Posted on 07/28/2002 7:11:43 AM PDT by Suzie_Cue
Jose, Interrupted: Where Is Terrorist Jose Padilla?
By Matt Taibbi (matt@buffalobeast.com)
Padilla: Notorious for 15 Minutes!
Forget the Pledge of Allegiance. Forget Elizabeth Smart. Forget the new Bills uniforms, even. Where in the world is Jose Padilla?
In a sequence of events that should turn every American literally white with terror before the awesome power of our media apparatus, a former gang member-turned-would-be terrorist was dug up out of a pit after being held illegally for a month, offered to the entire world as public enemy number one for about ten minutes, and then tossed back into purgatory, apparently to be officially forgotten for the rest of eternity.
Ask anyone, even the people youre sitting with right now, what associations come to mind when you mention the name Jose Padilla. In 100 cases out of 100, the answer youll get will run along the following lines: terrorist, suspected Al-Qaeda member, ringleader in a plot to explode a dirty bomb in Washington. As for visual images, the only one ever offered for anyone to recall later on was the notorious mugshot, a single grainy picture of a clearly nonwhite person that on June 11th was plastered on the front page of every major daily newspaper in America, as a crude but chilling portrait of the Dark Threat looming over our good society.
All of this is the frightening result of the continuing union between a ruthless, space-age propaganda machine and a pliant consumer population with an attention span of about eight seconds. Because the Padilla story will never be revisited, neither the accusations we associate with his name, nor the emotional effect of the mugshot image, will ever be undone. We all bought the story but should we have?
Even the most cursory review of the timeline of the Padilla story reveals that, far from being a simple story of a foiled terrorist plot, this was in fact a masterpiece of orchestrated propaganda, a brilliant manipulation of the biography of a common criminal for a variety of dramatic political objectives. From Willie Horton to Iran-Contra to Watergate, the lessons of almost every major political snow job of the past quarter-century were mined to yield a bag of tricks used flawlessly and compellingly for three short weeks three weeks that ended with an American citizen still in jail, without any possibility of a trial, for what may be the rest of his life.
Here is a timeline of the Jose Padilla story, stretched out to cover a period slightly longer than fifteen minutes:
May 8: After returning from Pakistan, Padilla, an American of Puerto Rican descent who now calls himself Abdullah al Muhajir, is detained by the FBI. No charges are filed, but he is nonetheless transferred to a jail in New York, where, in clear violation of the law, he will remain in custody without a charge until June 9.
No word of Padillas arrest is leaked to the media at this time, and there appears to be no hurry to make the matter public. He is simply an anonymous person rotting quietly behind bars. But within a few weeks, a few interesting seemingly irrelevant events coincided to seemingly push Padilla to the surface.
The first development was an earlier May 1 ruling by a New York Federal Judge named Shira Scheindlin, who on that date released a Jordanian-born college student named Osama Awadallah. Awadallah had been held in jail for three months without a charge on the grounds that he had lied to investigators about knowing one of the Sept. 11 hijackers. Scheindlin ruled that Relying on the material witness statute to detain people who are presumed innocent under our Constitution in order to prevent potential crimes is an illegitimate use of the statute.
The judges ruling was pretty clear it declared Minority Report-style policing illegal. In order to detain someone, even as a witness, Scheindlin ruled that the detention had to be in connection with a crime already committed, not one that the suspect might commit in the future.
This statute applied directly to Padilla, who, as fate would have it, was being held within Scheindlins jurisdiction. Whether or not his case would be made public, it was fairly clear that Padilla would eventually have to be moved.
The second thing that took place was a May 30 announcement by John Ashcroft that the Justice Department would now follow new rules in determining how investigations into the lives of individuals might occur. The new set of rules threw out the old standard of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and allowed agents to conduct fishing expeditions for up to a year into the private lives of individuals. This was not immediately relevant to Padilla, but in time, it would become relevant.
The third thing that happened was the emergence of a whistleblowing FBI agent named Colleen Rowley, who on May 21 sent an open letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller outlining a series of bureaucratic oversights that led to a failure to pursue valid leads on terrorist activity prior to September 11. Rowley would eventually testify before Congress on June 6 and 7 in other words, on the Thursday and Friday before news of Padillas arrest was made public.
What Rowley was alleging was that American field intelligence agents were working fine as is (among other things, Rowley described her Minneapolis offices frantic attempts to obtain permission to arrest would-be twentieth hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui as early as August, 2001) , and that the real security gaps were caused by bureaucratic incompetence in the agencys upper echelons. Her testimony, which made front-page headlines all across America, directly contradicted the earlier assertions by Ashcroft that what was needed were vastly expanded police powers of the type he proposed in his May 30 announcement.
At the end of the week of June 7, and throughout that weekend of June 8-9, the Bush administration briefly came under fire for apparently failing to act in the face of serious terrorist threats last summer.
All of that ended when, on June 10, John Ashcroft announced from Moscow (where he was meeting to discuss multilateral security issues with Russian officials) that the United States had Padilla in custody. On the heels of accusations that it had previously failed to prevent major acts of terrorism, the Bush administration was suddenly announcing... that it just had prevented a major act of terrorism. It was significant that the foiled plot Ashcroft revealed involved a weapon far worse than a jetliner crashing into a skyscraper; the prevention of a radioactive dirty bomb explosion suddenly turned, as Joseph Heller might have called it, the black eye of Rowley into a big fat feather in the administrations cap. In the blink of an eye, the Rowley story disappeared from the newspapers.
It may seem gratuitous to point out that just thirteen years before, George W. Bushs father waved the face of a menacing-looking black inmate named Willie Horton at voters at the very moment his poll numbers seemingly approached the point of no return. But I dont think it is. People like John Ashcroft know exactly what theyre doing when hand out a grainy mugshot of an angry-looking Puerto Rican criminal to the national press, and announce that this is the face that was plotting to nuke Washington. This is not the kind of thing that is going to inspire a reasoned response from most middle-class Americans.
It also may seem gratuitous to point out that a) Bushs fathers administration once withheld documents from Iran-Contra prosecutors on the grounds that they would compromise national security b) Dick Cheney has withheld documents pertaining to the Enron story on the grounds that they would compromise national security, and c) that Bush himself withheld what it said was proof of Osama bin Ladens guilt in the Sept. 11 bombings, on the grounds that it would compromise national security. But I dont think so here, either. On June 14, the Bush administration announced that Padilla an American citizen would not be tried in a criminal court, or even given a military tribunal. The reason? Evidence offered in public might compromise national security. If it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck, its probably a duck and the administrations decision not to try Padilla looked very much like an excuse to avoid admission that there was not much in the way of evidence against their suspect.
Padilla, meanwhile, had been declared an enemy combatant by Bush on June 9, and moved from New York to a military detention center at the Charleston Naval Weapons center in South Carolina. Soon after his detention became a public matter, the administration issued a series of seemingly insane statements about their intentions regarding their American suspect. Donald Rumsfeld came right and made a flat announcement: Were not interested in trying him at this time. Other Bush spokesmen told reporters that Padilla would remain in jail until were done with Al-Qaeda. The right to due process, the right to face ones accuser, all of this was tossed out the window in this series of alarmingly casual statements by Bush officials.
This unprecedented rollback in civil rights scored scarcely a blip in the national media, however. Although the idea that the government can take any American and simply throw him in jail indefinitely should have been extremely alarming to the public, it was never much of a story. About the strongest statement that the press could muster on the matter was a blasИ filler line like this one at the end of a June 11 Reuters story:
Civil rights groups have criticized the way the government was treating [Padilla].
