Speedy trial
I wonder if the Unites States attorney general is conversant with the provisions of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. It says something about a "speedy" trial.
Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for three years as an enemy combatant suspected of plotting a "dirty bomb" attack in this country, has been indicted on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas.Well, of course he didn't answer that question. What's he going to say? "Because in three years I couldn't find any evidence to support the original charges"? "Because the original charges are bullshit"? "Because for the last three years I've been too busy dreaming up flimsy legal justifications for torture to focus on the case"?
A federal grand jury in Miami returned the indictment against Padilla and four others. While the charges allege Padilla was part of a U.S.-based terrorism conspiracy, they do not include the government's earlier allegations that he planned to carry out attacks in America.
"The indictment alleges that Padilla traveled overseas to train as a terrorist with the intention of fighting a violent jihad," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference in Washington. Gonzales declined to comment on why none of the allegations involving attacks in America were included in the indictment.
Gonzales also wouldn't say that the only reason Padilla is being charged with anything is to avoid allowing the Supreme Court to rule on how long the United States can keep American citizens in custody without charging them.
Imagine. The Bush administration wants to preserve its ability to detain its own citizens indefinitely, without charging them with any wrongdoing. This course is so wrong-minded that even a Supreme Court that in 2000 ordered that vote counting be stopped and handed Bush the White House -- and has since been stocked with a Bush nominee -- can't be trusted to go along with it.
After three years, Gonzales still couldn't make a case against Padilla on the charges for which he was arrested in May 2002. Could it be that in an administration that includes Donald Rumsfeld that Alberto Gonzales is the most embarrassing member?
Gonzales said Padilla's case would go to trial in September 2006. Does four years and four months sound speedy to you?
posted by Dr. S at 11/22/2005 01:19:00 PM
1 Comments:
I was pretty sure someone would be thinking the same thing I was.
Given that Gonzales had to anticipate the question regarding why Padilla wasn't charged with anything relating to the original allegations, and that the question could have provided an easy platform for a politically beneficial answer like 'we need to ensure justice is carried out by whatever means and these charges get us closer to that goal/we've decided to move forward with our best case and that is these charges/we needed to reach a final determination of this issue for the American people and these charges allow us to do that', I see much more sinister motives.
What court in their right mind would hold 3 years without even an indictment is a speedy trial? So you've got a slam dunk there, right? Not so fast- sure, a trial on those accusations wouldn't be speedy, but there's this other stuff that we're charging him with almost instantaneously after we became aware of it. Gonzalez can't prejudice his later responses to the speedy trial issue by risking saying anything about the earlier allegations, the current indictment, or any decisionmaking. That's my theory, at any rate.
Post a Comment
<< Home