Posted on 06/02/2004 11:36:50 AM PDT by knighthawk
Aha. So it turns out that Jose Padilla is really rather not a nice person after all. Having duly filled out his Al Qaeda application("Do you have a conscience?" No. "Do you have a whit of humanity and decency?" No.), the Chicago gang punk traipsed off to terror training camp in Afghanistan, earned all his merit badges and returned to his homeland to wreak havoc. And worse.
As detailed yesterday by the Department of Justice, Padilla, a U.S. citizen, is indeed the enemy combatant the government had described. A few exploding apartment buildings and hotels here, a homemade "dirty bomb" there - this full-fledged terrorist and U.S. foe was intent on murder in the mass degree.
The guy was such a pet of the Al Qaeda hierarchy, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had him over for refreshments the night before Padilla headed back to the U.S. What a prize! A U.S. citizen able, more than willing and absolutely ready to slaughter Americans. This was better than finding a whole herd of goats in a box of Cracker Jack.
It is Padilla's citizenship that has created all sorts of soul searching on these shores. Should a guy like him be given the usual Miranda-warning protections afforded U.S. citizens suspected of crimes, or was President Bush right to hold Padilla as an enemy combatant for two years without benefit of an attorney? For sure, the latter was the far more effective way to squeeze information out of him.
Even so, as this page has argued, U.S. citizens deserve their day in court. But what court? The Padilla case, in light of the information Justice has now provided, is prime evidence of the need for a special new tribunal. This court would be empowered to review the evidence that an American did indeed join the enemy and so must be locked away as a matter of national security until the end of hostilities.
There are some administration critics who believe Justice revealed the Padilla information yesterday to influence the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the case. That's fair. Top court justices are not, have never been, immune to the events and political currents of the day. Nor should they be. Pretending otherwise is as naive as thinking a Chicago street rat could not become an Al Qaeda darling.
Ping
What's the deal here? Are we protecting sources? If he's a traitor, charge him, try him, give him his last cigarette and pull the triger. If indeed we are protecting sources then I agree, we need a special tribunal but this is not political dessent, it is treason.
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.