Posted on 06/13/2002 11:00:58 PM PDT by kattracks
Here we go again. The decision to hold Jose Padilla, AKA Abdullah al Muhajir, the so-called "dirty bomber," as an "enemy combatant" has reignited the bonfire of hysteria over military tribunals and civil rights.
"The government's position is unacceptable," declared The New York Times on Wednesday. "Our Constitution guarantees that those suspected of crimes must be informed of the charges against them, be able to confront their accusers, consult with a lawyer and have a speedy and open trial. But that means very little if the government can revoke all those rights merely by labeling someone a combatant."
The Washington Post editorialized the next day, "If Mr. Padilla is, as Mr. Bush said, `a bad guy,' then it's a relief to have him behind bars. That said, we had thought that it took more than the determination by the president that someone was a `threat to the country' before an American could simply disappear and be locked up without charge or trial or prospect of release."
Meanwhile, the cable news networks run round-the-clock debates on the question of whether Padilla's civil rights have been violated -as if the world would end if the answer were yes. Well the answer, of course, is yes; his civil rights are being violated. But that's not the relevant issue. The question should be whether or not the government is justified in violating an al-Qaida operative's rights.
This is more than a semantic argument. The American Civil Liberties Union and the media repeatedly insist anything that "violates" your civil rights is automatically and obviously unacceptable. But if you take a deep breath and think about it, this is balderdash.
Remember, your rights are "unalienable," according to the Declaration of Independence, which means the government cannot take them away from you. Ever. The sound-bite cliché that criminals "forfeit" their rights frames the issue improperly. Criminals don't "give up" their rights. The State determines that their rights can be ignored.
Forget criminals. Every single day the government decides when and where it is appropriate to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens. We're searched at airports, court houses and high schools without probable cause all the time. We can't shout "fire" in movie theaters and we can't hold rallies inside high-security installations.
Think of the military draft. Mandatory induction into the Army mangles, folds, spindles and mutilates almost every constitutional right you have, from free association to free speech, from the right to privacy to the right to life (the government can ask you to die for your country) -and yet it is perfectly legal because we recognize that we cannot hold the survival of the nation hostage to individual rights.
Similarly, the summary detention of Padilla is legal, too. The issue of whether American citizens could be treated as prisoners of war was settled six decades ago in Ex Parte Quirin. The Supreme Court ruled that sneaking into the United States with the intent to destroy "life or property" is an offense "against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
The case dealt with eight German agents who infiltrated the United States intending to blow up factories and disrupt transportation. Two of the agents were American citizens. Six infiltrators were executed, including one of the Americans. In response, the court ruled that being an American citizen "does not relieve" you from the obligations of the rules of war. "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war," the court concluded.
In short, The Washington Post's ignorance notwithstanding, during wartime the president, as commander-in-chief, can declare someone a "threat to the country" and lock him up without trial. If that scares you, get over it.
So, again, the issue isn't "can" Padilla's rights be violated, but should they be violated. I ask two questions to come to my conclusion. What does Padilla deserve? And, what should Americans expect their government to do?
As for what Padilla deserves, the short answer is nothing. Al-Qaida rejects the Geneva Convention and the rules of war because its aim is mass murder for mass-murder's sake. Its operatives are all essentially plain-clothes spies and saboteurs (who can be executed according to the Geneva convention, by the way). Those who say Padilla should get a civilian trial are essentially saying that if you reject the rules of civilized nations, like those inscribed in the Geneva Convention, you therefore deserve to be treated better, not worse, than those rules require.
As for what we should expect from our government, well, I expect it to make defending the United States from further attacks its highest priority. If that means not letting the entire country be held hostage to Padilla's rights, so be it.
Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a TownHall.com member group.
Contact Jonah Goldberg | Read his biography
©2002 Tribune Media Services
Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC, PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794
Support Free Republic by secure credit card.
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com
billybudd: What scares me is the attitude of Jonah Goldberg and people like him. They do not view individual rights as limits within which government may exercise force, as principles which should be applied in all circumstances because of their nature. They view individual rights as a wad of cash, something which can be spent away when it is convenient (makes you wonder by what principles they measure convenience). Goldberg heartily approves of the interventionist regulatory State and condescendingly advises us to "get over it." This scares me.There is another thing that Jonah did not address. When President Bush backtracked from the military tribunals originally, he promised that American citizens would not be subject to them. If he has changed his mind and he believes that citizens should be interned indefinitely, he should state that clearly and the reasons for it and the legal precedents. He should then stick to it. This habit of his to try to have things both ways:
1) I will make Congress hold spending increases to four percent... unless I want to give $80 billion to corporate farmers in farm states—
2) I will send Ari Fleischer out in a press conference to insist that I believe that human activity causes global warming and have since June last year... but FreeRepublic, wink wink, I don't really mean it—
has got to end. He has 77 percent approval. If he cannot state his case and take chances now, when will he?
--Raoul
That may sound bad to some of you but I don't care, what we have is right now, and the future. I am sure history will look upon this period as a blemish on our republic.
Again I don't care, I am sure the Union will weather it. If you look upon the infractions by the Lincoln Administration on civil rights or even FDR's you might wonder how the hell we survived, but we did. Was Lincolns' war on civil rights ( and specifically habeus corpus )justified to keep the Union together? Maybe?
Did FDR's internment camps benefit Naional Security? (in this case probably not) but he is still looked upon (especially by the left) as one of this Nations greatest Presidents.
I do think there are times when a volation of rights is justified. Just like the example of not waiting for a warrant to search for the "ticking bomb".
I believe they had this Padilla guy and did not want anyone to know untill they could nab some of his buddies in Pak. That explains the timing.
In the mean time through interogation they are probably so convinced of his guilt, and seeing how the Moussoui circus is going, thought it was time to tackle this one a little differently.
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.