Eh-Oh
Terrifying, eh? They are none other than the Teletubbies, the now-defunct program for preschoolers featuring characters with viewing screens in their abdomens. You will understand the graphic when you arrive at Ranger's final comment.
The headline for the article covering the selection of jurors for the Padilla trial says, "Potential Padilla jurors cite 9/11 Doubts.'' But aren't we comparing apples and oranges here?
These jurors had to fill out a 115-question form prior to questioning. Question #60 "asks " for an opinion about responsibility for the Sept. 11 terror attacks." 9/11 is not on the table in the upcoming Padilla trial. Could this questionnaire ostensibly seeking to weed out bias actually be sowing a bit of ill-will prior to seating?
In any event, the jurors seem flummoxed by the question:
"There are too many ifs, too many things going on," one male juror said. "I don't know the whole story."
Others say they just don't pay close enough attention to world events to be certain.
"I'm oblivious to that stuff," one prospective female juror said during questioning this week. "I don't watch the news much. I try to avoid it."
"I don't have an opinion. I don't tend to trust the news media," she said.
The article observes, "In the Padilla case, what's notable is not so much conspiracy theories as the lack of any views at all." Presiding Judge Marcia Clarke said, "I've been surprised at the number of our jurors who don't have an opinion about 9/11.''
My take: if these confused or uninformed folks are avid watchers of commercial television--but not NCIS, 24 or The Unit--they may be unconsciously developing a sympathetic view towards Middle Easterners, as liberal Hollywood tries to correct for racial bigotry at large. This may work in Padilla's favor.
Be that as it may, Padilla is a low-level punk, and the entire evil of al Qaeda cannot rest upon his shoulders, contrary to what GWB and Ashcroft would like for us to believe. Unfortunately, MSM was complicit in printing their accusations and attempting to convict Padilla in the court of public opinion.
Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant, is accused of applying for an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. He was previously accused of an al-Qaida plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city, but that allegation is not part of the Miami case.
Enemy combatant. . . would somebody please advise Ranger as to the definition of enemy combatant within U.S. code? Going on civilian logic, the term breaks down into "enemy" (someone who attacks you, for instance) + "combatant" (someone who performs combat, like a soldier.) So it would seem to the uninitiated into government-speak, that U.S. soldiers might be enemy combatants (to their adversaries), too.
The article continues,
Many jurors seem to be unwilling to state the al-Qaida connection as fact because they don't have firsthand knowledge. An older male juror said he answered "al-Qaida and bin Laden" on his questionnaire because "that was what the news said."
These are either all brilliant skeptics, holding out on a declarative stand as they troll the plethora of alternative news to arrive at a personal reality, or they're just dumber than dirt and totally disinterested in world affairs.
My take is that the U.S. population in general has their heads so far up their asses they need plexiglass belly buttons to see what's happening in the world.
Ah, how prescient were the Teletubbies.
--by Jim and Lisa
Labels: padilla miscarriage of justice
posted by rangeragainstwar at 10:53 PM
3 Comments:
The news story you quote was written by a lazy-ass reporter who neglected a key word. Padilla is considered by the gov't to be an "unlawful enemy combatant."
Here is the term as defined in the atrocious Military Commissions Act:
"Sec. 948a. Definitions
`In this chapter:
`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."
To be a UEC, one must NOT be a member of any country's armed forces. It's a key distinction, as it renders anyone so deemed to be ineligible for protection from inhumane treatment or torture under Article 3 of the Geneva conventions, unlike any POW.
It's such an important distinction that it is the first term defined in the section. Notice that the definition includes anyone who is simply determined to be one by the board appointed by the President or the SecDef. There is no criteria applicable there: if the Prez, or the always-competent Pentagon says you are one, one you are.
The act is about 80 pages of legalese. I'm not a lawyer, but when I first read that MCA does away with habeas corpus protection for UECs, I kept hearing the neocon defenders say that it doesn't apply to US citizens. Obviously something's amiss since Padilla is a citizen. So I read the thing for myself, to see why all the constitutional scholars were so upset. It took an hour or so before I spotted the problem with it. The key points are in different sections far apart; it is not at all obvious.
Here's the catch 22:
The act specifically exempts US citizens from being denied habeas corpus protection, true, unless they have been designated a UEC or are awaiting such designation by the prez. There is no requirement that such a determination must be made in a timely manner. No time limit at all, actually. While being held without any legal rights, one could be subjected to any treatment one's captors felt appropriate, including torture (as defined in Geneva conventions) and there'd be no way to challenge it legally. Nor would there be any way to punish the captors after the fact, for they would be acting legally under the MCA.
In practice, that means that the government CAN snatch up anybody, including US citizens, and do whatever they want for as long as they want. As a citizen, you could demand your habeas hearing... but they don't have to give you one until the tribunal gets around to determining if you're a UEC or not. However long that takes. Meanwhile, you're incommunicado; you have no lawyer to make your case and not even your own family has any idea what's happened to you. You've simply disappeared.
Short version: at a habeas hearing, you could simply point to your citizenship status and demand your rights. But as long as you're "awaiting designation" as an unlawful enemy combatant, you are not entitled to that habeas hearing.
As Yossarian said: "That's some catch!"
Nice, huh? That's why the MCA is a piece of shit, and why all the liberals, and principled conservatives, and every constitutional scholar in the country were so pissed off when it passed last summer. In the last week of debate, Arlen Spector (and a handful of others) put up the weakest of arguments in favor of keeping habeas corpus out of it- then they went and voted for the thing anyway.
Remember, habeas corpus (the right to legally challenge the gov't to show why you've been detained) isn't just gauranteed in the Constitution, it is the most fundamental liberty of the western world. It began with the freaking Magna Carta. This act takes us back to the 16th century.
You can see the full text of the act here.
Just discovered your blog, btw. Great stuff, thanks. Forgive the anonymous title; I just don't like registering to leave comments.
Rob W.
Rob,
Fantasic, informed response. Heller's never out of style, is he?
Jim will return later and I know will want to comment, but I wanted to get your post on. Glad to have on board,
Lisa
anon,
Jim here:
Unlawful enemy combatant is pure double-speak. Being an enemy and a combatant is a legitimate state, so how can the adjective ''unlawful'' be tacked onto it? It's a meaningless gobbledegook.
Therefore one must add, what is a ''lawful enemy combatant'' under the current membo jumbo? If there are unlawfuls, then there must be lawfuls.
Under Sec. 948a, ''one must be a member of any country's armed forces.'' Under this definition, CIA types kidnapping people in Italy, Germany and Turkey fit the legal definition of unlawful enemy combatant.
The problem with the UEC designation is its subjectivity. Laws must be definitive and succinct to be applied universally.
The Magna Charta (1215)as you point out is the basis of our justice system, and now habeus corpus is applied situationally? We're rolling back 800 years of progress, it seems.
Post a Comment
<< Home