The lack of uproar over Padillas detention was presumably due to the fact that the suspect himself appeared impossible to sympathize with; it was hard to think of Padillas experience applying to any of us, since none of us were flying around the world, meeting with Al-Qaeda officials, and plotting to explode radioactive bombs.
Then again, maybe Padilla wasnt, either. Just days after his detention was made public, the government quietly leaked word through a number of channels that the Padilla threat was maybe not all it was cracked up to be.
On June 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz even told CBS: I dont think there was actually a plot beyond some fairly loose talk.
A day later, government officials admitted that they had no physical evidence linking Padilla to a bomb plot no bomb materials or even documented attempts to obtain bomb materials, no diagrams, not even a chemistry textbook.
Soon after that, it came out that most of the governments case against Padilla rested on information given to them by Abu Zubaydah, a former Al-Qaeda operative who had been feeding U.S. investigators with a steady string of warnings and doomsday predictions none of which ever came to pass ever since his capture in late March. Zubaydahs status as a Guantanomo songbird had become the stuff of such legend that even before the news of the Padillas arrest was made public, observers began to question the information he was feeding us. Even a dumb reactionary glossy like Time magazine was confident enough to be publicly skeptical of Zubdayah. Here is that magazines assessment of him on May 24, two weeks before the Padilla story broke:
Now Zubaydah resides in that aforementioned undisclosed overseas location, where the U.S may or may not be using torture to extract information. The problem: How do we know if hes telling us the truth? This is, after all, Zubaydahs last dance: as long as he keeps tossing out things, stringing us along, hes useful, privileged, treated with respect by his interrogators, like a Cold War era captured agent. Once thats no longer true, his life will turn very, very nasty. Zubaydah has every reason to lie, to throw his captors off the trail, to sow fear and doubt, to poke the U.S. so that his al-Qaeda fellows can observe how we react.
What all of this meant, really, is that the Bush administration was now enthusiastically taking the word of admitted Al-Qaeda operatives to throw Americans in jail.
The flimsiness of the case against Padilla did not make the papers much, either. Not that it would have mattered. They could have given both sides of that story equal time, and Padilla still would have lost out. Case Against Padilla Called Circumstantial is no match, effect-wise, for Suspect in Dirty-Bomb Plot Held. Once you let a genie like that out of the bottle, you cant ever get it back in, even if you want to. And the press made it clear that nobody wanted to.
The political benefits provided to the Bush administration by the Padilla business were both obvious and not so obvious. The immediate benefit, obviously, was in defusing the Rowley story. But a more abstract benefit was Padillas usefulness in providing another excuse to expand police powers. I would bet the Rigas familys offshore holdings that before this year is over, the Bush administration will use the Padilla story to make an explicit connection between urban American street gangs (read: poor nonwhite criminals) and terrorism.
The mere thought of this should send chills up every black or Hispanic spine in America especially since the government has already established through Padilla that, in the wake of 9/11, it can get away with detaining indefinitely even American citizens without bringing them to trial. These people now have the power to make the drug war look like a silly frat prank. And as long as every network and 500 newspapers are lining up to help the cause, they will basically be unstoppable.
Where do you draw the line? How do you define the difference between a foreign enemy and an American with rights? The answer is that, after Jose Padilla, there is no line anymore and no one now can really pinpoint when and how it disappeared, since none of our journalists covered its passing.
(Matt Taibbi is a Fellow at the BEAST Institute in Buffalo, New York. Read this and more BEASTLY articles at www.buffalobeast.com)
For 10,000 FReeper points, what is Matt Taibbi? For 5,000 bonus points, why should I take him seriously?
How does that mesh with"liberty and justice for all"?
Not because of his political views, but because of his Constitutional views. That is why you need to take him seriously. If you can't see the more inportant points then why should you be taken seriously?
The Constitution guarantees everybody in this country due process of law, including the right of habeas corpus. This combatant, like any other citizen, is taking full advantage of that:
Jose Padilla v. U.S.
