Wow
I've been so focused on the foreign citizens being held by our government that I'd completely forgotten about Jose Padilla. This article says it better than I probably can, but if you don't want to bother following the link...
Padilla is an American citizen who was picked up on suspicion of being a terrorist, labelled by the Administration as an "enemy combatant" and thus has been held (and interrogated) for over three years without being charged or tried, and with little access to legal representation. The Administration hasn't even listed the evidence against him, nor leveled any specific charge (or more correctly, they've listed changing charges as time has gone by).
Forget for a moment whether you disagree with me on wither prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have a right to the fundamental freedoms we claim "all men" are endowed with. This is a U.S. citizen.
He may well be a bad man. It may turn out that there is sufficient evidence to try him, convict him, and possibly put him to death for treason. But no matter how bad a man he is, he has the right to that trial as a citizen of this country.
I know I've made the comparison many times, but this really is exactly like the Soviet Union's political prisoners. I can't believe this Administration actually admires the Soviet Union so much they're willing to take a page out of their play book.
There is NO reason for this abuse, there is NO justification for this Administration to throw away the Constitution on a whim. This is just a continuing pattern of behavior indicating that Bush or his advisors believe rules do not have to apply to him. The Geneva Convention? Nah. Treaties signed by previous Administrations (such as the Non-Proliferation treaty)? Nah. That pesky Constitution? Nah.
If for no other reason, this is sufficient grounds for my repeated charge that this is one of the most damaging Administrations in my lifetime.
Copyright (c) June 14, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net
posted by Liam at 6/14/2005 09:01:00 AM
7 Comments:
Liam,
The legal process grinds slowly but even your HuffPost source admits it is grinding. He hasn't vanished. He isn't in the equivalent of a Siberian prison camp. And when it is over, our process in this new world of unprincipled energies will be clearer.
We have the best legal system in the world. It is not perfect. How long and at what cost did it take to discover that MJ was innocent?
Our national security system is getting better but it is a long way from where it needs to be. How long did it take to discover that the wonderful American muslims in Lodi were learning how to kill us. Perhaps life is so peaceful and idyllic is New Hampshire that these threats are unimportant. Dream on.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:25:00 AM
Ah, but MJ was not in custody while his hearing was going on. There's a difference between a delay of months because the courts are backed up and a three year detention without charges actually being filed.
Until charges are filed, he most certainly IS in the equivalent of a Siberian prison camp.
It isn't that the threats are unimportant, it's that we can't afford to lose our soul as a nation in order to save ourselves. Yes, it's easier to believe up here where we're less likely to be hit by a terrorist attack, but I really do believe that if we are willing to saccrifice our principles in order to achieve safety, then to paraphrase Ben Franklin, we deserve neither our freedoms nor our safety.
Terrorists aren't the only ones out there committing attrocities, and yet as a nation we have agreed (and been founded) on the principle that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for an innocent man to be wrongfully convicted. There are rights in this country that simply can't be ignored, or only heeded when it's convenient, or else they aren't RIGHTS, and our very fundamental basis goes right out the window.
Liam.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:45:00 AM
He is not convicted and the process grinds on - unlike in a Siberian prison camp.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:33:00 PM
He is not CHARGED. That's the difference. Within the US, there's a limit to how long a person can be held without charges being filed. I think it's 72 hours, but it may vary based on the crime. You can't hold someone beyond that without filing charges and having a grand jury or judge determine that there is:
o Sufficient evidence to go to trial.
o Significant flight risk to justify refusing bail.
Ralph, how are you going to feel if, for whatever reason, the FBI or the CIA gets it into their heads that you might have had something to do with 9/11 or some other terrorist plot, and you end up being held indefinitely, without the chance to defend yourself? Perhaps, not being of arab descent, you figure the chance isn't high, and it's probably not. It isn't for me, either. But there is an old adage which is important to keep in mind. It says:
When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I am not a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did nothing, for I am not Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.
(I can't find the originator of the quote, and there are many variants out there, but the idea is the same.)
The point is that you don't want to wait until it's your turn before you speak up, you have to speak up now, and hope someone ELSE takes up the charge when it's your turn to be treated poorly.
Jose Padilla is sitting in custody for over three years without even having charges filed. His "case" that's winding through the courts is NOT the one to determine his innocence or guilt, he hasn't even been charged. His case is the case brought on his behalf by others arguing just my point, that Bush has overstepped his authority in deciding he can just decree someone an 'enemy combatant' and then suspend their Constitutional rights. A case which, by the way, Bush and company have already lost once in the case of Yaser Hamdi, also a US citizen. And in that case, Hamdi was picked up outside of the United States, while Padilla was arrested on home soil. So even having been told once by the Supreme Court (in an 8-1 decision) that these tactics are not legal, Bush continues to apply them.
Is Jose Padilla a terrorist? It really doesn't matter. I tend to think if he really is, and we had proof of that, we'd have actually filed charges against him and gotten the case taken care of. But really, our legal rights HAVE to apply to even the guilty, if they're to have any meaning. Because right now, he's not legally guilty of anything. He's been found guilty of no crime, and by our system, that means he's currently innocent (as in "until proven guilty"). As a result, being detained for over three years is a travesty of justice, and hurts every American, whether they feel it or not.
Liam.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 5:44:00 PM
OK Liam, I'll go with you here. I had completely forgotten about Padilla but it's time to put up or shut up. I couldn't find anything other than the discussion of the Supremes deferring to the lower court which will apparently happen soon.
To be charitable to the Bush administration, I have to assume that they viewed a trial early on to be a security threat which they would prefer to avoid.
It seems to me that even were your critical attitude about Bush correct, He is being prevented from working his evil will here by the legal system.
This war is pushing some envelopes and there should be reasoned discourse about the security measures applied.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:45:00 AM
That he may be EVENTUALLY prevented from "working his evil will" is a good thing. But my point is that for a President of the United States to even *THINK* it's okay to try to suspend the rights of a citizen of the United States in this fashion is heinous.
Janet recently pointed out to me (and I think she's right) that I'm spending too much time focusing on the story of the day, and what I really need to do is focus on the real dangers I see from this administration and the neo-conservative cadre which has wrested control of the Republican party.
I had thought that by pointing out the little things I saw as Bush misdeeds I was accomplishing that, but she tells me that it sounds like carping over the minor misdeeds you can find in ANY Presidential administration or party.
I'm going to think about this, and try to write at least one entry in the next day few days where I try to focus on the net RESULTS, the reason why I call Bush "the most damaging President in my lifetime", not based on his misdeeds (because I agree, if you look hard enough at any human being, you're going to find them to have a led foot, or occasionally put out their cigarettes on the ground instead of in an ash can) but on what I percieve to be the very real way in which those misdeeds make us less safe, make our government less secure, and erode the very noble principles on which this country was based.
Liam.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:37:00 AM
Janet is a good influence.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:51:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home