See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Padilla Jury Opens Pandora's Box
Source:
Antiwar
URL Source: http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=11471
Published: Aug 20, 2007
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2007-08-20 05:45:11 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 119
Comments: 6
José Padilla's conviction on terrorism charges on Aug. 16 was a victory, not for justice, but for the U.S. Justice (sic) Department's theory that a U.S. citizen can be convicted, not for committing a terrorist act but for allegedly harboring aspirations to commit such an act. By agreeing with the Justice (sic) Department's theory, the incompetent Padilla jury delivered a deadly blow to the rule of law and opened Pandora's Box. Anglo-American law is a human achievement 800 years in the making. Over centuries law was transformed from a weapon in the hands of government into a shield of the people from unaccountable power. The Padilla jury's verdict turned law back into a weapon. The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, Aug. 17, 2007). It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors desperate for a conviction for which there was little, if any, supporting evidence. For the jury, patriotism required that they strike a blow for America against terrorism. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off a person who has been portrayed as a terrorist in the U.S. media for five years. The "evidence" against Padilla consists of three items: (1) seven intercepted telephone conversations, (2) a 10-year-old non-relevant video of Osama bin Laden, and (3) an alleged application to a mujahedeen (not terrorist) training camp with Padilla's fingerprints. We will examine each in turn. The International Herald Tribune and Associated Press reported in detail on the telephone intercepts (June 19, 2007): "Accused al-Qaeda operative José Padilla was never overheard using purported code words for violent jihad in intercepted telephone conversations and spoke often about his difficulties in learning Arabic while studying in Egypt, the lead FBI case agent testified Tuesday. The questioning of FBI Agent James T. Kavanaugh by Padilla attorney Michael Caruso focused on seven intercepted telephone calls on which Padilla's voice is heard mostly talking about his marriage and his studies but never about Islamic extremism. … Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla ever was heard using what prosecutors say were code words for violent jihad. … 'No, he does not,' Kavanaugh replied. … Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla was ever overheard discussing jihad training. 'No jihad training that I've seen,' Kavanaugh said. … 'He's not referring to anything here but studying Arabic, correct? Study means study, right?' Caruso asked. 'That's what they're talking about,' Kavanaugh testified." Despite the FBI's testimony that the intercepted telephone messages contained no incriminating evidence, the "patriotic" jury accepted the federal prosecutor's unsupported accusation that there were hidden code words in the message indicating that Padilla was a terrorist. After all, who but a terrorist would want to learn Arabic? The video of bin Laden had no relevance whatsoever to the charges in the case. The video is 10 years old and makes no reference to any of the defendants. Moreover, none of the defendants were accused of ever being in contact with bin Laden. The only purpose of the video was to arouse in jurors fear, anger, and disturbing memories associated with Sept. 11, 2001. The fact that the judge let prosecutors sway a fearful and vengeful patriotic jury with emotion and passion rather than evidence is obviously grounds for appeal. Whoriskey reports that in their closing arguments prosecutors mentioned al-Qaeda more than 100 times and urged jurors to think of al-Qaeda and groups alleged to be affiliated with it as an international murder conspiracy. Padilla "trained to kill,' Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Frazier misinformed the jury in his closing statement. Who Padilla wished to kill was never identified, but according to the prosecutors he had been wanting to kill persons unknown since 1998. Padilla was convicted for harboring alleged intentions, not for committing any acts. Indeed, no harmful acts are charged to Padilla. The incompetent jury fell for the prosecutors' wild tale of a murder conspiracy many years old that had no results. As Andrew Cohen put it, Padilla and the two co-defendants were convicted on the charge of "terrorist-wannabes" on the basis of "evidence that federal authorities did not believe amounted to a crime when it was gathered back before 2001." Cohen concludes: "it's further proof that if you can convince an American jury that a man in the dock had anything to do with al-Qaeda, you can pretty much bank on a conviction no matter how tenuous the evidence" http://(WashingtonPost.com, Aug. 16, 2007). The training camp application form is as suspect as any evidence can be. Moreover, the prosecution had no evidence that Padilla actually attended such a camp. Padilla was held illegally for 3.5 years and tortured. At any time during his illegal detention and torture, Padilla could have been handed a form, thus tainting it with his fingerprints. Amy Goodman, the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty, the Christian Science Monitor, and others have described how U.S. interrogators abused Padilla and destroyed his mind. To expect a person as badly tortured and abused as Padilla to retain the wits not to touch a piece of paper handed to him, or forced into his hands, is unreasonable. When Padilla was arrested five years ago in 2002, the U.S. government charged that he was about to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city that would kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans. The story was a total lie, a fabrication designed to keep the fear level high after 9/11 in order to keep support for the Bush regime's wars and domestic police state. None of the charges on which Padilla was illegally held, during those years before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and ordered the Bush regime to release Padilla or bring him to trial, were part of the charges on which Padilla was tried. There is little doubt that Padilla's conviction, and probably also the convictions of the two co-defendants, is a terrible injustice. But the damage done goes far beyond the damage to the defendants. What the red, white, and blue Padilla jury has done is to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and give us the rule of men. The U.S. Constitution and Anglo-American legal tradition prevent indictments, much less convictions, based on a prosecutor's theory that a person wanted to commit a crime in the past or might want to in the future. Padilla has harmed no one. There is no evidence that he made an agreement with any party to harm anyone whether for money or ideology or any reason. The FBI testified that the telephone calls were innocuous. The bin Laden video was evidence of nothing pertaining to the defendants. The piece of paper, alleged to be a personnel form recovered from an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, is nothing but a piece of paper and an assertion. As Lawrence Stratton and I demonstrated in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), the protective features of law had been seriously eroded prior to the Bush regime's assault on civil liberty in the name of "the war on terror." The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights rest on Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone explained law as the protective principles against tyranny – habeas corpus, due process, attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, no retroactive law, no self-incrimination. Jeremy Bentham claimed that these protective principles were outmoded in a democracy in which the people controlled the government and no longer had reasons to fear it. The problem with Blackstone's "Rights of Englishmen," Bentham said, is that these civil liberties needlessly limit the government's power and, thus, its ability to protect citizens from crime. Bentham wanted to preempt criminal acts by arresting those likely to commit crimes in advance, before the budding criminals entered into a life of crime. Bentham, like the Bush regime, the Padilla jury, and the Republican Federalist Society, did not understand that when law becomes a weapon, liberty dies regardless of the form of government. If they do understand, they prefer unaccountable government power to individual liberty. The incompetent Padilla jury has done Americans and their liberty far more damage than will ever be done by terrorists, other than those in our criminal justice (sic) system who now wield the powers that Bentham wanted to give them. The Padilla case was the way the Bush Justice (sic) Department implemented its strategy for taking away the legal principles that protect American citizens. Padilla is an American citizen. He was denied habeas corpus and his rights to an attorney and due process. He was tortured in an attempt to coerce him into self-incrimination. In treating Padilla in these ways, the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) violated both the U.S. Constitution and federal law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Justice (sic) Department committed far more crimes than did Padilla. By the time the Supreme Court finally intervened, Padilla was universally known as the demonized "dirty bomber," an "enemy combatant" who was arrested before he could set off a radioactive bomb in a U.S. city. The Injustice Department could now simultaneously convict Padilla and enshrine Benthamite law simply by appealing to fear and patriotism. And that is what happened. Under Benthamite law, the individual has no rights. The new calculus is "the greatest good for the greatest number" as determined by the wielders of power. On the basis of this new law, not written by Congress but invented by the Injustice Department and made precedent by the Padilla jury's verdict, the U.S. can lock up people based on the percentage of crime committed by their race, gender, income class, or ethnic group. Under Benthamite law, people can be arrested and prosecuted for thought crimes. Under Benthamite law, it is the government that protects the people, not the Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect the individual. Benthamite law makes "advocacy speech," for example, a call for the overthrow of the U.S. government, upheld in the 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a serious federal crime. The Padilla jury has opened Pandora's Box. Unless the conviction is overturned on appeal, American liberty died in the Padilla jury's verdict.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada, *libertarians* (#0)
ping
Why settle for the lesser of two evils, vote Cthulhu!
And have nothing whatsoever to do with our current form of government at all. The Common-Law has been usurped or is being circumvented by contract/trust/commercial/Admiralty/Equity Law. (Lots of speculation in this area because there is never a very clear ruling indicating the "choice of law" under which a case is being adjudicated. We are able to deduce certain realities by gleaning bits and pieces of information from prior rulings of the courts that operate in opposition to what we "think" should be. Most of the folks at this forum are familiar with the routine denial of fundamental rights consistent with modern judicial actions. The fundamental laws related to trials that were placed into the Constitution were written immediately after the revolutionary war. The Revolutionary war was complete with traitors, terrorists, and spies, yet the framers being fully aware of these things saw fit to include specific protections for the accused in the fundamental law. (Remember from above) Blackstone explained law as the protective principles against tyranny – habeas corpus, due process, attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, no retroactive law, no self-incrimination. When any one of these principles is eliminated the entire process has been changed. I believe that what we think about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights may be completely irrelevant in court today. Our entire form of government as originated has been superceded by commercial/contract/implied trust-law that trumps (ignores) Constitutional claims and most of us have either been born into a different government or have joined it. (More on this later). Everybody still dresses up like a real trial is about to happen but instead a hearing takes place and the jury is basically a panel of observers limited to determining the "facts" without authority to judge the law. Most of the time the "facts" presented to the jury are limited as well. This may seem off point, but hang with me for a moment and think about this aspect of our "status" as it relates to the judicial system and associated rights. There is a thing called "standing" which determines whether or not we have ability to have a matter tried or what type of court may hear the matter. Status and jurisdiction are supremely relevant but seem to be ignored by us because we simply assume that things are as they should