeable future, any citizen, =
anywhere, at any time, would be subject to indefinite military detention =
on the unilateral order of the president,'' their filing said.
------=_NextPart_000_0081_01C42D2B.53BCEAF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BF<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>First it is the=20
Muslims.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>But we don't care, we're not=20
Muslims.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Then it's radical=20
activists.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>But we don't care, we're not =
radical=20
activists.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Then it's the writers and =
speechmakers=20
against the administration.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>But we don't care we're=20
not.......</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Nah! It can't happen=20
here.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We're a civilized=20
nation....</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Boris =
Sojka</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DWesTexas@aol.com =
href=3D"mailto:WesTexas@aol.com">WesTexas@aol.com</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dculturechat@untours.com=20
href=3D"mailto:culturechat@untours.com">culturechat@untours.com</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 28, 2004 =
1:39=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Culturechat] Rumsfeld =
v.=20
Padilla--Domestic & International Implications</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3DHelvetica =
color=3D#000000=20
size=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF">Following is a summary of this case, if =
you have not=20
been following it. <BR><BR>This case actually has both domestic =
and=20
international implications. The Bush administration's position =
is that=20
they indefinitely detain anyone--U.S. citizen or not--based on a =
unilateral=20
order by the president.<BR><BR>Jose Padilla is a Brooklyn-born, =
Chicago-bred,=20
Muslim convert of Puerto Rican descent. <BR><BR>He has been held =
by the=20
U.S. military as an enemy combatant for 20 months. He was =
initially=20
arrested in the U.S. on a material witness warrant by the FBI. =
Shortly,=20
thereafter, he was taken into custody by the military. <BR><BR>He =
is=20
suspected of participating in a plot to set off a radiological dirty =
bomb in=20
the U.S. He has never been charged with a crime. The U.S. =
military=20
refused to grant him access to an attorney until very recently, when =
they=20
allowed him to meet with his attorney, but without attorney-client =
privilege=20
(the interview was witnessed and videotaped by the =
military).<BR><BR>In=20
December, the Second Court of Appeals directed the government to =
release=20
Padilla within 30 days or to hold him on =E2=80=9Clegislatively =
conferred=E2=80=9D=20
grounds--such as by charging him with a crime and affording him =
constitutional=20
protections. The court said that the president possessed no =
inherent=20
constitutional authority as commander in chief to detain as enemy =
combatants=20
American citizens captured on American soil. <BR><BR>This =
case is=20
now before the Supreme Court. The basic question here is what =
price are=20
we willing to pay for security. <BR><BR>However, you need =
to=20
understand precisely the position that the Bush administration is=20
taking. They are asserting that they have the right to come into =
your=20
home, take you into custody and to indefinitely detain you without =
charging=20
you with a crime and without allowing you access to an attorney--if =
George=20
Bush asserts that you are an enemy combatant. <BR><BR>For the =
first time=20
in history, because of the Padilla case, the International Red Cross =
insisted=20
on the right to interview an American citizen who was arrested and =
detained in=20
America. <BR><BR>There is a front page story on the Padilla case =
in the=20
Sunday New York Times (4/25/04).<BR><BR>From news reports=20
(4/28/04):<BR></FONT><FONT face=3DGeneva color=3D#000000 size=3D2=20
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"><BR>''Congress was acting in immediate response =
to attacks=20
carried out within the nation's borders'' when it voted to endorse =
broad White=20
House authority to go after terrorists, administration lawyers argued =
in a=20
(Supreme) court filing.<BR><BR>Lawyers for Padilla say Congress did no =
such=20
thing and the White House has overstepped its authority. ''If =
the=20
government's position were accepted, it would mean that for the =
foreseeable=20
future, any citizen, anywhere, at any time, would be subject to =
indefinite=20
military detention on the unilateral order of the president,'' their =
filing=20
said.</FONT><FONT face=3DGeneva color=3D#000000 size=3D2 =
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF"></FONT>=20
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0081_01C42D2B.53BCEAF0--