Court Ruling

Queens, NY October 5, 2007(AP) -

A seven-year old boy was at the center of a courtroom drama yesterday when he challenged a court ruling over who should have custody of him.

The boy has a history of being beaten by his parents and the judge initially awarded custody to his aunt, in keeping with NY State child custody law and regulation requiring that family unity be maintained to the highest degree possible. The boy surprised the court when he proclaimed that his aunt beat him more than his parents and he adamantly refused to live with her. When the judge then suggested that he live with his grandparents, the boy cried and said that they also beat him. After considering the remainder of the immediate family and learning that domestic violence was apparently a way of life among them, the judge took the unprecedented step of allowing the boy to propose who should have custody of him.

Following two recesses to check legal references and confer with the child welfare officials, the judge granted temporary custody to the New York Mets, whom the boy firmly believes are not capable of beating anyone.

(From a friend via e-mail)

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.