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
SUMMARY

Jenny Martinez, a Stanford University Law Professor and member of Jose Padilla's legal team, asserts that Padilla was charged to circumvent Supreme Court review of his indefinite confinement without formal charges. The Bush administration aims to claim mootness by filing criminal charges, thereby avoiding scrutiny of Padilla's enemy combatant status. Martinez highlights a troubling trend where defendants are pressured to plead guilty or face enemy combatant charges, raising significant constitutional concerns regarding due process for U.S. citizens.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the mootness doctrine in legal contexts
  • Familiarity with the concept of enemy combatant status
  • Knowledge of U.S. constitutional rights, particularly regarding due process
  • Awareness of historical legal cases involving similar charges
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the mootness doctrine in U.S. law
  • Examine case studies involving enemy combatant designations
  • Investigate the history of U.S. citizens' rights in military tribunals
  • Explore the legal ramifications of coercive plea bargaining practices
USEFUL FOR

Legal scholars, civil rights advocates, law students, and anyone interested in the intersection of national security and constitutional law.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,213
Reaction score
2,657
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: