The whole “enemy combatant” thing was nothing more than a distraction, in my opinion. And it seems nobody bought his defense team’s “defensive jihad” theory. The jury came to a decision relatively quickly, too. I wonder what that says about the willingness of common-sensical people to actually grant the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our prosecuting the struggle against those who would seek to do us harm?
You say that the enemy combatant designation was a distraction. Does this mean that don’t think the government should have been given the benefit of the doubt when it designated him as one with the apparent intent to hold him indefinitely without a trial? Yet you then imply that the government should have been given the benefit of the doubt.
He was prosecuted and convicted. Seems like this could have been accomplished a few years ago. Or are we somehow worse off now in the war against terrorism because the government wasn’t given the benefit of the doubt and instead had to prove its case against him in court.
I think that the “enemy combatant” issue was badly handled by the Bush administration. It’s my belief that the government was indeed correct in the categorization of Padilla as a combatant and that it would have been well within its rights to convene a speedy military tribunal or other form of justice administered by the armed forces, rather than drag out the issue until just before the matter of his detention was to reach the Supreme Court. Dragging out the matter for so long served nobody involved in the case well.
Still, I think that the government was equally as comfortable in taking this matter before a federal jury, which showed its mettle in returning a decision in so quick a manner. I disagree with you in the matter, though, of whether this should have ended up at all in a civilian court, as it’s long been my belief that clear-cut instances in which a citizen or non-citizen conspires to, or actually carries out, actions against our government that have the effect of making war against the United States should be treated as a criminal justice matter. Rather, these kinds of cases properly reside within the military’s realm. This is, to be honest, ground upon which we here in the LR have trod quite frequently since at least 2004, if I recall accurately.
**I wonder what that says about the willingness of common-sensical people to actually grant the government the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our prosecuting the struggle against those who would seek to do us harm? **
Maybe I just lack common sense, but when things like this - http://www.nytimes.com/...americas/10arar.html - occur in the name of “protecting us from those who would seek to do us harm”, the carte blanche approach tends to lose its zest. I certainly wouldn’t point to a single case of successful detainment and prosecution as validation of anything, unless you’re willing to allow a single case of a rendered, tortured innocent as evidence to the contrary.
The odd trajectory of this case also shows the bob-and-weave tactics used by the administration to avoid constitutional challenges to the way it handles terror suspects.
At first, Padilla’s rights were protected because he was detained under the criminal-justice system. But then he was labeled an enemy combatant and put under military control, like noncitizen detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. When the courts appeared close to challenging his status, the Bush administration switched him back to a criminal court and lessened the charges to one of merely supporting Al Qaeda.
Guilty or not, Padilla deserves the same rule of law that any US citizen can expect. America can’t win a global war to defend its values by stepping on them. As Army Capt. Ian Fishback wrote to Sen. John McCain after witnessing US military abuses in Afghanistan: “I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is America.”
One protection from Islamic terrorists lies in clinging to the civic virtues that terrorists seek to end. Such values are a source of safety and should not be eroded in trying to kill, capture – or prosecute – suspected terrorists.
One of America’s strengths in this war lies in being able to rally other nations to its side by upholding universal principles. That same strength also weakens terrorists. The jury may well find Padilla guilty, but it may also see the injustice done in his case, and decide otherwise.
Victory in war is sometimes a victory simply for the rule of law.
Complete travesty of American justice. After holding him for years in solitary confiment, without access to a lawyer, without access to his family, with only vague knowledge of his reason for detention, and with only the slightest of legal reason for detaining him, he is finally convicted of something in a trial that can only be charaterized as mock. The only key piece of physical evidence against the guy was a five-page form Padilla supposedly filled out in July 2000 to attend an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. This is more than a year before 9/11 and way before he or anyone else thought that al-Qaida was a serious threat to America. Many Americans are probably joining groups which they think may only be religious in nature and which some day may be considered a terrorist organization.
from the August 15, 2007 edition -