Plead guilty or we'll label you an enemy combatant

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the legal implications of Jose Padilla's case, particularly regarding the use of the mootness doctrine and the alleged coercion of defendants to plead guilty under threat of being labeled as enemy combatants. The scope includes legal theory, constitutional rights, and the implications of such practices on American justice.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss Jenny Martinez's assertion that the Bush administration charged Padilla to avoid Supreme Court review of his indefinite confinement without formal charges.
  • There is mention of the mootness doctrine being invoked to sidestep judicial scrutiny, with some participants expressing skepticism about its application in this context.
  • One participant questions the morality of coercing defendants to plead guilty or face enemy combatant status, while another argues that such practices may reflect a broader reality within the American legal system.
  • Another participant shares a personal anecdote about growing up with disadvantaged youth, suggesting familiarity with the legal system's challenges.
  • A separate comment references a recent incident involving the U.S. Supreme Court building, drawing a symbolic connection to the discussion of justice and legal proceedings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the mootness doctrine and the ethical considerations surrounding the treatment of defendants. There is no consensus on whether the practices discussed are un-American or reflective of systemic issues within the legal system.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific legal doctrines and cases, but lacks detailed legal definitions and context that may be necessary for full understanding. The implications of the mootness doctrine and its application in this case remain unresolved.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
According to Jenny Martinez - Stanford Univ Law Professor and a member of Jose Padilla's legal team - Padilla was charged to avoid Supreme Court review of his case. The Surpreme court was to consider his confinement - held indefinitely without formal charges filed. By filing criminal charges, the Bush admin hopes to avoid Supreme Court review by claiming the point is moot - the mootness doctrine. But, she says, as they have done in the past, if they don't like the way the trial proceeds, the Bush admin can simply pull the plug, cite his enemy combatant status, and lock him away without the right to a trial.

Padilla is a US citizen.

Martinez cites other cases in which the defendant was allegedly told to plead guilty or be charged as an enemy combatant.

Can you think of anything more un-american than this?

Listen to the audio "Padilla Charged", from Nov 23rd, 2005.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ivan Seeking said:
- the mootness doctrine.
Lol, and I thought this option was used exclusively in parenting.
Martinez cites other cases in which the defendant was allegedly told to plead guilty or be charged as an enemy combatant.
Can you think of anything more un-american than this?
[/url]
Honestly, it sounds about as American as you can get. Perhaps you've not known any young or poor people involved with the legal system?
 
Having grown up in part with poor ghetto kids, I can tell you all about it. But that's another discussion...

Also, I think the mootness doctrine applies to marriage as well. Tsu and I decide how we wish to do something such as how to remodel the house. A week later, everything that I said is moot. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
A chunk of marble fell from near the roof of the U.S. Supreme Court onto the stairs in the front of the building but no one was injured...

...The marble was above the inscription near the top of the building saying, "Equal Justice Under Law" and above the allegorical figure representing "Order," one of nine sculptured figures on the pediment...
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-28T164743Z_01_SIB856755_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-ROOF.xml&archived=False

Excuse me while I stop to contemplate the symbolism... :rolleyes: