Replies

I find myself compelled to ask a nasty question. Despite the constitutional niceties, what does one do about a potential terrorist?

Since so-called dirty nuclear bombs are all the rage these days, suppose that we believe that a person has the ability and inclination to perform this act?

Even if we were perfectly certain that we could capture the perp after the act, we know that punishment of any sort is unlikely to deter. The terrorists have shown that they are willing - nay, eager! - to die for their cause. Historically, our concept of law has been to let the crime happen, and then to prosecute; but can this model work against a class of criminal who kills many people - literally thousands at a time - and arranges to die in the process?

If we don't preempt terrorists, then we increase the liklihood of their success. Are we willing to pay the price in American blood?

More pointedly, would any of us be willing to stand up in front of children, spouses, and parents of burned, blasted, and terminally radiated victims and take responsibility for not detaining a potential mass murderer?

As for me, I continue to support the President and Attorney General Ashcroft.

"Historically, our concept of law has been to let the crime happen, and then to prosecute; but can this model work against a class of criminal who kills many people - literally thousands at a time - and arranges to die in the process?"

Don't give us this rally-round-Old-Glory bull.

Washington has - through its lies - killed far more Americans than al-Qaeda. From Lyndon Johnson's getting us deep into Nam by his falsified Gulf Of Tonkin "incident" that never happened (result: 58,000 Americans died) to the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments on unknowing and unconsenting black Americans, Washington has killed far more Americans than bin Laden could hope to.

Padilla is a punk and a traitor - but Washington used no standards of any kind in handling his case. (What specific reasons are there for which he is indefinitely detained as an "enemy combatant" while actually captured-on-the-battlefield Johnny Jihad gets a civilian trial?) (What specific standards mean an Arab of naturalized French citizenship who was the "20th skyjacker" - and would also "have killed thousands" - is entitled to a U.S. civilian trial, while Padilla isn't?)

If Padilla - as I believe - really was planning a dirty nuke for al-Qaeda, he was undoubtably guilty already of something under ordinary federal criminal law that he could have been prosecuted for and gotten a long sentence for. Conspiracy sounds virtually certain; violation of various federal antiterrorism statutes, too.

The question is not whether to take pre-emptive action against terrorists, but who gets to decide who is a terrorist and who isn't. Should we take the President's word for it, without any evidence or justification? Or should we have a trial in the Judicial system to establish who is a terrorist? I agree, we shouldn't wait until a terrorist act has already been executed to take action. But we should have evidence that the individual or group were actually going to perform the act - the same standard used in those undercover operations where cops pose as would-be assassins. Otherwise, if we don't have a strict evidentiary standard, we're left with divining intent. This would be a dangerous precedent.
BTW, the government isn't even charging Padilla with potential terrorism. They're detaining him because he's a "bad guy" according to Bush. If they had evidence that he was going to do something bad, let's bring it to trial and punish the guy. But holding a US citizen indefinitely until Bush decides the war is over is not acceptable.