BTW, where is that Petition for the Great Writ sitting right now? In the same situation as Padella. I would bet that if this was the son of some rich guy this petition would be fast tracked in warp speed.
U.S. gangs linked to terrorism
At least one member of the group under investigation in Seattle converted to Islam while serving time in a Washington state prison. Now federal authorities are taking a close look at this question: Could it be that prison is one of the most fertile breeding grounds for future terrorists? FBI officials think there could be a real connection.There is a dangerous element out there, says Ali, that can influence young people if we dont monitor and keep an observation on which Islam is being taught.
Fair enough.
Knowing of your background in military law (right?), I'll gladly give your views a respectful hearing. Having encountered Taibbi before, and having sized him up as a leftist or anarchist loon, I refuse to waste much time on him. Life is short.
As for my being taken seriously, I'd be impudent and foolish to demand it. That is earned or isn't.
Sure, the congress has no war powers and they can't authorize the president to use them anyway.
I can't imagine why no one else reads the Constitution that way. ROFLMAO!
Beg to differ, newbie. Just because our civil rights and freedoms are being threatened by this so-called "war" is no reason to diminish what happened following the 2000 elections. I highly recommend you read "At All Coasts: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election" by Bill Sammon. I finished it a week ago, and still have my head wrapped in duct tape to keep it from exploding. Granted, current events are ominous enough, but let's not forget the past, because November is right around the corner, and 2004 ain't that far away, either!
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I am not defending Padella. I am defending the process. What I know of this case, Padella should be put away. But put away by a Court or a Commission. Not by an Executive Order.
The process surrounding the 2002 Election worked as provided by law and it worked quickly. I did not want to see Gore elected either. But there was no Constitutional Crisis either. The Country "Politically" speaking has not changed much since the 2000 Election either. So the odds are that we might see another close election. The War on Terror and the economy will be the deciding issues.
The loss of civil liberites is far more a Constitutional crisis than any election and it can become a focus of deciding that election. That is a danger.
Sure and a Court will decide that issue one of these days. One of these days. ROFLMAO....But I bet one American Citizen is not ROFLMAO. Nor should anyone else.
Don't overlook the US Military either......Do not be surprised either...
As I have said before, we will see more "easy pickings" like Padilla busted for propaganda purposes while real threats like a porous border remain unaddressed. Other challenges to the constitution like TIPS ignore the fact that we had plenty of data before 9/11 and couldn't properly use it. Rather than overhaul the expensive and useless agencies, we simply give them even more data in violation of the 4th amendment.
Again, bro, read the book. There's so much that went on that either didn't get covered, or got scant coverage. There was a constitutional crisis of large proportions, it just wasn't as obvious as the anti-Patriot Act, 245i, CFR, Operation TIPS, etc. Yeah, the system eventually worked, but not before it was stretched and pulled to the breaking point. But having the short attention span that we Americans do, we've already forgotten about what had been the biggest story of my lifetime (born in '65) until 9-11. It will come back to bite us in the collective ass, because we've forgotten already.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
He's a writer for the virulently anti-American (actually I think they hate everything) paper, The Exile, based in Moscow.
What do I win?
Wait 'til Hilary gets elected in 2004 and starts declaring American citizens "enemy combatants" on the recommendation of some sort of UN advisory board - I'll laugh and do a little jig as you all gripe and sob with nostalgic regret for the freedoms you so cheerfully abandoned way back in 2002...
Matt's exactly what he says he is - a former writer for an expat rag in Moscow, who has now settled about a stone's throw from me and started a paper, apparently on the theory that the extant "alternative" press in Buffalo isn't "edgy" enough. The working definition of "edgy" being "acting like an a**hole in public", of course.
That's 10,000 points to me.
For 5,000 bonus points, why should I take him seriously?
Don't. To wit: The Beast's attempt at humor. Mind you don't cut your fingers, now - that's some powerfully "edgy" stuff...
15,000 points and I'm ready for the bonus round...
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.