If it has a real case, U.S. should take suspected terrorist to court

[struggle4progress]

Deputy Attorney General James Comey on Tuesday presented a powerful opening statement in the trial of suspected al-Qaida terrorist Jose Padilla. Too bad a jury likely will never hear it, because it's unlikely there will ever be a trial.

Instead, Comey presented his indictment of Padilla -- complete with vivid descriptions of terror plots Padilla failed to execute -- as part of a public relations blitz to justify holding Padilla and other American citizens as "enemy combatants" in the war on terrorism. Comey said intelligence during interrogations of Padilla and other suspected terrorists justifies the decision not to criminally charge Padilla, and proceed with a normal prosecution, after he was arrested two years ago at the Chicago airport.
<snip>

Maybe Padilla's arrest and subsequent interrogations prevented another major terrorist attack, or maybe not. That uncertainty, though, does not warrant the government holding Padilla without charges and denying him his right to counsel and other constitutional protections usually afforded to American citizens charged with a crime.
<snip>

Hopefully, the Supreme Court, which is expected within a few weeks to issue a ruling on whether American citizens can be held as enemy combatants -- and to which it seemed Comey was directing his argument -- will soon make that clear to the Bush administration.


http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/06/02/1086234976.02632.8035.5380.html;COXnetJSessionID=A29gzDdDL4gVuGpFx9zgFt6K3okUbpobTX8XidfoSVbtKtfiRCn6!-1688919408?urac=n&urvf=10862420801260.9587583741683436

Looks like Lufkin Texas ain't impressed with the "no trial" theory

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I'm not impressed either

and neither should the USSC