Showing posts with label criminal law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label criminal law. Show all posts

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Do any lawyers go to heaven?

A few must have over the years. Saint Thomas Aquinas was sort of a lawyer. And Saint Thomas More was a lawyer, though he was canonized as a martyr (though is the official patron of politicians and an unofficial patron of common law attorneys).

Then there is Ivo of Kermartin (also known as Saint Ivo of Brittany, Saint Yves, or Saint Ives). An advocate and judge, his epitaph was said to have been:

St. Ivo was from Brittany
A lawyer but not a thief
Such a thing is beyond belief!

It is also said that when St. Ivo of Brittany died, he was accompanied to heaven by some recently deceased nuns. When they reached the Pearly Gates, St. Peter told the nuns that they would have to wait in purgatory a little bit, as there were so many nuns in heaven, that the nun's house was full and they needed to build an extension. He then turned to St. Ivo and said that as he was the first lawyer to make it to heaven, he could come right in.

Maybe God does work miracles occasionally.

Padilla Guilty

Jose Padilla was found guilty on all counts. Not being either a criminal or national security lawyer, I will leave the legal analysis for others. But the Padilla case has been the one that has bothered me the most of all the habeus cases coming out of the War on Terror. Leaving aside the torture issue (which is a big aside) I am not that concerned that Guantanamo exists. Our military is capturing people on battlefields and they need to be placed somewhere. I do think there needs to be a better procedure to determine whether those people are POWs or illegal combatants, but I do not want the military in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere to be fighting a police action.

But the Padilla case was different. Here was a guy arrested by law enforcement inside the US (though, as he was at an airport, arguably legally outside the country). He was not captured on a distant battlefield holding a rifle or even in the process of engaging in a terrorist act. The fact it took the government three years to try him, and everything that happened in between is a travesty.

Don't get me wrong. From what I read about the evidence, I think he was guilty and I am glad he was found guilty. He was up to no good. My concern is that it took 3 1/2 years to bring to trial an American citizen captured in the ordinary course of activity by law enforcement inside the United States. He was not captured in some foreign land carrying a gun. In the past 3 1/2 years he has been held in solitary confinement and treated such that his mental capacity is now in question. By doing this, the government could have blown the case on Constitutional grounds. Some appeals court may still rule that way.