Sunday, November 19, 2006

Crimes against humanity

So here is an American citizen, held for three years without charges, publicly defamed, possibly tortured and now quite likely not even guilty.

If impeachment is off the table, then who will answer for the crimes of this administration?

(hat tip to Andrew Sullivan).

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't even know where to begin anymore. What an absolute mess. Kissinger admits there is no chance of a military victory in Iraq. McCain wants to send more troops. And here at home we have the Patriot Act and even worse the Military Commissions Act (I think that is the correct name.) Lincoln (I think) said something to the effect that a person who would give up freedom for security deserves neither. Seems right on point.

Mark Tokarski said...

Who will answer for the kids killed by sanctions in Iraq? Who will answer for 3-4 million dead Vietnamese? Nobody! What are you thinking? People who did those crimes sit on panels, hold prestigious posts in think tanks and universities, write books and appear on talk shows. That's the whole point - being American means you never have to answer to anyone for crimes committed against people of lesser value than us.

Eric said...

David, you're overreaching here.

Padilla traveled to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. On his return, he was arrested by federal agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002, and held as a material witness on a warrant issued in the state of New York stemming from the September 11, 2001 attacks.

He was also 'ratted out' by other terrorists as plotting further attacks.

Sounds like the kind of guy I WANT to see imprisoned.

David said...

Eric,
That's unbelievable.

1. If traveling to those countries is a crime, then Condoleezza Rice should be in prison.

2. It isn't a crime to be a witness. If he did anything wrong, he should be charged.

3. He was "ratted out"? Book him! Try him!

Your casual attitude about tossing Americans charged with no crimes into prison for indefinite terms proves that you are no conservative.

Eric said...

Let me get this straight - you've got top terror leaders in custody, who identify this man as a terrorist.

He has a muslim name also, and has been travelling throughout the mideast.

That alone is enough to pick him up, and there was obviously enough evidence that they didn't want to release him.

It's not like a DUI David.

Why not wait until his trial before persecuting military justice?

David said...

Eric, If you don't have enough evidence to charge him, then you can't try him. And if you can't try him, then you can't keep him locked up forever in hopes that someday something will turn up. Sorry if that makes you feel insecure, but that's America.

Anonymous said...

ARAB SOUNDING NAME??? LOCK HIM UP FOR THAT?! Wow, but that's just a wee bit INSANE! But hey, take a gander at this name: eric. Remind you of sumthin'? That's right. ErAK! Lock that terrorist up! Sounds WAY more terroristic than a Hispanic-sounding Padilla! Yes, eric sounds like Tariq, as in Tariq Aziz!.........methinks that Coobs has gone off the far side!
LK

Anonymous said...

I have to respond to Eric Coob. You call yourself a "conservative" but for reason you think it is OK just to hold a guy indefinitely. A conservative would never think that constitutional rights should be disregarded. By Gosh, if there is evidence to justify a charge, then charge him. Try him. If convicted, then sentence him. But to just hold someone cuz he has traveled around (kind of like Bush)makes no sense. What was he a witness to? It is not a crime to be a witness--lots of people who witness bank robberies would be locked up under this scenario.

Anonymous said...

If you deny one group of citizens (or even non-citizens) their rights, everyone is less free. And one of the many reasons why people want to come to this country (a recent survey asked, "If you couldn't live in your country, which country would you like to live in?" and the vast majority said the USofA, with Canada a distant second -- and this survey included countries that call us "The Great Satan") is that here a person is considered innocent until the state proves otherwise. It ain't perfect, but it's a lot better than the other way around. (Ask anybody who's had to endure the tender mercies of the KGB, the Gestapo, the Stasi, or the Red Guards. If you can find any who lived.)

Kirk Dooley
Mesa, AZ

DMerriman said...

"And if you can't try him, then you can't keep him locked up forever in hopes that someday something will turn up. Sorry if that makes you feel insecure, but that's America."

Um... Considering the original posting, shouldn't that have been "...that's what America USED to be."?

Welcome to the United States of Amerika.

Mark said...

Jose Pasilla (Abdullah al-Muhajir) was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on 11-22-05.
Before that, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals looked at the case against him and ruled that he could be held indefinetly.
On April 3rd of this year, the Supreme Court affirmed that decision.
So how do you blame Padillas plight on the administration, or call it a crime against humanity Crisp?
Deer Lodge is full of men claiming to be innocent, and Padilla is no different.

Anonymous said...

I wanna know something here. Just what the hell kinda name is "coobs"?? Sounds kinda foreign to me! Subversive almost! In any case, it doesn't sound like a good, all American name! Justify yourself, mr. coobs. Why shouldn't YOU be locked up just on general principles?! I feel kinda insecure with guys like you runnin' round free. I'm sure that your people are guilty of sumthin'!

LK

David said...

Mark,
Glenn Greenwald explains what's wrong at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/greenwald1.html

Key quote:

The Bush administration finally charged Padilla with a crime (after 3 1/2 years of detention) only because the U.S. Supreme Court was set to rule on the legality of their treatment of Padilla, and indicting Padilla enabled the administration to argue that his case was now "moot." The Government's indictment made no mention of the flamboyant allegation they originally trumpeted to justify his lawless incarceration – that he was a "Dirty Bomber" attempting to detonate a radiological bomb in an American city (because the "evidence" for that accusation was itself procured by torture and was therefore unreliable and unusable). Instead, the indictment contained only the vaguest and most generic terrorism allegations.

Eric said...

If you believe in our system of justice, why second guess our own court system? It sounds like Padilla has gotten his day in court on more than one occasion.

David said...

Eric, You are missing the point.
1. Padilla was held without charges for 31/2 years on the basis of allegations that he was involved in a plot to set off a bomb in an American city.

2. When it appeared likely that government would lose a case challenging his continued incarceration, the government had him indicted on a lesser charge.

3. Now it appears that even that charge may not hold up in court.

Doesn't that sort of behavior by the government make you even a little bit queasy?

Eric said...

I don't know.

If I embraced Islam, gave myself a muslim name, conspired to attack the USA, and went across the mideast meeting with other terrorists, I'd expect to be treated the same as Padilla.

We need to go back to the days of Eisenhower, and J. Edgar Hoover.

They better knew how to deal with spies & other traitors than our current administration.

Anonymous said...

Your right Coobs, the Rosenbergs were executed on very little evidence.