Monday, August 20, 2007
Not Just the Loony Left Complain About Padilla's Conviction
The New York Times ran a strangely conflicted, unsigned op-ed a few days ago entitled The Padilla Conviction. Although the NYT has long been in the 'Just Like Criminals' camp regarding how to fight back against the Muslim extremists waging war against us, the Times is reluctant to acknowledge getting, for Padilla, just what it claims to want--criminal convictions in federal court of illegal combatants. Witness the lead paragraph:
It is hard to disagree with the jury’s guilty verdict against Jose Padilla, the accused, but never formally charged, dirty bomber. But it would be a mistake to see it as a vindication for the Bush administration’s serial abuse of the American legal system in the name of fighting terrorism. (Emphasis added).
The abuse, by the way, is that the Administration did not use the federal criminal justice system from the beginning (as if the Judiciary has any roll in fighting a war). Witness: Bush trampled on the Constitution...Even with the guilty verdict, this conviction remains a shining example of how not to prosecute terrorism cases. That's closer to reality, we shouldn't prosecute terrorism cases. The President tried and failed to fight this war in the most effective way possible. For the NYT editors, effective doesn't enter into it.
They really just don't get it. [Padilla] was denied access to a lawyer even when he was being questioned. Imagine, if you will, having to provide a lawyer to each German or Japanese prisoner of war before interrogation can begin. And those guys were obeying the rules of war (at least as far as wearing uniforms was concerned). More rights for those who flaunt the rules of war seems a curious way to handle things. Indeed, it is the opposite of how it should be.
The administration is already claiming victory, but the result in Mr. Padilla’s case is in many ways a mess. He will likely never be brought to trial on the dirty-bomb plot, a much publicized charge that cries out for resolution. (In another move worthy of Alice in Wonderland, the government is holding another prisoner in Guantánamo, Binyam Mohamed, because he was accused of conspiring with Mr. Padilla in the dirty-bomb plot for which Mr. Padilla was never charged.) There is also the danger that Mr. Padilla’s conviction will be reversed on appeal because of his alleged mistreatment before trial. (Emphasis added).
The Alice in Wonderland reference reveals that the NYT thinks it strange that a non-citizen Jihadist is being held without 'charges' in a prisoner of war camp. Holding captured combatants for the duration of the hostilities is the opposite of strange. And that Padilla wasn't charged with the dirty bomb plot doesn't mean the dirty bomb plot didn't exist. The administration obviously doesn't want to burn the source that got Padilla arrested as he got off the plane, and then there's the Miranda problem with his apparent confession to the bomb plot. The NYT doesn't appear to see that and, in the end, it is this op-ed which is through the looking glass.
It is hard to disagree with the jury’s guilty verdict against Jose Padilla, the accused, but never formally charged, dirty bomber. But it would be a mistake to see it as a vindication for the Bush administration’s serial abuse of the American legal system in the name of fighting terrorism. (Emphasis added).
The abuse, by the way, is that the Administration did not use the federal criminal justice system from the beginning (as if the Judiciary has any roll in fighting a war). Witness: Bush trampled on the Constitution...Even with the guilty verdict, this conviction remains a shining example of how not to prosecute terrorism cases. That's closer to reality, we shouldn't prosecute terrorism cases. The President tried and failed to fight this war in the most effective way possible. For the NYT editors, effective doesn't enter into it.
They really just don't get it. [Padilla] was denied access to a lawyer even when he was being questioned. Imagine, if you will, having to provide a lawyer to each German or Japanese prisoner of war before interrogation can begin. And those guys were obeying the rules of war (at least as far as wearing uniforms was concerned). More rights for those who flaunt the rules of war seems a curious way to handle things. Indeed, it is the opposite of how it should be.
The administration is already claiming victory, but the result in Mr. Padilla’s case is in many ways a mess. He will likely never be brought to trial on the dirty-bomb plot, a much publicized charge that cries out for resolution. (In another move worthy of Alice in Wonderland, the government is holding another prisoner in Guantánamo, Binyam Mohamed, because he was accused of conspiring with Mr. Padilla in the dirty-bomb plot for which Mr. Padilla was never charged.) There is also the danger that Mr. Padilla’s conviction will be reversed on appeal because of his alleged mistreatment before trial. (Emphasis added).
The Alice in Wonderland reference reveals that the NYT thinks it strange that a non-citizen Jihadist is being held without 'charges' in a prisoner of war camp. Holding captured combatants for the duration of the hostilities is the opposite of strange. And that Padilla wasn't charged with the dirty bomb plot doesn't mean the dirty bomb plot didn't exist. The administration obviously doesn't want to burn the source that got Padilla arrested as he got off the plane, and then there's the Miranda problem with his apparent confession to the bomb plot. The NYT doesn't appear to see that and, in the end, it is this op-ed which is through the looking glass.
Labels: Jose Padilla trial; anti-terrorism tactics
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:49 AM 
