Padilla's Legal Limbo

The New Republic: Case Of Terrorist-Turned-Pariah Proves Thorny

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Jonathan Chait.

---

We will probably never know if [José] Padilla was a would-be terrorist," editorialized The New York Times last week. His "trial has been a reminder of how Mr. Bush's policy on prisoners has compromised the judicial process. And it has confirmed the world's suspicions of the United States' stooping to the very behavior it once stood against."

Well, yes and no.

It is certainly true that Padilla's trial is a big mess — a mess for which the Bush administration bears a lot of responsibility. Padilla, the American citizen long held in a naval brig as an "enemy combatant" and now facing trial in Florida on unrelated conspiracy charges, has claimed that long-term torture at the government's hands has left him incompetent to stand trial, a claim the judge last week rejected. In addition, Padilla has asked the court to dismiss the charges against him because of the allegedly outrageous government conduct toward him. What's more, he isn't even being tried for any of the most serious allegations against him — the reasons why he was originally detained — since the government denied him access to counsel for years, during which time, whether by torture or more acceptable interrogation methods, it extracted information from him that no court could constitutionally admit as evidence now. The government will be lucky to emerge with a conviction on charges that are a pale shadow of what it initially alleged.

But it is too easy to see the case, as the Times and other observers do, as simply another instance of Bush administration abuse with Padilla as a victim. Writing last week in Slate, Dahlia Lithwick thundered that, "This abuse has been futile — aimed at the wrong man and carried out for years. It has tainted the entire Padilla trial and degraded those who did the abusing." What's more, "at the end of the day, whether Padilla is tried, convicted, hospitalized, or set free, his whole sordid story stands for the single proposition that abuse begets more abuse."

Actually, it stands for something more — and more disturbing — than that: It stands for the proposition that, more than five years into the war on terror, America has no coherent legal strategy for thinking about those of its own who fight for the other side.

It may be hard to remember this now, but once upon a time, Padilla presented the government with a very hard case. Intelligence agencies had learned of him through the coercive interrogations of high-level Al Qaeda operatives overseas. He had a serious criminal record; as a juvenile, he had even been involved in a murder. And they had information that he was on his way here to conduct devastating terrorist attacks. Then, only eight months after September 11, 2001, he showed up at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, where law enforcement agents detained him as a material witness in a terrorism investigation. This was no John Walker Lindh or Yaser Hamdi — the two American citizens who were caught in Afghanistan as Taliban foot soldiers. Padilla was a genuine thug who had allegedly developed high-level Al Qaeda contacts and had been sent here to conduct operations. Five years after the fact, Lithwick can dismiss him as "the wrong man." But in 2002, no responsible government official could have regarded him as anything other than a most extreme threat.

The government, however, had a problem: It couldn't make a criminal case against Padilla. Its evidence consisted of intelligence that was both too sensitive to use in court and obtained by coercive means against other detainees. And Padilla himself wasn't talking. The decision to designate him as an enemy combatant and transfer him to military custody was an effort not merely — or even chiefly — to aggrandize executive power, but to prevent his release and to create a detention status under which agents could interrogate him and find out what he knew.

[zoroastor]

And by the way USA1st. I, and many many others could EASILY manufacture evidences against you.

Do you think that no one investigated the more than 55 people we executed in the 1900s, only to later find out beyond doubt they were not guilty. This does not take into account the almost certain number that we don't know about.

You are a naive, knee jerk reactionary - who on the one hand believes everything you read that fits your ideaology, but believes everything that doesn't is a leftist conspiracy by the evil media.

[zoroastor]

theUSA1st

Not only do I read much, I'm an Iraqi combat vet. How about you? Armchair general? probably.

There is a reason we have due process in this country. You are a living example of that reason.

I'm convinced the man probably IS guilty. That I'm convinced (or you are) having read about him in the media (which I'm sure you believe is full of leftist conspirators) by no means makes me qualified to pass judgement on him, let alone be his executioner.

You obviously believe you are smarter than the ladies and gentlemen who crafted such outdated things as the US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Geneva Convention... etc.

[theusa1st]

It seems that W's weasley wimps are showing their ignorance.
USAlast likes to ignore our laws, just like the rest of the far right.
Posted by WDRussell1 at 10:06 AM : Mar 13, 2007

As always, the left first starts off with character asassinations and then lies. No where did I say ignore our laws. He has a previous criminal record and has already been involved in a murder. Maybe if it wasn't for you liberals he would have gotten what he deserved earlier. It is obvious non of your left wing rehabilitation worked. It is time to put murderers in the ground..not keep them walking among us.

[wdrussell1]

The Geneva Conventions are for standing Armies in uniform. Terrorist are murderers...they deserve a rope.
Posted by theUSA1st at 07:09 AM : Mar 13, 2007

It seems that W's weasley wimps are showing their ignorance.
USAlast likes to ignore our laws, just like the rest of the far right.

[theusa1st]

Zoroastor - maybe you don't read much but here are only a few things about him:

He had a serious criminal record; as a juvenile, he had even been involved in a murder. And they had information that he was on his way here to conduct devastating terrorist attacks. Then, only eight months after September 11, 2001, he showed up at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, where law enforcement agents detained him as a material witness in a terrorism investigation. This was no John Walker Lindh or Yaser Hamdi %u2014 the two American citizens who were caught in Afghanistan as Taliban foot soldiers. Padilla was a genuine thug who had allegedly developed high-level Al Qaeda contacts and had been sent here to conduct operations. Five years after the fact, Lithwick can dismiss him as "the wrong man." But in 2002, no responsible government official could have regarded him as anything other than a most extreme threat.

The government, however, had a problem: It couldn't make a criminal case against Padilla. Its evidence consisted of intelligence that was both too sensitive to use in court and obtained by coercive means against other detainees. And Padilla himself wasn't talking.

Manufactured evidence against me...highly doubt it. It would be very easy to investigate me and they would find nothing. LIke I said earlier, the guy derserves a rope!

[rafterman1]

"However, don't you think we ought to find out for sure that he is a terrorist first?"

US troops in the field have reported how neighbors have reported other neighbors as "being suspicious" simply because they have a grudge with them. This happens all over Iraq. A thinking person has to seriously question just how many of the people we hold are actually "terrorists".

[zoroastor]

The Geneva Conventions are for standing Armies in uniform. Terrorist are murderers...they deserve a rope.
Posted by theUSA1st at 07:09 AM : Mar 13, 2007

I agree USA1st. However, don't you think we ought to find out for sure that he is a terrorist first? How about if your neighbor said you were a terrorist, gave some manufactured evidence (it wouldn't take much in this political and social climate), you were detained without a trial, lawyer, and sort of due process - held for several years and then without a trial given a "rope"?
Sound like a good idea now? Maybe you should change your login name from USA1st to KneeJerkReaction1st_ThinkingLater.

[theusa1st]

The Geneva Conventions are for standing Armies in uniform. Terrorist are murderers...they deserve a rope.

[scott4261]

This is a perfect example of why the Geneva Conventions should still be observed by the U.S.