be, until we're fined and locked up for something we did that we thought was a right. (We ain't in Kansas anymore Toto). COMMERCE is defined as trade, buying and selling etc., but is also defined as sexual intercourse. (That's right, look it up for yourself). We, are the bi-product of "COMMERCE" (sexual intercourse) and a copy of our birth certificate is immediately sent to The Dept. of COMMERCE in Washington D.C.. (We then become an entity known as a "Human Resource). Many of us on this forum may have birth certificates that utilize common writing style with respect to the proper spelling of our names, if we are around 50 or older, but others will find their name spelled in all capital letters. Some of us didn't receive a SS Number at birth as is done today, and has been done since the 50's. Eventually, most of us acquired a SS Number, a Driver License, or in some manner "JOINED" the commercial STATE. This may seem irrelevant but then maybe it's not. From the time of birth forward your name will be spelled with all capital letters on any document that contains it that is produced by any and all governmental agencies or corporations. Look at your Checks, SS Card, Driver License, Utility Bills, etc., We should not be surprised that we are put into bondage at birth since that was the habit of our forefathers in the English feudal system, and when you see the term federal you should think FEUDAL. In the FEUDAL system the serfs may have had a few privileges, but they had no rights ... like us today. The Commercial STATE is called or named - The United States of America, AKA WASHINGTON, D.C., and STATES that we know as TX, IN, ID, CO, AL, IL, etc., are like counties or subsidiaries ... Contract Law is the rule of law in this "PLACE" ... and the proof of this is the funny money we call Federal (feudal) Reserve Notes. Federal Reserve Notes are still unlawful in a Constitutional setting, but serve as evidence to us that we aren't operating in the legal environment that we expected. When the Courts accept these FRN's in payment of fines they are in effect openly dealing in "COMMERCIAL PAPER" (promissory notes/debt instruments/credit) outside of or in violation of the Constitution. When Thomas Jefferson stated that Private Central Banks are more dangerous than standing armies he wasn't kidding. Isn't it strange that one must supply a bank with a Social Security number to do business there ? That's because you have to be a VOLUNTARY member in good standing to trade in FRN's. Everything associated with FRN's is actually a fictional matrix, and becomes more obvious when you begin to understand that "all transactions" are fictional trades occurring only through the usage of FRN's which is tantamount to a feudal "PRIVILEGE". Let me say right here that this mind numbing fraud makes normal people's head spin, turns their stomach and in most cases causes them to retreat behind cognitive dissonance that becomes more tolerable after consuming obnoxious amounts of alcohol or drugs. But, as long as we're inclined to claim Constitutional protections in a place where they don't mean shit, we're going to go to jail or worse. [Let me say right here that our SIGNATURE is a most powerful evidence against us in many instances and we should use extreme caution and guard against improperly using it]. George Gordon did a show yesterday that should be archived at WTPRN where he better explains some of this. Another gentleman that is archived at WTPRN is Harmon Taylor, a former lawyer out of Dallas that woke up to the twilight zone reality and rescinded his bar card in order to maintain his personal integrity. He was on Michael Badnarik's program twice last week, I think Wednesday and Thursday ... his name should be posted there on the show archive page for the dates he was a co-host. Having and utilizing a SS Number is like expatriating from the organic (Constitutional) common-law state and re-patriating in the COMMERCIAL ZONE. Once this is accomplished we no longer are governed by our consent, we are governed by the Law Merchant. Over the past 30 years I have witnessed many people trying to figure out why they were being denied basic rights of citizenship. Most of these people realized that something had transpired that changed things and were usually pursuaded that the SSN had something to do with it. The courts have continually incarcerated them or have made rulings that merely hinted at the reality occurring in these extra-judicial settings ... and many good HONEST people have paid the price along the way, alone. I'd like to quote Richard's tagline because it seems most relevant. When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins
the "patriotic" jury accepted the federal prosecutor's unsupported accusation that there were hidden code words in the message ironically, the jury itself was being manipulated by code words
Now the sheople are have fallen in step with the jackboots. This is one of the most ominous stories of our time. The ThoughtPolice have set a precedent, thanks to these ignoramuses.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Der Führer hat befohlen, wir werden ihm folgen!!!" ---Joseph Goebbels, Sportpalastrede, 18 February 1943, calling Germany to "Total War."
... unfortunately not in our lifetime.. sigh..
#2. To: Ada (#0)
(Edited)
As Lawrence Stratton and I demonstrated in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), the protective features of law had been seriously eroded prior to the Bush regime's assault on civil liberty in the name of "the war on terror." The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights rest on Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone explained law as the protective principles against tyranny – habeas corpus, due process, attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, no retroactive law, no self- incrimination.
#3. To: Ada (#0)
It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue
in their closing arguments prosecutors mentioned al-Qaeda more than 100 times
#4. To: Ada (#0)
Who Padilla wished to kill was never identified, but according to the prosecutors he had been wanting to kill persons unknown since 1998. Padilla was convicted for harboring alleged intentions, not for committing any acts. Indeed, no harmful acts are charged to Padilla
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#5. To: Ada (#0)
Padilla was convicted for harboring alleged intentions, not for committing any acts. Indeed, no harmful acts are charged to Padilla.
#6. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#5)
where criminals convicted of homicides are apprehended based on foreknowledg
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest