The Arbitrary Imprisonment of Jose Padilla
The Arbitrary Imprisonment of Jose Padilla
"The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive." Judge Antonin Scalia
The results of the Padilla case pose "a unique and unprecedented threat to the freedom of every American citizen... At stake is nothing less than the essence of a free society... For if this Nation is to remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny." Judge John Paul Stevens
By refusing to hear the Padilla case the Supreme Court condemned an innocent man to continued incarceration without any opportunity to challenge the terms of his detention. Their refusal serves as a de facto guilty verdict and overturns the long held principle of "innocent until proven guilty."
Additionally, their ruling reinforces the muddled position of the Bush Administration that prisoners in the apocryphal war on terror can be dispatched as "unlawful combatants"; the spurious rhetoric that is without any legal meaning.
Months earlier, the 2nd Court of Appeals dismissed the nonsensical category that was invented by the Bush Administration and ruled that Padilla be released immediately. That ruling was ignored by the Administration, and the case made its way to the High Court.
Now the "felonious five" have vindicated the position of the President by refusing to try the case on its merits. Instead, they have returned the case to the lower court for review without addressing the fact that Padilla has been deprived of all due process rights for more than two years.
Their response can only be construed as a complete victory for the administration who (although they could not get the court to openly overturn the Constitution) achieved the very same result; "imprisonment into perpetuity" without any way of disputing his internment.
It is impossible to overstate the significance of the Padilla case. By any objective standard, it is the most important case in the history of the court.
What makes it so extraordinary is that, in its essence, it does not merely deal with "what rights citizens have" or "what the parameters of those rights are" but, "whether or not citizens have rights at all."
Remember, Padilla has not been deprived of particular rights â€¦He has been stripped of ALL his rights. As yet, he hasnâ€™t even been charged with a crime; just the periodic and prejudicial allegations from a Justice Dept that has worked tirelessly to demagogue the case.
Bush is making the untenable claim that he may dispose of all constitutional protections and imprison suspects indefinitely entirely at his own discretion.
If this is so, then "inalienable rights" are nothing more than provisional gifts of the state which can be removed at the pleasure of the President.
This, in fact, is the presidentâ€™s view on the matter.
It is a perspective that is openly shared by the majority of the court who have endorsed this position by default.
Their message is quite clear; they will not defend even the most basic tenets of the Constitution, but will defer to the executive as the sole arbiter of justice.
We are no longer a nation of laws; the Padilla case proves that convincingly.
There were warnings of this earlier in the Courtâ€™s history. This same court refused to instruct Vice President Cheney to release the Energy Task Force papers to the public. These documents certainly would have shed light on the manipulation of energy markets in California, as well as, exposing the 60 oil companies who colluded with Cheney in dividing up Iraqâ€™s oilfields and, ultimately, leading the country to war.
The content of these papers is clearly in the public interest and the Courtâ€™s refusal to force their exposure demonstrates the depth of their venality.
Similarly, but more spectacularly, this is the same court that subverted the democratic process by applying a cynical reading of the 14th Amendment to overturn the 2000 election. By invoking the "equal protection" clause to suspend the counting of votes in Florida, the court established its partisan bone fides and savaged the foundational principle of democratic government.(the right to have oneâ€™s vote counted)
In this regard, the Padilla case just finishes the work that began long ago; dismantling the institutions of self-government. By eviscerating the safeguards that protect the citizen from the vagaries of the state, the court only adds to its litany of dubious triumphs.
"Arbitrary imprisonment" remains the enduring symbol of tyranny. (Apologies to Alexander Hamilton)
The ongoing internment of Jose Padilla proves that the current Supreme Court has aligned itself with the political objectives of the Executive and can no longer be expected to either defend the Constitution or preserve the rule of law.