|
|
 |
|
|
Friday, June 14, 2002
This should send a chill down your spine The Justice Department, making its case in a closed meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the United States can hold Padilla until President Bush decides the war against terrorism is over... The Justice Department told the committee that the executive branch alone has the power to decide when a person qualifies as a combatant, an administration official said. U.S. officials say they decided against holding a criminal trial for Padilla because it might reveal intelligence sources. There you have it, kids. By executive fiat, the Constitutional protections of American citizens are now officially contingent upon the whims of the President. So much for a nation of "laws, not men." I don't care what your politics are. If you don't find this deeply disturbing...well, I really don't know what to say. -------------------- Tuesday, June 11, 2002
Quick Tuesday note Several of you have written to underscore a point on the Padilla case which I failed to emphasize: they may not be hauling him before a military tribunal, but they are apparently holding him indefinitely, without any due process whatsoever. What I don't understand is, why did they decide to use this guy as the test case for the dismantling of the Constitution? John Walker Lindh was at least arrested during an actual battle. Technically speaking, Padilla hasn't even committed a crime. So what is the administration thinking here? Maybe this will make more sense as more details emerge. (Note: I'll be out all day, so no more updates today.) -------------------- Monday, June 10, 2002
Okay, let me get this straight The big news of the day--of today, June 10, 2002--is that a terrorist suspect was arrested over a month ago and has been held at a military base ever since. And as Fox News dutifully reports, this month-old arrest --which we are only learning about today, for reasons yet to be explained--conveniently enough, this arrest proves that the CIA and FBI have, actually, been working together quite effectively. What a coincidence, that this news should break at this particular point in time. Not to mention the fact that this guy is an American citizen--but will nonetheless be tried, not in a court of law, as is the Constitutional right of every American citizen without exception--but instead, in a military tribunal. This is precisely why--as those of you with longer memories than the fictional citizens of Oceana may vaguely recall--we were explicitly told, when the Administration first announced its intention to use military tribunals in the war on terror, that no American citizen would ever be tried in this manner. Now the caveat is: unless they're guilty, of course. Look, if they're telling the truth, or any part of it--always a questionable assumption these days--then I'm glad they caught one of the bad guys. But you don't set precedents like this. The right to a jury trial is not nullifed because John Ashcroft says you are guilty, or because the inalienable rights of American citizens are somewhat inconvenient to the administration's prosecution of the war on terror. Charlie Manson gets a trial. Tim McVeigh gets a trial. The right to a trial is not waived because you have been accused of collaborating with terrorists, any more than it is waived because you are accused of mass murder or domestic terrorism or any other incomprehensibly terrible deed. This isn't being soft on crime, this isn't being sympathetic to terrorists. It is the most fundamental principle of our democracy, and god help us all if they manage to slide this one through. Update: this is, of course, an unfolding story. According to Yahoo news, the Justice Dept. says it has no plans to impose a military tribunal. And here's some instant feedback that pretty much speaks for itself, I think: why always concerned about the rights of a terrorist. you assume that he's
--------------------
 |
|
|
 |