![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On June 2nd, weeks before the Supreme Court is to hear a case to determine their right to hold him, The New York Times and NPR reported that the Government has released documents detailing allegations against Jose Padilla.
The short and sweet version is thus: He received some training from Al Qaida, suggested the possibility of detonating a dirty bomb - an idea which Al Qaida dismissed as impracticable - and was instructed instead to rent apartments, turn on the gas and then detonate it.
Such are the allegations.
The Constitution requires a fair and speedy trial. Padilla has been held for about two years without being charged. In fact, despite the revelation of these allegations, he has still not been charged. Hardly a speedy trial. Moreover, the release of these allegations seems a cynical ploy by the government to have him found guilty in the court of public opinion before his case even goes before the Supreme Court. And, indeed, jailing him as an enemy combatant had the specific purpose of denying this American Citizen his constitutional rights:
[Deputy Attorney General James B.] Comey said that had the Bush administration brought criminal charges against Mr. Padilla in the beginning, rather than jailing him as an enemy combatant, it might never have found out about his plotting.
"He would very likely have followed his lawyer's advice and said nothing, which would have been his constitutional right," Mr. Comey said. "He would likely have ended up a free man, with our only hope being to try to follow him 24 hours a day, seven days a week and hope - pray really - that we didn't lose him."
Indeed, in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, I am left wondering precisely how the administration "found out about his plotting."
So, what's at stake here? Well, as a nation, we have a choice between risks. On the one hand, there is the risk of terrorism, which can never be completely eliminated. On the other hand, there is the risk of being incarcerated indefinitely on false charges, and possibly tortured for information that one does not possess.
My take on it is that the risk of terrorism is the lesser of evils. Ben Franklin wrote that he who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither. Our nation was designed by our founding fathers to guarantee our freedom. Bush points out that the terrorists do what they do because "they hate our freedom." If we accept this premise, then it follows that giving up our freedom for the empty promise of safety, does, in fact, cede the win to the terrorists. And quite frankly, given the choice of deaths, I'll take "blown up by terrorists" over "tortured to death in gitmo" any day. And should John Ashcroft ever deign to read my rantings here, the possibility of the latter cannot be overlooked.
The Bush Administration is trying to persuade us that any risk at all is unacceptable, and that the risk level must be brought to zero at all cost. But it is not possible to bring the risk of terrorism to zero, because all it takes is one wingnut to decide he's going to blow himself up for his cause. All I can say, is if you don't have enough evidence against someone to charge them, you don't have enough evidence to continue holding them. I'd rather take my chances of being blown up by that person than take my chances of being incarcerated indefinitely on false charges.
For those of you who wish to read the article, it can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/politics/02PADI.html?pagewanted=1
The short and sweet version is thus: He received some training from Al Qaida, suggested the possibility of detonating a dirty bomb - an idea which Al Qaida dismissed as impracticable - and was instructed instead to rent apartments, turn on the gas and then detonate it.
Such are the allegations.
The Constitution requires a fair and speedy trial. Padilla has been held for about two years without being charged. In fact, despite the revelation of these allegations, he has still not been charged. Hardly a speedy trial. Moreover, the release of these allegations seems a cynical ploy by the government to have him found guilty in the court of public opinion before his case even goes before the Supreme Court. And, indeed, jailing him as an enemy combatant had the specific purpose of denying this American Citizen his constitutional rights:
[Deputy Attorney General James B.] Comey said that had the Bush administration brought criminal charges against Mr. Padilla in the beginning, rather than jailing him as an enemy combatant, it might never have found out about his plotting.
"He would very likely have followed his lawyer's advice and said nothing, which would have been his constitutional right," Mr. Comey said. "He would likely have ended up a free man, with our only hope being to try to follow him 24 hours a day, seven days a week and hope - pray really - that we didn't lose him."
Indeed, in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, I am left wondering precisely how the administration "found out about his plotting."
So, what's at stake here? Well, as a nation, we have a choice between risks. On the one hand, there is the risk of terrorism, which can never be completely eliminated. On the other hand, there is the risk of being incarcerated indefinitely on false charges, and possibly tortured for information that one does not possess.
My take on it is that the risk of terrorism is the lesser of evils. Ben Franklin wrote that he who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither. Our nation was designed by our founding fathers to guarantee our freedom. Bush points out that the terrorists do what they do because "they hate our freedom." If we accept this premise, then it follows that giving up our freedom for the empty promise of safety, does, in fact, cede the win to the terrorists. And quite frankly, given the choice of deaths, I'll take "blown up by terrorists" over "tortured to death in gitmo" any day. And should John Ashcroft ever deign to read my rantings here, the possibility of the latter cannot be overlooked.
The Bush Administration is trying to persuade us that any risk at all is unacceptable, and that the risk level must be brought to zero at all cost. But it is not possible to bring the risk of terrorism to zero, because all it takes is one wingnut to decide he's going to blow himself up for his cause. All I can say, is if you don't have enough evidence against someone to charge them, you don't have enough evidence to continue holding them. I'd rather take my chances of being blown up by that person than take my chances of being incarcerated indefinitely on false charges.
For those of you who wish to read the article, it can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/politics/02PADI.html?pagewanted=1
