Padilla guilty; no word yet on Bush’s Government
August 17, 2007
Padilla was found guilty yesterday. I first mentioned Padilla in 2004, when he was still being illegally held without charge or access to counsel as an “enemy combatant.” And after years of isolation and torture he was finally released into the civil justice system on charges far less than what he was originally accused of — plotting to plant a “dirty bomb” in New York.
I understand that a lot of people are rejoicing over this victory against terrorism, and I suppose it is. But Padilla is a US citizen, he was tortured, and he was imprisoned without charge for four years. The Bush administration fought hard to keep him imprisoned there forever.
Maha says:
I was in lower Manhattan on 9/11. I saw the towers collapse. I know what terrorism can do. Yet I am not such a coward that I would compromise so much as a comma of the Bill of Rights for the promise of safety.
These sniveling, pathetic little weenies who celebrate Jose Padilla’s detention and refuse to acknowledge the real issues of unlawful detention and torture are the real cowards. They dismiss what was done to Padilla, yet they are so afraid of terrorists they betray the central founding values of our country. And they think they could stand up to waterboarding! They’ve already caved! [ Al Qaeda's Useful Idiots ]
This is the larger point; in the Padilla case we abandoned our principles for expediency. I have no doubt he was up to something, but did we really need to torture and isolate him to get this conviction?
Posted in
content rss

August 17th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
And yet it’s not even particularly *expedient* expediency, having taken all this time to get us here. I think because they knew, whatever Padilla might have been planning, the arrest when it came was largely for show, and keeping him locked up was an attempt to save face. Which just goes to the heart of what this administration has been all about: doing whatever it takes, even if it’s locking up an American citizen and torturing him indefinitely, for the possibility of political gain. I don’t think there’s any way you can really view this conviction as a *victory*.
August 18th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Makes you wonder what they were trying to accomplish, if they had such a strong case against him.