Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Left s Next Cause C l bre: Taliban Jose
Front Page Magazine ^ | 6/12/02 | Chris Weinkopf

Posted on 06/11/2002 9:52:22 PM PDT by Pyro7480

Left’s Next Cause Célèbre: Taliban Jose

FrontPageMagazine.com | June 12, 2002

JOSE PADILLA, aka Abdullah al Muhajir, should be an instant folk hero among the American left. For an ideology that craves victims, he’s a twofer—Muslim and Hispanic. His ethnicity alone makes him far more compelling than John Walker Lindh, a white kid, and a rich one at that. Unlike Taliban John, Taliban Jose has serious mass-market appeal: The reformed gangbanger found religion behind bars and set out to see the world, only to be busted on a technicality by The Man when he returned to the U.S.

True, he’s also a convicted felon and, by all indications, an al Qaeda sympathizer who wants to devastate Washington, D.C., with a "dirty bomb" laced with radioactive materials, but his murderous intentions won’t deter those most likely to take up his cause—it never has before.

Within hours of Attorney General John Aschroft’s announcement that the FBI had apprehended Padilla and detained him at a Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., the usual suspects rushed to defend him. The American Civil Liberties Union dashed off a press release denouncing the Justice Department’s decision to classify Padilla as an "enemy combatant," thus depriving him of legal rights and protections accorded to run-of-the-mill criminals. Anthony Romero, the ACLU’s Executive Director, complained that the government "has failed to justify why our traditional system of American justice should not apply in the case of Jose Padilla."

The ACLU reasons that "if the government has sufficient evidence of criminal conduct of a United States citizen then it should charge him in U.S. courts," but that’s the problem—while Padilla clearly appears to be a terrorist, "sufficient evidence" of the sort to convict him criminally doesn’t exist. The FBI apprehended him as soon as he stepped off the plane from Pakistan to Chicago, well before he was able to determine the logistics of the attack that al Qaeda officials reportedly authorized him to launch.

According to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Padilla had yet to form "an actual plan." The feds "stopped this man in the initial planning stages"—a marked improvement over their inability to thwart Sept. 11 despite numerous promising leads, but a severe liability for any prosecutor charged with trying Taliban Jose in a court of law. Without a concrete plan—an intended target, an effort to secure ingredients for a "dirty bomb"—there’s no evidence that could persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If the FBI had decided to press criminal charges, Padilla would most likely have never even gone to trial, securing a quick release and another chance to go about his merry work.

The Justice Department reportedly came up against a court-imposed deadline to file criminal charges or else release the Puerto Rican jihadist from custody. Wisely, it decided to opt for "enemy combatant" status instead. Now the government can hold Padilla indefinitely, and his access to an attorney will be limited, much to the chagrin of the ACLU.

This is a protest that, even by ACLU standards, attains new levels of absurdity. If Taliban Jose doesn’t qualify as an "enemy combatant," it’s hard to imagine who would. Wolfowitz says that the al Qaeda operative "researched nuclear weapons and received training in wiring explosives while in Pakistan, and he was instructed to return to the United States to conduct reconnaissance operations for al Qaeda." Ashcroft reports that "multiple, independent and corroborating sources" indicate that Padilla was "involved in planning future terrorist attacks on innocent American civilians in the United States."

That evidence may be too flimsy, and its sources too unreliable, to secure a conviction or even an indictment, but it seems more than adequate to demonstrate that Padilla is a threat to the American people—and, yes, an "enemy combatant." That title could also apply to both John Walker Lindh and Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker," but in those cases, the Justice Department declined to make the designation, most likely because officials believed they could secure criminal convictions, and didn’t want to unnecessarily antagonize the civil-liberties crowd.

This time, it’s not so easy, and protecting the civil liberties of an Osama-loving gangster necessarily takes a backseat to safeguarding the American public from catastrophic attack. The left won’t see it that way, but the left will always complain. It regards failure to prevent a terrorist attack as proof of a right-wing conspiracy, and success as a civil-rights violation.

There will, no doubt, be more traitors like Taliban Jose. Radical Muslim groups stand much to gain by developing an American fifth column, and the obvious recruits are disaffected inmates in U.S. prisons—passport-holding reprobates with a history of violence.

President Bush’s remark that "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," applies to American citizens as much as it does to foreign governments. The Taliban Johns and the Taliban Joses out there are clearly against us, and the extreme sensibilities of civil libertarians only make their efforts easier.

