(U-WIRE) -Almost two years ago, Jose Padilla was apprehended in Chicago as a suspected terrorist. I remember his arrest clearly; I was living in Washington, D.C., at the time, riding the same Metro he was supposedly planning to bomb.
It was a frightening jolt of reality when I realized that there are still people out there who want to hurt Americans, targeting areas I use daily.
Padilla is a U.S. citizen, and he was picked up in the United States, yet he has been held as an enemy combatant in a naval brig in South Carolina. He has yet to be charged with a crime and has had limited access to his lawyer.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department tried to justify these actions by stating that if we afforded Padilla his constitutional rights, he likely would have ended up a free man.
The U.S. government can not convict him in court so they simply aren't charging him. The U.S. Constitution mandates that citizens cannot be held without being charged and tried, and once charged they must have access to a lawyer.
Nothing, not even committing a crime --especially not committing a crime --can take those rights away. Obviously I would never advocate that we allow terrorists to roam free in the United States. But simply declaring Americans enemy combatants is not the answer.
If President Bush can detain Americans without answering to anyone, without even telling anyone, there's no saying where he will stop.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist -but he was afforded all of the benefits of the American justice system. John Walker Lynn was apprehended overseas, actively fighting American troops. He got a lawyer and a trial.
Even Mohammad Atta, the suspected 9/11 co-conspirator is getting a trial. What makes Jose Padilla different?
If the United States really is serious about spreading democracy and freedom, we ought to have faith in our own system are ideals guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Yes, sometimes that means that a guilty person might not get the harshest sentence we would prefer. But it also means that we can bank on those rights being there when we need them.
If the Justice Department can't convict Padilla, it means one of two things.
First, they might just not have the evidence. But that's unlikely. As cynical as I am, I seriously doubt that Bush is just holding him for fun.
More likely, the evidence they have was obtained in a way that is inadmissible in court -evidence becomes inadmissible for a reason.
It provides an incentive for law enforcement to obtain evidence legally. If the FBI is allowed to collect evidence however it wants, then they can simply throw the offender in the brig instead of charging them. Thus the point is lost and our constitutional protections are meaningless.
We're told that we are fighting the War on Terrorism to preserve and spread freedom. It would be hard to find someone to argue that freedom isn't a good thing.
I like being able to write whatever I want without the Secret Service or the FBI knocking at my door or going through my things with no real reason other than the fact that I disagree with the current administration.
So it doesn't make sense to destroy freedom in order to save freedom, does it? Am I the only one confused by this?
Jose Padilla did travel to Afghanistan. He probably met with al Qaeda. He probably deserves to be in jail for a long, long time. But he's also an American citizen and therefore deserves a lawyer, a trial and a jury.
17 Archives
U-Wire
