http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/11/padilla.decision/index.html Judge allows lawyers to visit 'enemy combatant' NEW YORK (CNN) -- A federal judge Tuesday ordered the government to allow lawyers to meet with alleged "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, an American citizen accused of being an al Qaeda operative who plotted to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" inside the United States. The decision is a legal setback for the Bush administration, which sought to block Padilla from meeting his defense lawyers under any circumstances, saying national security is more important than a detainee's right to counsel. U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey rejected the government's argument in a 35-page decision, ordering the government to permit Padilla's New York-based attorneys to visit the prisoner, who has been held incommunicado in a South Carolina Navy brig since June. "Absent agreement, the court will impose conditions," Mukasey wrote. "Lest any confusion remain, this is not a suggestion or a request that Padilla be permitted to consult with counsel, and it is certainly not an invitation to conduct further 'dialogue' about whether he is permitted to do so." Mukasey scheduled a March 27 court session to settle logistical details for the meetings. He said Padilla "must have the opportunity to present evidence that undermines" the government's accusations stated publicly by Attorney General John Ashcroft, though no formal charges have ever been filed. "The only practicable way to present evidence, if he has any and chooses to do so, is through counsel," the judge said. Mukasey is the same judge who ruled last December that the president's use of the "enemy combatant" classification is lawful. He also ruled that defense attorneys should be permitted to visit with Padilla, but Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement and U.S Attorney James Comey asked Mukasey to reconsider that. "The government's arguments here are permeated with the pinched legalism one usually encounters from non-lawyers," wrote Mukasey, who had signaled his impatience with the government's views at a January hearing. A Defense Department memorandum opposing attorney-client visits stated that any access to attorneys might compromise Padilla's ongoing interrogation by the military, but Mukasey found holes in the argument. Interrogators' technique The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, had said in the memo that attorney access might spoil the "sense of dependency and trust" Padilla may have developed with his interrogators. Jacoby revealed that the interrogators' technique is to create "a relationship in which the subject perceives that he is reliant on his interrogators for his basic needs and desires." Mukasey said the Jacoby memo omitted, even in a classified form, the substance of Padilla's interrogation and labeled as "speculative" the forecast that interrupting Padilla's interrogation might spoil it. "He might then seek to better his lot by cooperating with his captors," Mukasey wrote, suggesting an alternate scenario. The government also contended that Padilla, despite 10 months in captivity since his initial arrest, could provide useful information about future al Qaeda plots to attack the United States and its interests overseas or about the terrorist organization's recruitment, training, structure, operations, and operatives at large. Defense attorneys Donna Newman and Andrew Patel have called the government's valuation of Padilla as an intelligence source "disingenuous conjecture." They could not be immediately reached for comment. A spokesman for Comey said prosecutors were reviewing the Mukasey decision and could not say whether the government would appeal. The FBI initially detained Padilla, 31, last May 8 as he arrived at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport from overseas, under suspicion that he was plotting to steal radioactive material to detonate a so-called "dirty bomb" -- a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material -- possibly in Washington, D.C. A key tip about Padilla came from early interrogations of top al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaydah, officials said. Mukasey himself signed the material witness warrant used to hold Padilla. Bush declared Padilla an enemy combatant after he was jailed for a month, transferring him from Justice Department to Defense Department custody before he was formally charged with any crime. "At a minimum, had the government permitted Padilla to consult with counsel at the outset, this matter would have long since been decided in this court," Mukasey wrote. Padilla, born in Brooklyn and raised in Chicago, has served prison time for a juvenile murder in Illinois and for a gun possession in Florida. He converted to Islam in prison and took the name Abdullah al Muhajir when he lived in Egypt. He has also spent time in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, according to the government. How Ashcroft thought it was OK to take a U.S. citizen, hold him for 9 months, not charge him with anything, and then say he shouldn't be allowed to even see a lawyer is beyond me.
the judge was all like, "oh no, you can't do that" and ashcroft was all like, "oh yes i can!" and the judge was like, "oh no you didn't! you didn't just disrespect me like that!" and ashcroft was all like, "well you dissed me first!"
As an American, I am sad in the fact that I am more scared of Ashcroft than any terrorist organization or Iraq.
dude are you even remotely serious? you're comparing ashcroft with al qaeda? so much for credibility, rockbox. political differences aside, i would never never never compare daschle or clinton or gore or anyone else to freaking al qaeda...gutless wonders who slam planes into building to maximize civilian casualties. it's time to rethink that one, rockbox.
I don't think he was comparing them. Like rockbox, I'm not really worried about Al Queda right now. How many of you guys honestly are waking up worried like you did right after 9/11? I'm not, at the same time, I'm also not waking up worried about ASScroft (cheap shot ). I do think that we are more aware of terrorist and doing a better job of hunting them down, so the risk is not as high anymore, but Ashcroft is doing things that could hurt our country for many, many years if they set the standard.
I think that it is an entirely defensible position to state that Ashcroft represents a far greater real-life negative threat to the average American than Osama Bin Laden, in terms of numbers...Ashcroft is systematically destroying the civil liberties of each and every American, and has even sought to meddle in foreign affairs...That will affect all Americans...Bin Laden only wishes he could have that much impact. Ask yourself this...let's say that Ashcroft has his way, and all his laws/desires are passed and continue to be upheld...and let's say that Bin Laden, who is currently on the run, has even one or two more 'successfull' terrorist attacks, looking back, 50 years from now, with our laws different, our Principles entirely changed, and our entire way of life altered in the name of fear...what will represent the greater tragedy in most Americans lives? I am not underestimating the loss of the innocents in 9-11, or even subsequesnt attacks, I am just not going to underestimate the cost of sacrificing our own Freedom because of it. Of course the nature of the threat is different...one represents death and injury, the other legal and civil restructuring, and as such not as visceral a problem.
I can see both points. Ashcroft isn't going to blow up Americans and set out to kill people. In that way Al Qaeda is more to be feared. On the other hand Americans seem pretty resilliant and can bounce back from these terrorist attacks stronger in their love for their country, so despite how awful the terrorists attacks are, they won't be successful in ruining or crippling America. Ashcroft, however, who from the inside dismantles and operates almost contrary to this country's governing document, is in real danger damaging the very foundation of the U.S.
Yeah, I'm also scared to death of the 98 US Senators who voted in support of the Patriot Act. Keeps me up at night.
Yes, I'm more scared of Ashcroft. Ashcroft is taking away of freedoms of the american people by stomping all over the constitution. How many terrorist attacks have happened on American soil in the last 20 years. I can remember four. 2 WTC's, oklahoma city, and anthrax. OK city and anthrax were probably committed by americans. So only two terrorist attacks can be directly attributed to foreign terrorist organizations. Now lets look at the stuff the government has done in the last few years. Putting American citizen in jail without charging them. Strip searching people in airports because of the color of their skin. Putting innocent people on death row. Making people pray before work (ashcroft does this). Monitoring your computer and library usage. Reading your email. Listening to your cell phone conversations without a warrant. I know Ashcroft wasn't responsible for all these things but for someone with his power to use "national security" as a reason to take away a citizen's constitional right to due process is scarier to me than a potential bomb.The constitution is all we have to protect us from the government and is what all american are fighting to protect. I know most of you don't agree with me but that is how I feel.
man people like osama and saddam have done some pretty cruel and horrible things in their times, but i'm not sure any of those can compare to making people pray before work. just how will i sleep tonight thinking of those poor people.
What does Saddam have to do with Ashcroft. I never said Saddam and Osama don't deserve to have their testicles handed to them on a platter. I just said Ashcroft is trappling the American way of life. Something that alot of people here say they were willing to fight for. I guess people are willing to blow up people they don't know but aren't willing to voice their opinion when one of our own is doing to us.
The odds of dying in a car accident or other such mundane method of shuffling off the mortal coil other than dying of old age are much greater than the odds of dying from a terrorist attack. Call me a crazy gambler, but I'll take the miniscule odds of dying to a terrorist over a reduction of individual freedoms. Lock me up for 9 months without charging me with anything then you better convict me and kill me, because I'll be one pissed off cracker with a closet full of guns making a housecall on someone if I ever get out.
The odds of dying are 100%. So who cares if a terrorist kills you? One way or another, it's gonna happen!