 

Chris Weinkopf is an editorial writer and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News. To read his weekly Daily News column, click here. E-mail him at chris.weinkopf@dailynews.com.

Horowitz's Notepad | Poe's Notepad | Reality Bites | Shop Online | Encounter Books | CSPC Bookstore

Home | Contact Us | Advertise With Us | Archives | Privacy Policy | Top of Page

Advertise your banner here

Copyright © 2001 FrontPageMagazine.com




TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abdullahalmuhajir; alqaeda; dirtybomb; immigration; josepadilla; left; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last
This is already happening. A guest on the Sean Hannity radio show today was slamming the federal government's actions concerning Pedillo, and was particularly focused on John Ashcroft's actions. Again, the Left's lack of shame is exposed.
1 posted on 06/11/2002 9:52:22 PM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Okay I'll bite :-) Clearly the FBI cannot sit around and wait for guys like this to strike before they act and they can't just allow people who are a threat to walk around freely that would just be plain stupid. In times of war it is reasonable to expect people's freedom to be curtailed to some extent. BUT how far should this logic go? This guy is an American citizen...as an American citizen he should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else. The government having the ability to declare him a combatant, take away his rights and lock him up for an indefinate period without evidence and without access to an attorny is downright scarey. You may as well ship him off to Siberia just to complete the picture. I don't pretend to have an answer to how we should treat this guy...thats probably going to be something for the supreme court to figure out once all this is over. But what I do know is that these actions fly in the face of the values that America is supposed to stand for. Well I think I'd better climb into that flame retardant suit right about now :-)
2 posted on 06/11/2002 11:46:35 PM PDT by Soliloquy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliloquy
This case has a precedent.
There was an American citizen who fought
for the Italians in WWII.
He was tried as a combatant.
3 posted on 06/11/2002 11:53:05 PM PDT by Nogbad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Wonder if Bush, Cheney and Rummy set this up. They knew the left would not be able to resist the civil rights yazza! yazza! yazza! And they know the left will get zero support from the general public. I think they are trying to make Democrats appear more stupid than they really are--not an easy task.
4 posted on 06/11/2002 11:56:13 PM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nogbad
I hadn't heard about that precedent. I had heard of a precedent regarding a group of ww2 German saboteurs, one of whom was actually American. In any case is it a good precedent or a bad precedent?
5 posted on 06/12/2002 12:41:46 AM PDT by Soliloquy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; Soliloquy
I have to agree with Soliloquy. Imagine that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno announced that they suspected McViegh of bombing Oklahoma City, but they weren't going to try him; rather they were going to hold him without trial “indefinately.”
6 posted on 06/12/2002 2:16:15 AM PDT by TennesseeProfessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soliloquy
to hell with this guy's rights. They should find out all he knows, give him a fair military trial, and Hang 'em.
7 posted on 06/12/2002 6:29:18 AM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: studentintexas
We should be wary of setting precedents that Pres. H*l*ry could misuse (Not that she'd be bound by precedent). A good rule of thumb is to imagine any proposed legislation or policy is being administered by your worst political enemy.
8 posted on 06/12/2002 6:48:28 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
BUMP!
9 posted on 06/12/2002 10:10:54 AM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: studentintexas
If McVeigh were part of a group that had previously killed 3,00 Americans, had declared war on us and attacked us on 5 other occasions and had threathened to wipe out cities in the US with Nucs and bio weapons, prople wouldn't have cared if he were treated as a POW.
10 posted on 06/12/2002 10:15:43 AM PDT by Leto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Leto
And are you going to take Hillary's word that McViegh was the one?
11 posted on 06/12/2002 2:26:42 PM PDT by TennesseeProfessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
Agreed. But they should do the same with John Walker. I don't understand why either of these guys is not in front of the military tribunal right now.
12 posted on 06/12/2002 2:31:03 PM PDT by Hamza01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Soliloquy
You are right (probably.) However, let's not overlook the very basics. Wars aren't fought in courts, and certainly not in crazy American courts. Combatants don't file legal motions and ask permission from the ACLU before they start shooting at each other. Well, duh! We send our combatants to kill their combatants. If he's a combatant, treat him the same way his side is treating our combatants! Neither Jose nor Johnny should have been brought back to the cruel US prison system where they serve baklava on Muslim holidays while the tenants listen to live Mimi Farina concerts in between their computer science classes.
13 posted on 06/12/2002 2:37:39 PM PDT by Revolting cat!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
If Padilla is so big and bad, then charge him and try him! What the feds have done is nothing short of grabbing a guy off the street and saying, "He's the one!" Now before you start painting me with the broad brush of the left, please realize that if his butt can be nailed, then I'll pull the switch on Ol'Sparky myself!

But the larger problem is that the feds are taking the easy way out - which, while it looks good now, will come back to bite us later. Based on the precedent, there's nothing stopping them from coming up to YOU on the street this afternoon, while you're in traffic, hauling you off and keeping you bagged and under wraps for as long as they want to, simply for writing something on FR that they didn't like! There's no difference!

We've been quoting Benjamin Franklin ("They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety") for the past several weeks, but now comes the time to put your money where your mouth is. By allowing Padilla to be carted off and held without due process, nor access to his mouthpiece (however repugnant you might think she is), we are doing nothing short of giving up some of our own liberty. Is that what we REALLY want here?

All I'm saying is that we need to demand that the feds do all legwork necessary to get this guy, and not to set things up so that he can be freed (and all the work head down the drain) because of a technicality; and right now, because the feds are taking the easy way out instead of doing the hard work necessary to get it done right, we are headed in that direction!

14 posted on 06/12/2002 2:48:28 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
We should be wary of setting precedents that Pres. H*l*ry could misuse (Not that she'd be bound by precedent). A good rule of thumb is to imagine any proposed legislation or policy is being administered by your worst political enemy.

Exactly right - just imagine - President Hitlary (gag! retch!) demanding from Jim everyone's personal information that posts on FR, simply for calling her Hitlary. Using this precedent, she could "round up all the usual suspects" -- in this case, all of us, and throw away the key, simply because she didn't like what we said.

Do we really want to open that Pandora's box?

15 posted on 06/12/2002 2:51:26 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
Okay so we are both agreed that we can't just treat this like any normal criminal case...its war time and the priority is getting these guys out of circulation and protecting American lives. But I have a problem with the whole "treat them they same way they treat us." idea. If we come down to their level and throw away our ideals of justice, fairness and respect for human rights then it makes us no better than the terrorists and means that al quaeda has won.
16 posted on 06/12/2002 5:06:45 PM PDT by Soliloquy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Soliloquy
There'll be debates about this here - it's a worthy subject (another thread is now starting.) When I say treat them they way they treat us, I mean treat them that way on the actual battlefield as battlefield is traditionally understood (I mean for them the entire world is a battlefield.) In Pakistan and Afghanistan where we deploy our troops. Don't bring them here to feed them baklava and Critical Legal Theory!

Thinking about it all during my run this afternoon, I thought of how ill prepared the Western democracies are for the kind of warfare that al-Queda is waging. I mean, can you imagine the uproar if the 19 hijackers were singled out on the morning of September 11 and arrested? "Box cutters? You can't hijack an airplane with boxcutters! Preposterous!" There'll be demonstrations across the country and some of those who perished on that day would be among the demonstrators carrying "Racism!" and "Fascism!" signs. How do you prevent crime and terrorist acts? Our perfect Constitution and perfect Bill of Rights are mighty imperfect in this area. Look, the Israelis shoot to kill individuals they suspect of having bomb belts on their bodies. Should they read them Miranda Rights first? What to do?

17 posted on 06/12/2002 6:48:58 PM PDT by Revolting cat!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: studentintexas
You asked what would happen if the rapist and Reno had treated Mc Veigh the way this guy is being treated. I answered that if Mc Veigh were part of a group that had declared war on the US ect.... Hillary and her beliefs about Mc Veigh are irrelevant. I was pointing out the obivious: the situation is different therefore the response of the goverment should be different. Comparing Al Qeada with McVeigh or whoever is silly.

I tend not to believe the Clinton's about anything, however McVeigh was convicted by a court of his peers.

18 posted on 06/12/2002 7:38:45 PM PDT by Leto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
It is new territory for America but there are other states around the world that live perpetually with the threat of terror. Perhaps we need to look at how these states balance security with human rights to find the right way to go here. I am thinking particularly of Israel and the UK (wrt Northern Ireland here). But you are right, the constitution and bill of rights are imperfect here.
19 posted on 06/12/2002 8:01:13 PM PDT by Soliloquy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Soliloquy
Not now. If you join the enemy in war against us, then you involuntarily renounce your citizenship. I tried tracking down a reference for this on the web, but don't see one yet. However, I've heard the paragraph on the back of a passport (I don't have a passport handy) read to me on the radio. And I did find official references to a couple of other countries having similar policies. So I'm pretty sure of my facts here.
20 posted on 06/12/2002 10:16:56 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson