Exposing lie that "Bush did same with Padilla"

Mukasey Shreds Obama Administration's Legal Claims on Christmas Bomber [Andy McCarthy]

Every word of former AG Michael Mukasey's op-ed in the Washington Post this morning is required reading. But the direct comments on the Obama administration's legal claims are especially worthy:

Contrary to what some in government have suggested, that Abdulmutallab was taken into custody by the FBI did not mean, legally or as a matter of policy, that he had to be treated as a criminal defendant at any point. Consider: In 1942, German saboteurs landed on Long Island and in Florida. That they were eventually captured by the FBI did not stop President Franklin Roosevelt from directing that they be treated as unlawful enemy combatants. They were ultimately tried before a military commission in Washington and executed. Their status had nothing to do with who held them, and their treatment was upheld in all respects by the Supreme Court. . . .


Contrary to what the White House homeland security adviser and the attorney general have suggested, if not said outright, not only was there no authority or policy in place under the Bush administration requiring that all those detained in the United States be treated as criminal defendants, but relevant authority was and is the opposite. The Supreme Court held in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that "indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized" but also said in the same case that detention for the purpose of neutralizing an unlawful enemy combatant is permissible and that the only right of such a combatant — even if he is a citizen, and Abdulmutallab is not — is to challenge his classification as such a combatant in a habeas corpus proceeding. This does not include the right to remain silent or the right to a lawyer, but only such legal assistance as may be necessary to file a habeas corpus petition within a reasonable time. That was the basis for my ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld that, as a convenience to the court and not for any constitutionally based reason, he had to consult with a lawyer for the limited purpose of filing a habeas petition, but that interrogation need not stop.


What of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," who was warned of his Miranda rights and prosecuted in a civilian court? He was arrested in December 2001, before procedures were put in place that would have allowed for an outcome that might have included not only conviction but also exploitation of his intelligence value, if possible. His case does not recommend the same procedure in Abdulmutallab's.

As I explained in a column last week, Attorney General Holder badly misstated the Padilla case in his letter to Senator McConnell. I discussed the Obama administration's misplaced reliance on the Reid case in a column yesterday — and had more thoughts on Padilla, here. Bill Burck and Dana Perino have a course in Bush counterterrorism, here. The former AG's observations should put the legal controversy to rest, though . . . not that it will.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDBmYjJjOTc0ZjM2ZmI2ZjI0ZTUyZTFkYjIyZDg0YjA=