It is shocking that there is not more of an outcry over the unlawful detainment of radioactive “dirty bomb” suspect Jose Padilla. Yes, the guy is very likely guilty. But so are most other American citizens arrested for serious crimes such as murder. Freedom of speech is designed to protect objectionable speech, since non-objectionable speech doesn’t need any protections. Similarly, the due process of law is designed to protect individuals who appear guilty but are not. Rumsfeld saying that he “was unquestionably involved in terrorist activities” and Bush saying that he “is a bad guy” are not good enough reasons to lock up Padilla without trial, whether by civilian court or court martial.
It is especially sad to see liberals such as Tribe imply that national security is incompatible with trying Padilla:
“The decision to detain him indefinitely under this new category of enemy combatant is intriguing,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard. “It is a source of concern, but the constitutional question it presents is deeply perplexing, given that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Pofessor’s Tribe’s reference to a suicide pact was an echo of a similar sentiment in a 1949 dissent by Justice Robert Jackson of the Supreme Court [meaning] that the protection of liberty cannot be at the expense of the nation’s security.
Spies are regularly tried without intelligence secrets being revealed. I believe that within 10 years, these sorts of potentially indefinite (and therefore unlawful) detentions will be universally regarded as an abrogation of our country’s constitutional principles on the scale of the Japanese internments in WWII.
Post a Comment