Views » February 6, 2004
Jose Padilla, We’re All in Trouble Here
The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday by lawyers representing José Padilla, a client they have not been permitted to meet or talk to. Padilla’s public defenders argued that the High Court should let stand a decision by the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals that Padilla should be released or charged within 30 days of that court order. (The administration has asked for, and received, a stay of that release order pending the appeal to the High Court.)
José Padilla, you’ll remember, is that American-turned-al-Qaeda-terrorist detained in May 2002 as a witness in connection with the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But you’ll remember him more specifically for allegedly planning to detonate a “dirty bomb.” For the 18 months since, Padilla has been held without charge, without a day in court and without access to his attorneys. The Justice and Defense departments claim in Rumsfeld v. Padilla that by declaring Padilla an “enemy combatant,” the president has the authority to hold him indefinitely, or as long as the war persists, without charge or due process of law. The federal appeals court order challenges the Bush administration’s claim of such wide-sweeping authority to limit constitutional rights.
For these 18 months the Padilla case received little public notice—because little information was available to press, public or his lawyers. But back in June 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft staged a news conference that made Padilla’s arrest out to be a major event in the war against terrorism.
But in selecting and delivering Padilla to the press June 9, 2002, the Justice Department’s purpose was to break the legs of another big story that had been heating up the media for the previous two weeks. In giving up José Padilla to the press Ashcroft tipped the administration’s hand, showing how low Bush and his people would go in using fear to manipulate the people and the press for political gain—and how far they would go in suspending citizens’ rights in the name of fighting terror.
The Padilla case, then and now, is the Bush administration’s most blatant, cynical, destructive and telling use of the politics of fear. If you don’t count his later lying the country into an illegal pre-emptive war in Iraq.
A dirty trick
The morning we first heard the name José Padilla I was flipping through TV news channels as his name and picture and some carefully chosen if sketchy items from his resumé were ladled out piecemeal by the excited media.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
Jim Rinnert is the art director at In These Times.
SAVE 53% OFF
Reader Comments
Mr. Rinnert:
Thank you for your recent article on the dastards at the top. I’ve recently reclaimed that N*t**n cover picture of Alfred E. Bush and that “worry” was on the button.
But—and this may be very low stuff, a spew—
I don’t connect to Warden Askrak’s effect on the populace. Actually, I’m taking this opportunity to tell you and anyone who reads this that I don’t understand the widespread idea that Americans became fearful after 9-11, since, well, I immediately thought ‘the chickens are coming home to roost’. It was when I heard some one of our betters ensconced at the Heritage Institute warn *on September 11, 2001* that Americans would have to re-evaluate the efficacy of their civil liberties that I became scared, feeling the imminent threat. It has only been chapter after chapter of *1984* since then, for me. It’s *Brazil*, which was originally depicted as a comedy. I had to get out before the ending.
Well, the newts who noodle the newds might share a gasp when Askrak efflates. They’re so close to the real thing. They’ve learned to think alike. A dirty bomb? We’ve had them since the ‘40s. They’ve been called such things as the Nevada Test Site, Love Canal, Bhopal, Three Mile Island, Rocky Flats, and that little DEA area off Long Island that might have been working on White Nile Virus—well, just those, surely, and maybe a few more that weren’t important enough to put on the newds—Amcits all have got some different living through chemistry since our government took such interests in protecting us and our corporations have improved our waste. I know, who knew? Not threatening enough? Nader warned back in the ‘70s that if a nuke plant went up for whatever reason, we’d have instant martial law (who knew)? Crazy spoiler nudnick.
But a warning from Askrak frightening? NOT EVEN—especially from that profligate psychopath. EVERYTHING he does is a threat to our individual and collective well-being, surmounted only by the masters of war.
Hasten the day, yes—if we can get there.
Posted by Ruwood on Feb 6, 2004 at 2:09 PM
Whoops, not “DEA site” but Plum Island. See this: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0413213&mode=thread&tid=5
Posted by Ruwood on Feb 6, 2004 at 3:03 PM
Its better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
The dark forces of reactionary dominion are poised. Even school children in Ca. are being asked to verify references Dubbya made in the State of U. address in the Bible. A school project. Kids who decline are held for detention for a week.
And the abyss yawns….
IF WE ACCEPT WHAT THEY ARE GIVING US WE DESERVE WHAT WE GET.
Resist. Resist any way you can, no matter how small.
daigu
Posted by daigu on Feb 7, 2004 at 1:32 AM
Posting Security