[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
padilla didn't, was tortured, and charged after 4 or 5 years of captivity and the judge said, hey, we wait until monday if a guy is arrested on friday, this is comparable ...
model for the future.
Nope, Padilla case made it's way through the courts with Padilla basically getting favorable court decisions along the way.
[/ QUOTE ]
uh, no. from your wiki link.
padilla didn't(get a lawyer)
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong he had a lawyer. Go reread the wiki link info.
Here's one reference to his lawyer:
Padilla's Lawyer to Gov't: 'Put Up or Shut Up'
In fact all the detainees are represented by a lawyer whether they appear in US court or in a military tribunal.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Considering Padilla was held for years in military custody with no formal charges brought, many were shocked by this move by the George W. Bush presidential administration[18], and some reasoned that a repeat of such a process would allow the U.S. government to detain citizens indefinitely without presenting the cause that would eventually be tried.
[/ QUOTE ]
was tortured
[/ QUOTE ]
The Bush administration claimed they had the right to declare U.S. citizens as enemy combatents and have their cases heard before a military tribunal. Padilla's lawyers fought this and ultimately the Bush administration backed down from this position before the courts ruled. During that time period Padilla was detained as a combatent. This was prior to the law that was passed in Congress in 2006 regarding enemy combatents.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Allegations of torture during imprisonment
Padilla's legal team filed a motion to dismiss the case, alleging that during his imprisonment he has been subjected to torture, including sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, enforced stress positions and administered with various drugs including possibly LSD and PCP.[25]
[/ QUOTE ]
and charged after 4 or 5 years of captivity and the judge said, hey, we wait until monday if a guy is arrested on friday, this is comparable ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Prior to the law being passed by Congress regarding enemy combatents. Nobody's claiming that this didn't happen. The Padilla case went through the courts. Again the Bush administration backed down from this position.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Delays in prosecution
Two additional motions also filed in October of 2006, argued that the case should be dismissed because the government took too much time between arresting Padilla and charging him.[2] In essence, the argument is that for constitutional speedy trial purposes, the arrest took place prior to his detention as an enemy combatant, and not simply when he was transferred to civilian custody.
[/ QUOTE ]
model for the future. <this was my editorial comment>
[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not when looking at how the Padilla case transpired, the court decisions that have been handed down, and the law passed by Congress in 2006. Basically the Bush administration recognized that courts would declare their detention of Padilla as an enemy combatent illegal and thus backed down.