Disappointed...

The news today includes an article that the Supreme Court has chosen not to hear the challenge of Jose Padilla regarding his treatment as an American citizen.

Granted, many are pointing out that the court made it clear that they were not pleased with his treatment, and the majority were only opting out of hearing the case because the Department of Justice decided to avoid the challenge by finally bringing charges a month or two back.

But I am not satisfied with the idea that if the Administration does the right thing three and a half years too late, that there is no longer any need to do anything about it. If I rob a bank and three and a half years later, just before they catch me, go back to the bank and return the money, do you think they'll suddenly say "Oh, OK, then there's no need to prosecute you"?

Of course not.

Jose Padilla is not (by all accounts) a nice man. But he is an American citizen, and there are rights the government is obligated to respect, rights guaranteed in our Constitution, and the war on terror does not obviate the need to respect them.

For those who have forgotten, Padilla is a former Chicago gang member who converted to Islam but remained an American citizen living in Chicago. Over three and a half years ago, he was arrested in Chicago, moved out of the country and has been held every since in Guantanamo Bay detention center, until a couple of months ago without any charges being filed, and for much of the three and a half years without access to lawyers.

There couldn't be a more clear violation violation of the Sixth Amendment. The sixth, if you haven't got it handy, says: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Again, even if you don't believe non-citizens are due the same rights our Constitution and Declaration of Independence say are due "all men" (a slippery slope, but perhaps a legal argument), that absolutely doesn't apply in this case. He did not renounce his citizenship, he was not outside of the country, there was simply no reason to declare his Constitutional rights null and void.

Our Constitution isn't worth much, if it only applies when it's convenient, or in the easy cases. The idea that the President can make up a brand new legal status, "Enemy Combatant" and then assign it to people, thus making them subject to neither the Geneva Convention rules regarding prisoners of war nor the Constitution rules regarding prisoners in non-war-time is absolutely evil.

Liam.