First, Jose Padilla. Who's next?

Last modified: Fri Oct 3 11:50:51 EDT 2003

First, Jose Padilla. Who's next?

Amnesty International marked the first anniversary of Padilla's imprisonment with this story.

ChargePadilla.org has more current information about Jose Padilla, his status, and action you can take.

There's an excellent, up-to-date record of the case at FindLaw.

Al Muhajir, aka Jose Padilla
Abdullah Al Muhajir,
aka Jose Padilla
CNN photo
If there is one single factor that most distinguishes the United States from other countries, it is our profound belief in the rule of law, rooted in the Constitution. When our government (usually the executive branch) attempts to ignore or circumvent the Constitution, it is usually brought to heel quickly - by the courts, Congress, and the weight of public opinion. There have been exceptions, such as the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, but generally the response of the American system to Constitutional abuse has been swift and sure.

So what are we to make of the case of Jose Padilla? Padilla was arrested on May 8, 2002 at O'Hare International Airport when he arrived on a flight from Pakistan. On June 10, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the arrest and informed the press that Padilla was being detained as an "enemy combatant". Since then Padilla has been held in a military jail and has been denied the right to see a lawyer. [See the CNN article of June 10, 2002]

What's truly astounding about this case is that Padilla is an American citizen. A lower court judge agreed with Attorney General Ashcroft's assertion that "the president has the power to detain as an enemy combatant, until the end of hostilities against Al Qaeda, an American citizen captured in the United States." The government has argued that "Mr. Padilla [is] undergoing extensive interrogation and that allowing ... lawyers in could harm that process." [Source: New York Times, April 10, 2003]

Padilla has not been charged with any crime.

What we have here is an American citizen, arrested in the United States, being held for "extensive interrogation" in a military jail, without being charged of any crime, essentially indefinitely (when will "the end of hostilities against Al Qaeda" be declared over?).

As of April 10, 2003, Padilla was still in custody. A federal district judge in Manhattan ruled on April 9, 2003 that "the legality of President Bush's designation of Jose Padilla as an enemy combatant may be appealed immediately to a higher court, even before the judge has ruled on the merits of a challenge to Mr. Padilla's detention." [same source as above]

The Cato Institute, not an organization that I generally find myself in agreement with, has an interesting article on the case of Padilla and other similar cases.

The requirement that the government provide a reason for imprisoning someone is a result of the following words in the U.S. Constitution:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Habeas corpus is the cornerstone of our entire criminal justice system. It's the only individual right guaranteed by the Constitution as originally adopted; all other individual rights were granted in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments. Its suspension was, along with taxation without representation, a rallying cry for the American Revolution. Literally, "habeas corpus" means "you have the body." A writ of habeas corpus is a petition that requires the government to explain why a prisoner is being held; in particular, the charges being levied. The government must have a legal reason for holding a prisoner.

Maybe the war on terrorism does justify suspension of habeas corpus. But before we do so, we better be damn sure we understand just what we're giving up, and why, and to whom.

First, Jose Padilla. Who's next?

Other links about the Padilla case