In my previous post on Saturday, November 26th, I failed to report that the Bush Administration had in fact indicted Jose Padillia to avoid a showdown with the Supreme Court. Although not the least bit hesitant to steamroll Congress in their disrespect for the Constitution, President Bush's Justice Department are wary of the nation's highest court and fearful that a majority of justices may respect the law. Indeed, as the Washington Post noted in an article on November 23rd, last year while reviewing numerous cases pertaining to the war on terrorism retiring Justice Sandra O'Connor wrote,
Both the New York Times and The Washington Post report that Padilla's change in status is merely a shift in tactics and the Bush Administration remains very much in arbitrary control over detention policy.
"A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
When Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter convenes hearings to consider Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, most will focus on abortion. We can expect that abortion will be covered with great intensity by the media while the special interest groups for each side are ready to clash. There is far more at stake than abortion. It is imperative that true civil libertarians pressure the members of the Senate Judicary Committee to vigorously question and challenge Samuel Alito's views about the detention of U.S. citizens in a time of war. It is entirely possible that the Supreme Court will preside over a matter similar to Jose Padilla's in the coming years and Sandra Day O'Connor will no longer be there.
3 comments:
T. Baker -
Welcome to the blog and thanks for sharing your views.
You make interesting points - especially about the waste of resources in detaining the wrong people. I had not thought of that and should have.
I would add an important caveat regarding your suggested treatment of nationals. We have citizens abroad who may wind up in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you T. Barker are apprehended in Singapore and at the mercy of their justice - any negotiating leverage we have to help you may be contingent upon how we treat their detainees here.
Another point I would add is that given our troubling track record in administering due process of law with our own citizens - how can we be sure the status of nationals are being properly determined?
I knew someone in graduate school who has brother, a muslim, medical professional, and U.S. citizen who was apprehended by the authorities. The family can't find out anything about why he was apprehended and don't know how he's doing. He has yet to be charged with any crime. Last contact I had with this person, her brother was in this sort of limbo for two years. This sort of trend is very disturbing for our country. It's especially disturbing with this particular President and a judicary that acquiesces too much.
Regards,
Rob
T. Baker -
An interesting scenario you laid out. All sorts of gray areas. I would be curious if such a matter ever came before the Hague and what their ruling was. Or how they might rule in the future.
But I actually think your example is less pertinent to the conversation than my Singapore scenario. What I had in mind was less you committing a crime than you simply being the victim of an overzealous police officer in another country.
Suppose you have a young student abroad, whether its Singapore or some other country. He gets lost, is in the wrong part of town, and is swept up in a some sort of police raid. The student is American, has money and the police decide to make an example of this rich young American. They arrest him on charges that could never stand up in a legitimate court of law - but they simply decide to detain him indefinitely.
I think to say that if he didn't want to assume the risks then he shouldn't have gone is really an unacceptable answer. The U.S. Consulate immediately tries to act on his behalf. But it happens we're detaining a young student from their country, he's just as innocent, and we're not being cooperative. He's a Muslim and our intelligence determined that he attended a mosque where suspected terrorists also congregate. He's not a terrorist but simply went to the closest Mosque to him. In that circumstance the U.S. Government's leverage and persuasive authority to protect our young American friend is diminished. Among the responsibilities of government is the protection of U.S. citizens abroad.
Regarding U.S. citizens in our own country - you itemize the Constitutional protections that exist and yet under the current political climate it's simply paper. Too many people are being denied due process of law by an arbitrary process with no transparency. It happened under Abraham Lincoln as well but he was a far more judicious sort than the current occupant of the White House.
Regards,
Rob
T. Baker -
True enough life isn't simple and you make valid points. I certainly do not want to forfeit our ability to properly detain legitimate security risks and if they are not U.S. citizens the standard is different. Whch is true in any country.
But whether they are U.S. citizens or not, this country is doing a poor job of distinguishing from among their detainees who is a security risk and who isn't. At this point I have little faith that our government can be trusted to judiciously protect us from a real terrorist as well as protect our civil liberties, such as the brother of my former classmate. What is to become of people like that? Why is the Constitution being forfeited in the defense of their rights?
I believe there needs to be more checks and balances and would feel more comfortable if the judicial and legislative branches asserted themselves more on this issue. Presently, the Executive Branch is operating as if they have carte blanche to do as they please. That is dangerous.
As you have alread said, detaining the wrong people is an inefficient waste of resources and increases are vulnerability to terrorism.
Regards,
Rob
Post a Comment